Love Humanity. Hate People

Archived for Your Pleasure - the Longest Thread in Hit and Run History

2009-10-07T12:33:00.002-04:00

Word 97-2003 file

Microsoft Word 2008 file

Ohio State v. USC - Betting

2009-09-06T20:46:00.005-04:00

The line (via VegasInsider) on Ohio State vs. USC is -4.5. How would you bet, and why?

Highlight for how I would bet:

I would definitely take USC to beat the spread.

UPDATE: I considered the typical "3 points" for home-field advantage, but I think that's unwarranted in this case. If I were crafting the line, I would give USC -6.5 or -7.

Immaturity > Intolerance. OR The Lesser of Two Evils

2009-09-04T19:28:00.003-04:00

Dan Savage responds to a person asking if there is a community out there for people who want to have sex with enlarged earlobe holes.

Once upon a time, I was a "live and let live" quasi-libertine, but some aspects of our free-and-open sexual society seem a little...immature to me.

Well, better to have fetishists openly talking about their silly psychological issues than to have this going on.

When the Left Eats Itself (Part I in a continuing series)

2009-08-18T23:53:00.002-04:00

According to this Washington Post article, the allegedly "tiny" portion of the Administration's health care reform, the public option, has "taken on a life of its own" among the left of the left.

You have lefty vanguards like Howard Dean and the entire Progressive Caucus basically stating that any plan without a public option is not worth enacting. The Progressive Caucus ratcheted the pressure when they sent a letter (PDF) to the Speaker of the House stating that they could not vote for a bill that did not have a public option. That represents 57 potential "no" votes from the representatives of the Administration's base. That would be a killer PR disaster.

One of the more interesting aspects is how the Tea-Party activists and down-and-out minority party somehow managed to put a popular President, whose party owns the Congress, on the ropes.

One can only hope that America continues to be opposed to the public "option", which, to anyone paying attention, is a stalking/Trojan horse for single-payer health care. Anyone who claims that it is all about "competition" is lying to you.

Crushed by the Juggernaut

2009-08-14T17:22:00.004-04:00

The one place in Columbus that refused to knuckle-under the outrageous statewide smoking ban, Zeno's, is being sued. Of course, the fact that anyone with half-a-brain knew that Zeno's allowed smoking means that the market should have worked the way it was meant to work: people who didn't like smoking in bars did not go to Zeno's.

I would not blame them for settling. Like Ayn Rand said:

A forced compliance is not a sanction. All of us are forced to comply with many laws that violate our rights, but so long as we advocate the repeal of such laws, our compliance does not constitute a sanction. Unjust laws have to be fought ideologically; they cannot be fought or corrected by means of mere disobedience and futile martyrdom.

and:

One does not stop the juggernaut by throwing oneself in front of it. . . .

Full Story Here.

UPDATE: Zeno's has countersued. Good for them.

Ruehl Closes

2009-08-14T13:53:00.001-04:00

Probably because it was a pretentious, expensive piece of junk store, A&F closes "Ruehl", the underground bunker at Easton where you paid 200 dollars for jeans that look like they were dragged behind the delivery truck.

Full Story Here.

Health Care Facts

2009-08-14T13:22:00.005-04:00

I thought this was a solid video.

For the record, remember that whenever somebody throws out the "40 - 50 million uninsured!" label, they really mean that there are about 30-40 million of those who could get insurance, but do not want to. The "uninsurables" number about 10 million.

So, instituting that stalking-horse for single-payer, the "public option", for 5 percent of people, suddenly does not sound like such a great idea or, equally, nearly as urgent, does it?

"Progressive" Left to Palin: Get Back in the Kitchen!

2008-09-01T18:44:00.002-04:00

I am amazed that there is a host of so-called "progressives" criticizing Sarah Palin for...wait for it...not staying home and taking care of her kids!

"There's also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome.... Children with Down's syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?"

That's John Roberts, a CNN "news" correspondent.

Do you think he'd have asked the same question if we were talking about a man?

Alan Colmes asks in a now-yanked blogpost: "Did Palin Take Proper Prenatal Care?"

I'll give you a hint what the implied answer was.

The launch of "attacks" by the Left in this case are pathetic and mean-spirited. Even better, now that it's been revealed that Bristol Palin is pregnant, the Left thinks it is going to score some big-time points because Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only education.

Hint to the Slow: You're going to make her a martyr. Do the world a favor and MYOFB.

Traditional Weddings are Stupid, Part 37 (Thousand)

2008-01-31T08:08:00.000-05:00

From The New York Times' Blog Well, Tara Parker-Pope reports that Bridezilla is on the crash diet for her fairy-tale wedding dress. Ho-hum, same old, same old, right? Brides always wig about their weight.

What's more interesting, though, is the comments section, wherein whiny little (undoubtedly bleached blond) bride wannabes kvetch that "Bridezilla" is bandied about superfluously and with malice:

I take issue with your title though. Why did you have to use the term bridezilla? I am a newlywed and, frankly, I’m sick of hearing it tossed around. - Comment #3 from Poster "Kate" -

Parker-Pope defends herself well enough:

A normal weight woman who obsesses about weight loss and buys a too-small dress and starves herself to fit into it qualifies as a bridezilla in my opinion. - TPP

Here's my issue though: Parker-Pope says "Bridezilla" is a light-hearted term. Maybe to her, but I'm a veteran of the overdone wedding, and the term Bridezilla has entered the cultural lexicon for a reason: women drive themselves (and everyone around them) absolutely up the wall with these ridiculously lavish weddings. They are too expensive, overplanned, excessively "fancy" and tarfetta'd and flowered up. "Bridezilla" exists, she is real and she is terrifying. She wants her Special Day to be All Things to All People, and Galt help us all if it's a "society" wedding. That just ratchets the Bridezilla-factor to an 11.

Look, ladies, it's time for some self-esteem: the defining moments in your life are not going to be these scripted and extravagant events where most of the gentlemen in the audience just want to know where the beer is and the ladies are gossiping about you or dressing you down. uh-uh. You're a person with a life, career (hopefully you haven't resigned yourself to the alcoholic dullery that is housewifery), a past, a present and a future. You need to take back the wedding from the Clutching Grasp of Societal Expectations and make it about you, and what you want, not what Mom & Dad and the second-cousins expect.

One clueless commenter nails it, though she's too dumb to realize it:

I just fail to see how “bridezilla” is in fact a lighthearted term. While I know the taffeta beast lurks out there, and have known one in my lifetime, it’s not a term I like to see thrown around at will - especially when describing presumably normal young women thrown into a morass of unliveable expectations and increasing debt. - Comment #13 from Poster

Who was it that sanctioned and accepted that debt and those unlivable expectations again? Yes, it's these things that turn brides into Bridezilla, but that's the whole point: it's the bride's own damn fault if she places the expectations of others on herself!

A classy, modern society (with a 40-60% divorce rate) would frown on someone spending 10-50Gs to fulfill the expectations of others. Of course, grooms need to quit listening to the brainless advice of "just go along for the ride" and help the women they love stop acting like faux Society Girls with a bad case of the "gimmes".

Creative? Au Contraire, Monsieur.

2008-01-30T14:42:00.000-05:00

While perusing Google News today for the latest on John Edwards dropping out of the 2008 Presidential campaign, I come across this little gem from the United Kingdom's The Guardian:

The wildly creative souls at New Line Cinema are bringing back the hit Nightmare On Elm Street story...

I would argue that "bringing back" a series that should have died with the first movie is enough evidence to show that New Line lacks creativity, especially given that said series has something like 13 sequels, to include cross-overs with the equally dreadful Jason series.

"That's just one example, AR! New Line does good stuff!" Of course, I never said it did not, but the success of New Line Cinemas is dependent on pimping sequels and poaching books and television scripts. There isn't a more uncreative and boring motion picture studio on the market. Just look at the partial list of movies that are in pre-production from New Line:

Harold and Kumar 2
The Sex and the City movie
Austin Powers 4
Not one, not two, but three Freddy-themed movies:

A remake of the original
A prequel to the original
Freddy vs. Jason 2 (gag!)

Final Destination 4
Two The Lord of the Rings prequels (yes, two movies from The Hobbit...as if the actual book and the aforementioned Peter Jackson train wreck weren't boring and overwrought enough.)

There are about a thousand more examples that highlight that this production house just doesn't know when to let a decent film lie. New Line tries to squeeze every bit of blood from the dried-up turnipy carcass of films that are only moderately successful or were, for all intensive purposes, artisticand financial failures.

New Line writers are the "wildly creative geniuses" who brought us Son of the Mask (flopped sequel with awful production values and unknown actors), TMNT III (TMNT II would have been a good stopping point, guys), Mortal Kombat II (see what I mean about robbing alternative sources of entertainment?).

Those are just the sequels, prequels and unnecessary remakes. New Line also specializes in making crappy movies from so-so novels and from
"they're only-famous-because-of-nostalgic-hipsters" cartoons and comic books (see: The Golden Compass and its inevitable sequels, the upcoming Voltron movie, the Inkworld trilogy, Shazam [pre-production])

When we institute the "Crimes against Art" Tribunal, New Line Cinemas will be first in the dock. Granted, they use by-the-numbers movies to bankroll decent films like Pan's Labyrinth and Shoot 'em-Up, but "wildly creative souls"? Hardly.

Why I Stopped Supporting Ron Paul

2008-01-13T15:53:00.000-05:00

For a little while, I confess that I was on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

What was most refreshing to me in reference to the Paul candidacy was that the man was willing to go on live national television and repudiate the Drug War and the Iraq adventure. It was obvious that the message of limited government excited a lot of people, as Paul was the most successful fundraiser of the fourth quarter of 2007.

However, I had a creeping suspicion that Paul's friends over at LewRockwell.com would sink him in the mind of the urban, tolerant libertarian (the newly coined phrase is the "cosmopolitan libertarian", a group in which I am proud to consider myself a member).

For a while now, those of us who knew about Paul's possible odious start sort of kept our mouth shut about the whole thing. In retrospect, this was pretty stupid on our parts: this is the age of Google and PDF scans, and nothing was going to stop this stuff from coming to light.

This long post by Matt Welch gives most of y'all who probably have no idea what I'm talking about sufficient background information on the internal libertarian controversy. Of course, you should have been reading Reason's excellent blog, Hit&Run, a long time ago!

Anywho, I've come to realize that while individuals with collectivist beliefs won't necessarily support the State to implement those beliefs, it's almost all-too-often that they will, especially in light of Rep. Paul's ridiculous beliefs on making America a fortress to Mexican workers who peacefully cross our borders just to work.

So, yeah, deuces to you, Ron Paul.

What the...?

2006-10-09T04:47:00.000-04:00

I am royally pissed that no one told me about the world's biggest Star Trek memorabilia auction. Now my spare $96,000 dollars has to be used some other way, instead of for a 2-foot replica of a Borg cube, as God intended.

Scientology Thugs

2006-09-18T18:42:00.000-04:00

Posted without comment (other than one aside: I love the "beat your wife" comment...it's a logician's dream):

Scientology Nuts Berate Man with Camera (Video Link - Courtesy of YouTube)

A Singular Defense of Nancy Grace

2006-09-13T23:20:00.000-04:00

I confess, I don't know much about Nancy Grace. Apparently she's a prosecutor who has a television "talking head" show on CNN Headline News.

Grace, in a September 7th interview apparently grilled the mother of a missing baby, which relatives claim drove the woman to commit suicide.

Over at Hit and Run, commenters are calling Grace "a monster", among other nasty things.

Not to be cold here, but what did this woman expect? According to the CBS article linked above, Grace has been doing this for a while; she's actually infamous for it. Additionally, the mother wasn't able to answer basic questions such as "Where were you before the child went missing?" And now I am supposed to bash Grace and be sympathetic to the mother for it?

It is undeniably sad that the mother killed herself; it also very tragic that the child is still missing. But beating up on Nancy Grace is a cheap shot: this is how she does her show! Now, my understanding of Grace is that I probably wouldn't like her, her style or just her general outlook on life. But if you're going to come onto a show with a former prosecutor who still grills guests that are suspects in crime, you had damn well better be prepared to answer a simple question like "Where were you shopping before the child went missing".

My two cents: it sounds like Grace blew open holes in this woman's story, and the guilt of whatever the mother did with her son and the fear of getting caught pushed her over the edge. I admit I don't have enough evidence for any sort of definite conclusion, but that's the feeling that I am getting. I hope I am wrong.

Welcome Grylliadians (?) !

2006-09-07T00:06:00.000-04:00

To my new favorite online community, welcome.

Now, on with the show:

For those of you who are viewing this humble log for the first time, I want to remind you that some of my posts are intentionally incendiary and anger-provoking for a reason; ask someone a question, and they can blow you off. Really piss someone off, and then you start to learn something. Although, I still stand by most of my posts (I am especially proud of the MLK letter I wrote to the undergraduate university I attended).

I know that as of late I have been derided for being pedantic, picky or overly-semantic, (or all three, you take your pick) but I want to clarify my stance on language and how important it is to use it properly. I am not overly picky concerning spelling errors or grammar as it pertains to debate (although they personally grate on me), where I am concerned with the phenomenon of using words that have no clear meaning, or have multiple meanings and are used sloppily and interchangeably (hence the great nature debate, for those of you who missed out).

Anyhow, with my passion for writing, debating and general online shenanigans refreshed, I hope that you find this little log useful, informative and thought-provoking, to say the least.

Anti Gay-Marriage (And All Other Forms)

2005-03-15T02:33:00.000-05:00

Gay Marriage: Increasing the Power of the State.

Steven Druckenmiller

The debate about gay marriage in most Anglo-Western Nations rages with both traditional political forces, naturally, getting the essence of the issue wrong. On the right, conservatives argue that the government has a moral obligation to uphold tradition and so-called “natural law”. The Right argues that it is not God’s purpose for homosexuals to be allowed to marry, so therefore it is government’s job to ensure that the will of God remains inviolate. Of course, conservatives tell a grievous historical lie when they claim that this nation was founded on the principles of Christianity, and that it was the Fathers’ intent to allow for state and religion to have a symbiotic relationship. The supposedly anti-state conservatives also prove their foolishness if they think that a government given such power, while currently in their control, cannot someday be turned against them. Essentially, conservatives are creating Frankenstein’s Monster with their wholehearted embrace of the state; powerful, but they should hope that the Monster does not rebel against its Master and find a new one, one with a different agenda.

The Left gets the essence of the debate wrong, although less so, because that side continues to argue that the State has a place in marriage, and that place means re-defining what marriage means legally, so that homosexuals in monogamous relationships receive the same benefits that straights in marriage do.

So what’s good Objectivist, operating on libertarian principles, to do? At first, the answer, to me, at least, seemed blatantly obvious: support the right of homosexuals to enter into contracts, the same that others are allowed to do when the State christens something “marriage”. Recently, however, I inadvertently stumbled across my own counterargument: supporting gay marriage legitimizes the influence of the State on our personal affairs, and the only proper role for an Objectivist is to urge the government to get out of the marriage business altogether.

How, then, does supporting what seems to be an expansion of civil liberties actually run counter to freedom from government oppression? Unfortunately, when the State decides that something is a marriage, it entitles the parties that have entered into that contract to all kinds of discriminatory benefits, de facto stealing from singles (those who have rationally chosen not to enter the circus that is marriage) in order to subsidize the “right” choice. Privileges, such as adopting children, tax benefits and other State freebies means that marriage, as the United States currently treats it, is not a moral contract, instead, it is affirmative-action for straights, which the Left wants to extend to any two members of the same sex. (Note that the Left rarely, if ever, defends the rights of polygamists).

Therefore, I can only conclude that the proper role of an Objectivist is most certainly not to encourage the expansion of this immoral government-entitlement program, but instead, to discourage the government from the marriage business. While some may argue that we live in an imperfect world, and that supporting gay marriage is the “right thing to do”, I cannot in good conscience continue to further enslave singles because some of their brethren and sisters choose to participate in State-sanctioned discrimination. The proper and moral choice, then, is for all members of civilization to recognize the injustice being served to single people when they are forced to subsidize marriage, and therefore, to oppose any expansion of what is, essentially, a welfare program for those who make the State-sanctioned choice. We have to tell anyone in support of gay marriage: straights should not be entitled to the discriminatory benefits they receive on the backs of others, and we will not support that expansion to homosexuals, nor to anyone. This gives Objectivists, and libertarians, the delight of offering a different viewpoint: we are not anti-gay marriage, we’re anti state-controlled marriage. We will accept nothing less than complete deregulation of marriage, lest we continue to oppress singles.

Shut Up, Drudge!

2005-02-14T21:10:00.000-05:00

Jeez, Drudge, shut up already! Today, rumored Short-North resident and story thief Matt Drudge has been all over Chris Rock, using his hyper-sensationalistic "red font" to highlight that Rock has said some controversial things about the Oscars and MSAmerica. Memo to Drudge: who cares? Rock is right to call the Oscars out on their pretentious stuffiness, and Drudge should know better than to take what Rock says, at least in the fashion he says it, at face value. Actually, I suspect that Drudge DOES know better, and that instead, it's a race-baiting way to anger heartland conservatives:

Dean's C-Flag Truck guy: "Them Negroes talked bad about the Oscars! And he used 35 F-words in a minute! That's one every two seconds! There's no way it might be part of his bit, because we all know that the F-word has no context!"
Me: "Did you know Drudge is gay?"
DCFT guy: (head explodes)

Criminey, who cares!? Rock's funny, he has insightful, if liberal, vantage points on life, and he projects them. Leave him alone, Drudge, and stop being so over the top.

The Folly of the Inauguration

2005-01-22T14:40:00.000-05:00

I submitted this to SoloHQ, quite possibly my most favorite website, and certainly the best new one that spend a lot of time on. Hopefully they publish it, but, I thought I would let my cozily small audience read it first:

The Warfare of Politics, Tribalism and the Inauguration

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Because of the nature of the United States Government and its over-involvement in the lives of its citizens, meaningful public debate about the political issues of the day has fallen by the wayside. In its stead is an “our side vs. their side” mentality, with no consistency or principles in either of the two dominant political parties. Citizens who cheer for the Republicans vote for and support anyone with an “R” next to their name, be they Rockefeller Republicans or the Robertson kind. It goes without saying, of course, that the same holds true for the Democrats, with the unsurprising discovery that neither side distinguishes itself on the important issues facing America. The tragic truth is that libertarians have it right when they call the politicians “Republicrats”.

Because of the increasing tribalism of politics, it is natural that worship of the chief and revelry of his victory has come to a fever-pitch. In the city of Washington, D.C., with its Soviet-esque landmarks that deify our “leaders”, the inauguration of the President was exceptional because of its brazen cost to install a leader who should be negligibly important, yet, it was also disappointingly consistent with the warfare of politics. With the increasing “team sports” mentality, it is almost no surprise that the Presidential Inauguration has become a twisted “Super Bowl” of the political world.

Why twisted? Because, we as Objectivists recognize that the actual Super Bowl is the recognizance of superiority, the summation of hard-work, effort and talent. What makes the inauguration so disgusting is that it is the celebration of the installation of a politician, someone who makes his living off of the backs of others, exploits individuals and sacrifices the common man to interest groups, all in the name of power. Instead of having true talent and ability, like football players, politicians have mastered the art of the “backroom deal”, that ubiquitous action in politics that always infringes on the rights of the individual to act for himself. Of course, the other idea that makes the Inauguration disturbing is that, while private businesses and viewers all voluntarily participate in the Super Bowl, we are all forced to finance the $100 million dollar tab it took to shut down the District.

Of course, the real question on every “lover of liberty’s” mind is: will it get worse? If the growth of the State goes unchecked, then yes, we can only expect for this kind of political worship to continue. In nations where the government was the people, it was necessary to distract the people by deifying the political leader. History is rife with these examples, from the thousands of swastikas and pictures of Hitler in every German home, to the gigantic pictures of Mao Tse-Tung in Beijing, and the depictions, in stone, of Soviet leaders as the heroic “liberators” of the people. We are, unfortunately, seeing this reflected today with the over-the-top nature of the inauguration, where only the President’s backers can exercise their right to demonstrate on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the leader is becoming increasingly disconnected from the people, guarded with security of which Stalin would have been jealous.

Although the worship of governmental leaders makes me disgusted, what truly makes me despair is that appreciation and reverence is inversely rewarded, that is, the less that you actually produce, as a politician really produces nothing, the more you are revered, and the more productive you are, the less appreciation there is. The last acceptable discrimination, as eloquently pointed out by Ayn Rand, is that of the discrimination of the businessman, and this truism has not diminished in value since Rand said it. The ideal Objectivist society would be where we have inaugural-style festivals for the businessman, the man who makes his living trading freely with other rational beings, instead of one where someone who abuses the monopoly of force society has entrusted him.

MLK Letter to the Chimes

2005-01-17T14:18:00.000-05:00

Enclosed is my letter to the staff of the Chimes concerning our MLK Day of Learning. If I could have thrown in a few f-words and a sprinkling of bastards (as in, those sick multiculturalist bastards) to express my rage, I would have:

To the people of Capital University,

Here we are, recent celebrants of another Martin Luther King Day of Learning, and what have we truly learned? Well, if our keynote speaker is any indication, it’s that the administration, faculty and the organizers of MLK should be ashamed to the holy heavens. Their unfailing incompetence and liberal brainwashing resulted in us being forced to listen to a black keynote speaker, a State Senator, accuse a black Secretary of State of stealing the election from black people. There are no words to state how disgusting this administration is for allowing something so nakedly partisan and poisonous to the learning atmosphere to occur. I call on no one less than President Fredrickson, the Vice-Presidents and the organizers of this event to issue a full apology for openly trying to push their liberal agenda onto the community and cravenly masking it in the name of “learning”.

Most disturbing of all, this Administration has allowed the Day of Learning to descend into nothing but conservative and Republican bashing, permanently spoiling the idea of MLK Day in the minds of many students, myself included. I will never again think of the legacy of Dr. King when the holiday rolls around, I will instead think of the nauseating actions of armchair socialists and revolting multiculturalists who hijacked the man’s legacy to cram their own agenda down the collective throat of this University. Instead of the message of tolerance, openness and color-blindness that the Rev. King preached, the New Left has made this event one of intolerance for conservative viewpoints, close-mindedness and race-baiting. (Don’t forget about the sick stereotype that is served to us in the MDR every MLK Day in the form of fried chicken, collard greens and watermelon). Shame should not be reserved for the supporters alone, however. Those of us who do not speak out against this evil that has befouled our University share some of the blame as well, for Ayn Rand said that “evil requires the sanction of the victim”, and we are all victims when we let the higher ideas of learning be pre-empted by the brainwashing of these violators of academia.

Steven Druckenmiller
Senior
Economics Major and Fortunate Soon-to-be Graduate

Quotes from Me

2005-01-16T18:11:00.000-05:00

Want to snazz up that AOL profile? Give someone a zinger in class? Get some quotes from ME!:

It is only when a man has his house fully in order that he can or should then invite someone to share it with him.
What's the difference between forcing someone to give a dollar to charity and forcibly extracting their kidney? Or taking their life? None of them are yours to take.
A man needs three things in life: a drink to call his own, a good sturdy hat and a woman to not laugh at that hat.
Why do we worship our political leaders? Did they bring us fire, electricity or the New Technological Age? No. They have done nothing but bring us war, taxes and oppression.
The Republic will fail as our political leaders justify their broadening violations of liberty through the two legitimate functions of the State: war and the law. If the United States is destroyed by anything, it will be by perpetual war and too many laws.

How Will the Republic End?

2005-01-16T17:25:00.000-05:00

All good things must come to an end, so it is said, and this includes the ideal of a Republic in the United States. Small government, few regulations and the idea that each man has the right to his own labor and the product thereof is a thing of the past. So what idea will defeat the Republic, and when will the death blow come?

A lot of movies, fiction books and the like will posit that the United States will fall to a nefarious cabal of some sort, with intentions of world domination and greed. Usually this cabal establishes itself as the leader of the government in some way, abolishes rights and liberties, and establishes a dark and dismal totalitarian state. Somehow, though, it is doubtful that the United States will succumb to some threat so swiftly.

No, the death of the United States will come as a slow strangling, a draining trickle of the lifeblood of this once great nation: freedom. The Christian and humanists tendencies to worry about what your neighbor is doing in the privacy of his own home, coupled with the idea that charity is the greatest virtue, will press the United States into submission faster than stones on the chest of a man.

It is a commonly held belief that obligatory, guiltful charity, or how a nation treats its poorest, is the test of a civilization. The implication that morality comes from giving something to the poor because they do not have it is not the measure of the strength of a civilization; instead, it is the doctrine of self-destruction. It is socialism.

The terrible idea of self-immolation comes from two places: the state and the Church. Whether it is the state, forcing you to give merely because others do not take care of their own selves, or it is the Church,implying that the Fires of Hell are hottest for those who sacrifice themselves the least, the idea that you must engage in masochistic tendencies to become morally pure will wreck the Republic, and the free ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Profiles in embarrassment: Part I

2005-01-13T02:23:00.000-05:00

In an attempt to be a bigger jackass than I already am, and to highlight the embarrassment that the Republican Party has become (the Democrats have become an embarrassment long ago, they have been lambasted enough), I have decided to run a regular piece called "Profiles in embarrassment", wherein so-called "conservatives" and Republicans get their come-uppance for stupid stuff they say or do that completely violate what we used to stand for.

First in the dock: Phyllis Schlafly! Come on down!

For those of you who don't know Phyllis, she's the "family crusader" who made a big-time name for herself opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. When she's not cheerleading for anything and everything our God-picked President has done (I mean, he's BORN AGAIN, what else can you say?), she's encouraging Leviathan and Theocracy at every turn.

Phyllis gives Leviathan all the strength it needs when she thinks that Congress should use federal money to tell universities what they can and cannot do. Hey, Phyllis, how about an amendment that says that NO taxes go to universities? But that would be too much of a thought exercise for our idiot cheerleader; she'll do anything to get her personal and cultural views implanted across American, include change the Constitution for something as meaningless as who marries who.

And you'll never meet a hardworking, decent, peaceful Mexican that Schlafly hasn't tried to send on the first train out of here. Sure, if people just want to come here to work, Phyllis, why not put tanks on the borders, despite the fact that violates the Posse Comitatus Act. But, hey, that browning of America, that's a dangerous thing, right? I am sure that our Founding Fathers would love the militarized borders and forced religious practices you'd like to see.

Schlafly also thinks that basic scientific principles should be put up to a vote. She seizes on the work of hack scientists that criticize evolution and upholds it as the Gospel truth. This theocrat will seize on anything to uphold her worldview, despite overwhelming scientific evidence against it. Of course, critics of evolution rightly point out that it's only a theory, but then again, so is gravity. Hold on to that patch of ground! One day, Phyllis and the Creationists will hopefully stand tall in the history books with trepenologists, chiropractors and the Flat Earth Society.

Seriously, read some of the Scary Woman's Columns. If you can go one column without her talking about clamping down on this, ending the rights on that, instituting the will of the Lord our Father there, stamping out speech here, then you win a lifetime supply of AquaNet, proudly used by Phyllis herself and most certainly made by those terrible brown people here to ruin America, what with their strict religious values and hardworking attitudes.

Nominations for Governor

2005-01-08T16:01:00.000-05:00

Two movies have produced the same two governors, so I think that it's a good shot that we could find a third from one of them. Jesse Ventura and "The Governator" Arnold Schwarznegger both starred in "The Predator" and "The Running Man". My friend Chuck nominated Carl Weathers, citing his excellent leadership skills as Apollo Creed. However, not to be crass, but Apollo didn't make the cut because he couldn't stand up to the Soviets. Therefore, I nominate Richard Dawson for the next star to be Governor. Master manipulator as Killian in The Running Man, able to control crowds, but with a mix of rascally rebelliousness in Hogan's Heroes and charming intoxication in Family Feud. A negative is that he's British, but his teeth are good enough that I think we can overlook that. Any other star nominations?

Ungrateful and Paranoid Muslims

2005-01-08T15:01:00.000-05:00

If Ayn Rand's theory that the rich and powerful are the last acceptable target for discrimination did not ring true for some people in the past, it sure as hell should now. First, the United States is called "stingy" by this sanctimonious asshole who's only purpose in life is to preach about how to spend others' money. Hey, Jan, did anyone ever tell you that we didn't have to get involved at all? I mean, I am sure that all of those other Islamic nations will get to it, right?

Oh, wait, I guess that brings me to my next point. The best way to prove that you are not psychotic paranoid fools that hate America simply for being America would be to show us up at our own game and help your own people more than we do. But I guess that it is easier to spin lurid tales about the Americo-Zionist conspiracy (or read the even crazier one here) and close your fist around your dollars with the other.

Of course, if you believe that the United States and Israel caused the tsunami in the first place, it would only make sense to take the jackals money to help you rebuild right? Oh, wait.

If the world was ravaged by Catholic terrorists, and every day the pope allowed radical cardinals to ascend to the top of St. Peter's basilica and preach radical, 13th-century Catholicism about how the holy lands need to be cleansed of heathens and Jew/Muslim dogs, I would have no problem nuking the Vatican and assassinating its leaders. Does anyone really think that the worldwide jihad is anything more than a modern-day, more hateful Crusades, and that it's just as wrong and deadly as the first? Therefore, if the nuclear option needs to be exercised against Mecca because the religious leaders of Muslim nations have wrongly and hatefully turned the people against the United States, then so be it. Take the wind out of their sails, and let them invent a new place where Mohammed ascended.

Just Say NO to the Party in Power

2005-01-03T21:08:00.000-05:00

Many smart scholars and classical writers (Locke, Rand, Rothbard) recongize that it does not matter which political party that controls the government that makes a difference, but the fact that the power is available to whoever is in control in the first place. The GOP, for example, abandoned the true ideas of small government on the same day FDR was elected, because they saw that, in order to gain access to power they had to play the game, and give people what they want, that is, "free" stuff from the government, stolen from others.

It is then we must realize that the goals of individualists cannot be achieved through political ends. A lot of people are angry that the Libertarian Party refuses to compromise its principles, to negotiate and compromise with the two parties to make some political gains. However, until we break the hold of the philosophy that makes people think that it's acceptable to use the government to seize others' property to enrich themselves, libertarianism will be relegated to the truly enlightened. It is only by refusing to water-down and weaken this philosophy can we show people we are serious. As soon as Libertarians start playing the game, we become nothing more than a party that has a name that doesn't really mean what it says (see: republican, democrat, etc.)

I applaud Libertarians for refusing to compromise, for it is only through a serious, rigorous and consistent defense of freedom that our ideas will start to be taken seriously. The second that Libertarian logrolls to gain some kind of political pittance is the moment we die inside.

Militant Atheist? You Bet.

2004-12-22T14:40:00.000-05:00

Over at De Gustibus, my friend David is called a Militant Atheist, rightly denies it and directs M. Henley accurately in my direction. So, yes, Virginia, I am militantly atheistic, and am proud of it, too.

To begin, I find the word atheist troubling, not because it's an inaccurate description, I am A-theist (in the sense that I am not a theist), however, it seems to denote that there is some significant differences between me and the Christians. There's not. I don't believe in Zeus; neither do they. Ditto for Vishnu, Buddha, Zoroaster or any other so-called "pagan" deities. However, they merely believe in one more god than I do: the god of the Israelites and his son, the one they call Jesus. However, most of my Christian friends revel in calling me an atheist in derogatory terms, despite their disrespect of other gods, or at least being very Un-Christian and talking about it behind my back. No matter.

What have Christians done in their attempts to convert me, and why do they try so hard? Well, I used to be one of them, and probably the best one of them, at that. Some have offered me Pascal's Wager as a reason for believing. To that I say that if you are deviously believing in God for greater gains, then I think that He will delight in sending you to hell. In Christianity, it's not what you do, it's whether you did it for the right reasons. Others have told me that they are sad that I am going to Hell because I am overly concerned for this life. Well, let's consider:

I don't believe in Hell, so I won't worry about!
In all seriousness, I am sad for the devout Christian because (s)he wastes his life and mind believing in what I know to be an arbitrary lie.

One more thing on this religious rant: you can have morality without Christianity. In fact, a morality without God is more praiseworthy than one with Him. First of all, you have come to your morality without having to be directed or coerced with threats of the Fiery Abyss. Furthermore, your morality, dear atheist, isn't depedent on the ever-changing interpretations of god's will; it's usually dependent on something from this earth, this lifetime, this now, and for giving us something we can use to live, rather than something we need death to vindicate, you should be applauded.

Want to hear the last controversial statement? I'd take up arms against God if Armageddon actually did happen, which it won't.

I expect that my comments will be all over "The 700 Club" in a matter of hours. (no, you burn in Hell, Pat Robertson.)

Emotional Governance

2004-11-18T19:52:00.000-05:00

I have discovered that what is wrong with many people is not so much that they specifically choose to believe what it is they believe, but instead have no consistent philosophy. Instead, they are governed by random emotions and logical non-sequitors. Example? Ask any liberal Christian individual what they think of homosexuality, and they will answer in some kind of positive statement that attempts to rationalize their religions' disdain for it. Instead of changing religious beliefs or philosophies, these people instead fail to live up to the logical conclusion of their beliefs and instead attempt to bend, twist or circumvent what is clearly written pertaining to whatever issue of the day is.

Need another example? Ask a Catholic what their religion says about birth control, and then ask if they use it anyway. If you think birth control is OK, then Catholicism is NOT for you! End of story! Just give up your religion and quit trying to rationalize and put a square peg into a round hole!

This is rather common to libertarians in the sense that we will ask someone "Should people be allowed to live their lives, so long as they do not harm anyone else?" It's such a reasonable proposition that the answer, even from soccer moms, is inevitably yes, and then the individual states that there should be seat belt laws, or some other kind of illogical non-sequitor. The real problem lies in consistency, not in malice.

How does this happen? A failure to logically deduce or induce a philosophy for living on earth. Many people, instead of rationally deciding what they believe and defending it intellectually, instead decide important issues of the day by what I call a "sports-team mentality", in that they cheer for one side or the other not because it's more logical to do so, but because they "have always cheered for Issue A", or have "always hated issue B", or "because that's how my parents taught me". Can anyone see the parallels?

Dump the emotional governance. Come to a logical conclusion and STICK TO IT!

Fun with Your Philosophy Professor

2004-11-17T13:37:00.000-05:00

I have indicated here how to have the most fun with your professor if he says any of the following:

"How do you know that? You could be tricked by (insert Cartesian arguemnt here, like demons, angels, or some other arbitrary proposition)"

Response: Then why am I here? If my life is unknowable and could all be a trick, then why care about what you say? And wouldn't a demon be tricky and omnipotent enough for us to never figure out his secret?

"There is no such thing as absolute truth"

Response: What do you call what you just said? You assert that it is true AND absolute!

"What may be true for you (or us) may not be true for others"

Response: Step in front of a semi doing 70 and see if truth is subjective.

"Causality dictates that there is no such thing as free will. We are here only because of events beyond our control"

Response: Does that mean if I choose not to believe in determinism that that too is determined? If I kill you, should I be held responsible or say 'It was beyond my control'?

Government is Good

2004-11-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

Yes, you read that right. Government, objectively limited and in its proper form, is good. I have never and will never like anarchists, be they anarcho-libertarians or anarcho-socialists. These people fail to take into account that it is necessary to have a government which protects our rights. Instead, they say "why not privatize the protection fucntion of government? We do this all the time by hiring security guards, etc. etc.".

Goodness! Do you know what conflicting security forces is called? PERPETUAL WAR. The reason that I emphasize this is that, in the anarchists' little world, there are no objectively defined laws, and therefore no limits on how far security can go. "But there can be understanding and cooperation", they say. Absolutely, and in certain forms, I am all for that. What am I not for, however, is abolishment of a code of civilization that states what violates laws in a society. If we have no government and no rule of law, how are we to say which security force is protecting individual rights and which one is violating them? If one force chooses to pre-emptively strike another that the owner perceives as a threat, is that wrong or right? Punishable or not?

Another silly idea to come down the pike is the idea that somehow, replacing criminal courts with civilian ones is great. No way. First, how many people would frame up Bill Gates for murder or rape if it meant earning billions? Can we possibly put a monetary value on how much a life is worth in the case of murder? And who are the victims in the case of a murder? The employers? The family? And what is the punishment for those who cannot pay the price their victims demand? Slavery and death, perhaps?

No one knows, and no one can operate in a world without objectivism (objectivism in the sense that we know what's what and how to react to it) in our laws. Ever changing laws, or a lack of laws, means that the rational response if for man to cower in caves in fear of his government or bands of murdering thieves. We NEED law, and we need government.

Finally!

2004-11-15T16:49:00.000-05:00

I have been making the libertarian argument against privatization ever since I "faced down" Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA) at CPAC two years ago, and someone infinitely smarter than me has taken it down too. See Tyler Cowen's defense of my position.

Cowen makes a lot of arguments that I never thought of, but misses (or barely skirts around) a major one (the one that made me change my mind): the government forcing people to be involved in markets and exchanges skews the market.

When I briefly argued with Toomey's idea, it was stated in this form: the government would make a determination of a spectrum of "safe" investments to be made, and manage the investment of Social Security into these stocks, bonds or other accounts. What was bothering me was the interference in the market in three ways:

1) Any corporation who curries favor with the government could be put in the spectrum, and there would be overwhelming "rent-seeking" behavior to be put on a list of mandatory investment. This might soak investors as they trust their government, but the government gives their money to poor investment companies that have more political pull.

2) Any corporation that criticizes the government will be taken off of the list as punishment, which will have a deleterious effect on free speech.

3) The government will skew to safe investment, which, with the billions commanded by Social Security, would skew the market.

All in all, I say let the program go broke. Yeah, it screws me over, but it will show what happens when the government engages in Ponzi schemes, and it won't mess up the market even worse than government already has.

An Atheistic Sense of Life

2004-11-10T04:18:00.000-05:00

How is it that the religious view life with worth of any kind? With an afterlife that the religious believe that most people go to, is there any sense in getting everything out of this life? After all, the logical conclusion to religion is that you should transfer your life, mind and soul to the veneration and servitude of the worshipped, regardless of concerns for your own happiness. This idea, coupled with the idea of an Afterlife, causes there to be a lot of people who do not have the appreciation for life they should. I think that, if anything, news of a death affects me more than it affects the religious. The mystical say that "they're in a better place now", whereas I say that that person will never be in love again, never have a good day, never eat another ice cream cone, never laugh, never make love, never say "Hi Dad" or "I love you" or anything ever again...

Is it worth it to spend your life in guilt? The Religious say that we will receive our reward in the afterlife. But what if they're wrong and life is a one-way ticket with a dead end? Do you want to look back on your life and realize that you wasted it believing in something that wasn't there, rejecting pleasure for some fantasy?

Not me.

Pro-Life (For Now)

2004-11-08T01:00:00.000-05:00

Sadly, the political landscape is scarred from the foolish demagougery surrounding a hot topic: abortion. Badnarik had it right when he said "it's not a religious issue". What it is is a sign that science and philosophy are disjointed and need to get back together. You see, science provided us with abortion, but philosophy was too busy fighting over petty things like "is the table really there?" to notice that we could have weighed in heavily on the fight of the century.

As for me, however, because the question is philosophically undecided, I choose to be anti-abortion, because I have no idea if every abortion kills a human being, and I would rather be safe than complicit in selective genocide.

Any comments on the subject? Post here or e-mail 'em.

Is the Election Important for a Different Reason?

2004-11-01T11:03:00.000-05:00

Many people have been getting the sense that this election is the most important one for a long time, and I agree, but not for the reasons they typically enumerate. In essence, and this is a big prediction, whichever party loses (likely the Democrats) will probably radically change or dissove into warring factions. I know a lot of principled liberals (just like principled conservatives on the other side) who are holding their noses and pulling the lever for Kerry. I think that this means that America will start, after this election, to dissolve away from "right and left" and into significant and distinct cultural groups, such as:

Paleo-left-right-anti-traders-and-technology faction: this group is best represented by the alliance of Nader and Buchanan on the war, trade and technology.

South Park conservatives: this phrase, first pioneered by TechCentralStation, was used to represent those young conservatives who don't care about gay marriage or traditional morality, and instead are more concerned with less government. Think P.J. O 'Rourke

It's a prediction of mine that, come Nov. 3rd, there will be a fight on for the conservative soul of the Republican party, and I plan to be there to start it off, regardless of who wins. If Bush wins, I will oppose every single thing he does that furthers the state and still call myself Republican, because there's more to it than cheerleading for Dear Leader.

Election Predictions

2004-10-31T21:34:00.000-05:00

George W. wins big, with 55% of the popular vote and over 300 Electoral Votes. (Think high, like the 330s or 340s). Why? I predict that Bush takes every single swing state in play and possibly ones that no one thought were (i.e. New Jersey, Hawai'i and possibly even California, ye gods!)

Additionally, every close Senate race will break for the Republicans. Why? Well, you can give myriad reasons, but the real reason is that we are only 3 years from 9-11, and people (especially the undecideds) will vote with their emotions, and no one, not even this rational, recently-come Anti-Bush libertarian can tell you with a straight face that he doesn't like the guy and that he didn't circle the wagons around Bush in his own mind in the weeks after those attacks.

It's just what will happen. It'd be a cool surprise to me (I love surprises) if it turns out another way, but it just won't happen.

Philosphical Ideas...

2004-10-30T19:32:00.000-04:00

Our world is full of false dichotomies, or the failure to adequately frame a debate and misleadingly ask questions which require an answer from only two choices:

"Who will you vote for, Bush or Kerry?"
"Who created the universe?"
(Failure to take into account that no one necessarily had to create the universe)
"Is love in our heads or is it a trick that our hormones play?"
(Heard this one in Philosophy class...why does it have to be only those two exclusionary choices? Why not a mix, or neither?)

Essentially, the problem lies in a non-expansive and logical mind...a false "A or B" dichotmy is a sign that one has not explored every possible philosophical avenue.

We all know that values come in two kinds: Life-Affirming and Anti-Life.

What Are Islamic Terrorists Mad About?

2004-10-29T05:28:00.000-04:00

Although many of my conservative-bent and single issue friends will be upset, it's time to ask the critical question:

What the hell are the terrorists so angry about?

Are we to blame? The first, natural instinct is to say that one should never blame the victim, but, in my mind, there is such a thing called "asking for it", or failing to be careful in a dangerous situation. For example, it is never the rape victim's fault that they were raped, but perhaps there were things that they did, said or insinuated that precipitated the attack. Therefore, while the United States is not to blame per se, are we at fault for the anger of the terrorists?

The most crucial battle taking place in libertarianism is between those who say that our interventionist policies have triggered the cultural anger of Islamists, which, in turn, has caused them to teach their children to hold disdain for America. Now, we all know that children take things further than their parents, because while their parents once had neutrality or even love for America which they have now lost, the children never have, and their hate grows. This is the side of the paleo-conservatives/libertarians, and is emulated in today's American Conservative magazine and Libertarian Party, especially their Presidential candidate, who said that "People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle."

On the other side, there are Objectivists (such as myself, although I am undecided as to the current war on terror, hence the post), neoconservative libertarians and the like, that state the victimhood culture and repression the Islamic world by dictators has fostered hate for America, because of the despots' need for a scapegoat. For these people, Islamists hate everything about America, to include our sexually-liberated society, the freedom of women to be equal to men and that we whole-heartedly embrace markets and self-interest as our norms. In the Objectivist mind, it is necessary to reform the Middle East in the name of our own self-defense, because miserable nations export their misery and miserable terrorists, instead of being mad at their own governments and selves, project their hate onto the people who have everything they could ever want.

So, while some may be angry that I am asking the question at all, it is crucial to know, why do they hate us? Is it that we have soldiers in 135 nations, are constantly attempting to shape the governments of these people and prop up dictators who kill and terrorize? Or is it because America is the last bastion of true freedom, is still a shining city on the hill where topless women in DC cannot be arrested, let alone beaten and thrown to the tigers in a soccer stadium?

Damn Red Sox

2004-10-28T04:46:00.000-04:00

Just for Ann and David (because I saw that they were BoSox Fans)

I can't stand the Red Sox or Boston. Talk about what Larry Elder defined as "the victim mentality. I have never heard a team whine so much about their record in my life. Start with the fact that they play in the arguably easiest stadium for which one could ask and combined with their incessantly bad attitude and Northeastern disdain for all things common, and you can start to develop a picture as to why John Kerry's favorite team makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh, and did I mention that I am a Yankees fan?

Elitism and the Problem with Libertarians

2004-10-28T04:29:00.000-04:00

Libertarians stand at a crossroads concerning "the common man" (whoever he may be). Sadly, many libertarians view themselves on a higher plane of thinking, which, whether this is true, alienates individuals who have not been properly introduced to the concept of true individual liberty. With all due deference to my fellow Capital bloggers, starting off your blog with "People are stupid" is a bad idea and an elitist (yet strangely common) attitude.

Why is this such a bad idea?

Let's face it: when we state that we love liberty, we cannot frame the debate solely within the contexts of ourselves. Inherent in the idea of evey statist program is that people cannot be trusted to govern their own lives, and inherent in that idea is the idea that "everyone is stupid, except for me". When we become victims of this attitude (and libertarians, including myself, are notorious offenders) we start to give our statist enemies ammunition. When we say "people are just stupid" this clearly translates to the "anointed" that if others are too stupid to govern their own lives, then someone must step in and do it for them.

Next time you get in a debate with a non-libertarian (this works especially well with family members) about a random issue, say, Social Security, pull the guilt card and ask 'Do you think that I am too stupid to handle my money?" In order to avoid an insult (and because family members do trust you, they will say no. Next ask about a friend of theirs, or the guy next door. They'll give the negative response again, and then ask why those people are so special but the average stranger is not. Works every time.

I implore libertarians, stop thinking of yourselves as politically and culturally superior and instead attempt to reveal the light of liberty in a more positive light, instead of making fun of "the flag-waving idiots" or "ignorant Joe-Six-Pack".