Obama and the Birthers

What's up with these people (Birthers)? I'm as opposed to Obama and his Socialist Progressive policies as any other free-market capitalist; nonetheless Barack Hussein Obama is a US citizen even if he was born in Kenya as the Birthers proclaim. Folks, his MOTHER was a U.S. citizen. Therefore Obama is a U.S. citizen. Case closed.

The only way Obama is not a US citizen is if one: neither of his parents were American and two: he wasn't born in the US.

If there is any consolation to his becoming president it is that people are waking up to the fact that Progressive = Socialist.

Maxine Waters will Socialize .. um Nationalize the Oil Industry

So, what again is the difference between liberals and socialists? Here it is plain and simple. If Maxine Waters is a liberal then there is no difference between liberals and socialists except perhaps the means to accomplish their goals. The end is the same: a top-down government control of industry; a country which is not limited by the archaic declarations set forth by death 18th C slaveholders who had no knowledge or appreciation of the problems faced by 21st C people.

Maxine Waters 1:10

And guess what this liberal would be all about?
This liberal will be about socialising

uh uh

Will be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

If you are a liberal and do not consider yourself to be a socialist; if you consider nationalizing an industry to be immoral, unconstitutional, foolish, counter-productive and an example of socialist thinking how can you in a clear conscience not recoil at the fact that Maxine Waters calls herself a liberal?

A good counter-argument to the above is the question "Does promoting the nationalizing of an industry mean that its propenents are socialists?" No, of course not. It makes one a collectivist and not necesarily a socialist. I think it is clear, however, that Maxine Waters is on the International Socialist end of things, not a National Socialist, nor a theocrat.

And if you think people on the left think she's a nutcase go to
Democratic Underground

The Dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide

I'm a little behind the times but I just found a great site promoting the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. What a brilliant idea, what a brilliantly demented idea.

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

What are some of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
• Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
• Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
• DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
• Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
• Contributes to soil erosion.

UPDATE [4/21/2010]: HERE'S A VIDEO FROM PENN & TELLER

Is it wrong to ask if Obama is a closet Marxist?

Is it wrong to ask or suspect that Obama may be a closet Marxist or Communist? Absolutely not. He has too many close associates who are avowed Marxists. This does not make him a Marxist but it naturally brings up the question and the suspicion.

And, so you ask, who cares if they’re communists? Well, would you say the same thing if they were Nazis? To me they are the same thing. Yes there are differences, but the similarity to someone who believes in individual liberty is minimal.

Communists intern and kill the bourgeois. Nazis killed the Jews. The Nazis just took the abstraction of the bourgeois and associated it with “The Jew”. Both communists and Nazis abhor the concept of individual liberty and individual rights; both treat any form of dissent as traitorous and deserving of death or imprisonment. In short if you believe in individual liberty, in individual rights then you have nothing but contempt for both Nazis and Communists.

Of course there is a difference: Nazis believe in the union of the race; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the race. Communists believe in the union of the class; that the individual is but a cell in the body politic of the class. It is a major difference and we should celebrate said difference; but as an individualist; as someone who believes in individual freedom; as someone who feels the purpose of government is to uphold and safeguard individual rights and contracts I may understand and relish the intellectual arguments that separate Nazis and Communists. Nonetheless I have nothing but contempt and disdain for both philosophies and will not live peacefully under either.

Did I oversimplify the argument in the above paragraph? Of course I did. But I leave it to you, the supporters of either the Nazis or Communists to explain to me how “you” or your ideal government would treat an individual who disagrees with the norms being enforced by your ideal government.

You don’t like Republicans because they hate gays you say? Then why do you wear a Che t-shirt?

Climate Change and Ignorance

As much as I respect science too often it is the science media that makes scientists look like idiots and scientific research silly. Look at the following from sciencedaily.com.

The third sentence of the article states: ”To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius.”

For this sentence to make any sense whatsoever three unstated assumptions would have to be true. First the temperature of the globe was constant until the industrial revolution; second the industrial revolution started in 1900; and third that there are no other factors to be considered.

All three assumptions are false.

The full quote from the article is below:

If CO2 emissions are halved by 2050 compared to 1990, global warming can be stabilised below two degrees. This is shown by two studies by a co-operation of German, Swiss and British researchers in the journal Nature.

To contain global warming, and its risks and consequences, warming compared to pre-industrial times (pre 1900) should not exceed two degrees Celsius. Although, according to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is no specific temperature threshold for dangerous climate changes, and the negative effects are gradually increasing, over one hundred countries have adopted this “2°C target”. Scientists have used a new probability model to calculate how much CO2 our atmosphere tolerates under these target specifications. This and another study2, recently published in Nature, produced similar results: From 2000 to 2050, a maximum of 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 may be emitted into the atmosphere. Roughly speaking, today, around one third of this wad has already been shot.

Climate Change: Halving Carbon Dioxide Emissions By 2050 Could Stabilize Global Warming

Hmmm. I guess these researchers, writers, and editors convenietly forgot that the earth has been around for a while and that life -- including mammalian life and primate life -- has thrived with CO2 levels far higher than what exists today.

Aphorisms

ALL UPDATES WILL BE AT
Classical Liberal Aphorisms

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

Man is not free unless government is limited.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

We the people tell the government what to do; It doesn't tell us.
- many, but often attributed to Ronald Reagan

If you want something done, assign one person to the task. If you don't care if something gets done, assign two people to the job. If you absolutely do not want something to be done, assign it to a commitee.

Reclaim The Name

Half the harm that is done in this world
Is due to people who want to feel important
They don’t mean to do harm
But the harm does not interest them.
Or they do not see it, or they justify it
Because they are absorbed in the endless struggle
To think well of themselves.
T. S. Eliot

coming soon - sorry folks, but I do have a job :-)