Nuggets of Wisdom

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Vox Day Supports Sharia Law (Sort Of!)

Libertarians like myself are often accused by feminists of being rich white men desperately clinging onto their privilege and trying to protect it from "dah womenz." We are accused of wanting to keep women "in their place" and trying to tell them what to do with their lives.

But that's far from the case. Libertarians like myself do not wish to dictate what women should do with their lives. We don't wish to dictate what anyone should do with their lives. We simply want to live our own lives and allow others to do likewise provided they harm no one.

As a libertarian, I simply don't care how women live their lives. If they want to be stay-at-home moms, so be it. If they want to be working women, so be it. If they want to be strippers or streetwalkers, while I may find that morally degrading, so be it. They should have the freedom to live their lives however they choose provided they harm no one else.

My gripes with feminists is not that they want equal rights for women. Far from it. I do want women to have the same rights as men. (Which they already have!) My gripes with modern feminism is two-fold: they often seek special privileges rather than equal rights (i.e.: gender employment quotas, taxpayer-funded birth control) and they tend to complain about non-issues (i.e.: being asked for coffee on elevators, overhearing sex jokes at conventions). Other than that, libertarians like myself have no qualms with feminists or "gender equality."

But then there are "libertarians" like Vox Day.

I really want to like Vox Day. I really do. Aside from being a Christian and "libertarian" blogger, he's also a musician, science fiction novelist, video game designer, and Mensa society member. In short, he's a hardcore geek!

He has all the potential to be epic win; and yet, when I read his blog, he's revealed to be epic fail.

I recently blogged about how he hates immigrants, or as he calls them, "invaders." But he also has an equal distaste for women.

I already mentioned how he believes women working are more detrimental to society than women being raped. Conversely, he also believes that denying women education, throwing acid in their faces, and mutilating their genitals benefits society because it reduces their promiscuity, which he claims is the root of most social ills.

So is it any real surprise when he claims Islamic regimes are the best examples of a "sustainable society"?

In a recent blog post, he rails against Planned Parenthood for lobbying to legalize post-birth abortions, which I agree are abhorrent. He uses this as an example of how feminists seek special privileges for women rather than equal rights, which I agree is deplorable.

But it's by the next paragraph where he starts to lose me:
Civilization has always depended upon the collaborative effort of men and women to restrain the darker and more chaotic aspects of women's nature. Women are more important to the sustainability of a society, which is why a society that can survive the bad behavior of its young males cannot survive similarly bad behavior on the part of its young females.
Huh? What exactly are the "darker and more chaotic aspects of women's nature," and what constitutes restraining them? And why is it worse for women to behave badly than men?

He never once explains this or elaborates on it. Judging from his previous blog posts, I can only assume that, by women's "darker and more chaotic" nature, he means their promiscuity, and by "restraining them," he means keeping them at home chained to the stove barefoot and pregnant and demanding them to make him a sandwich.

And how exactly does he expect society to keep women in their place like this? Does he expect the state to force them to abide by these repressive gender roles? Wouldn't that be the anti-thesis of libertarianism? I mean, he wouldn't go so far as to yearn for a patriarchal theocracy, right? Right?
Islamic society is one example of the result of the civilizational burden falling upon men alone.  It isn't ideal, but it is observably preferable, and observably more sustainable, than the catastrophic state in which Western society presently finds itself.
You heard that right: "Christian" and "libertarian" Vox Day just advocated for an Islamic regime. Do I even need to explain what is wrong with this from a Christian and libertarian perspective, let alone a humanitarian one?

And the ironic thing is that Vox Day seems to be one of those "types" who fears America being taken over by Sharia law. Even if that were a real threat, which it isn't, why would Vox Day oppose it? After all, he just said Islamic theocracy is the more sustainable form of society compared to our Western democracy.

He then goes on to rant about how "women's rights" is the central cause of every societal ill, from the oncoming triple-dip recession to monetary inflation to targeted assassinations of American citizens. Why? Because vagina!

Vox Day, if you're reading this, do us all a huge favor and stop calling yourself a libertarian. If you insist on dictating what women do with their lives, why not call yourself what you really are: a patriarchal theocrat!

Happy Easter Sunday 2013

In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.

- Matthew 28: 1-6

To my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I wish you all a blessed Easter Sunday!

Sunday, March 24, 2013

Vox Day Is One Sick Puppy

When I heard about Vox Day, I was ecstatic to learn about a prominent and outspoken Christian libertarian blogger.

I have since downloaded his e-book The Irrational Atheist, which I found to be a thorough and witty critique of the New Atheists and their arguments. So I only assume that his blog posts would be equally as witty and insightful.

Then I read his blog. Turns out the man is a nutter!

You know how most leftists consider libertarians to be privileged white boys trying to desperately protect their "privilege"? Well, Vox Day would be one reason why they assume that.

For starters, Vox Day once argued that working women were more detrimental to society than rapists.

I wish I was kidding!

But that's nothing compared to what he wrote earlier this week.

Last Tuesday, the Daily Mail reported on a 56-year-old Indian man who was assaulted on a tram in Manchester. He was punched in the face 18 times, resulting in two black eyes and a concussion. What makes matters worse is that the tram was packed with over 200 people and not a single person allegedly came to his rescue.

Why did no one step forward to stop this brutal attack? According to Vox Day, it was because the victim was an "invader" who deserved it. Why is he considered an "invader"? Because he committed the "crime" of immigrating to Great Britain.

Again, I wish I were kidding:
Immigration is when a small number of foreigners are permitted to settle within a country by the native people.  Invasion is when tens of thousands or more foreigners settle in a country against the wishes of the native people, regardless of whether they happen to be armed or not. Both Europe and the USA have suffered quiet and undeclared large-scale invasions; only now are the natives beginning to wake up and become restless.
You know, at least when I complain about "immigrants," my gripes are with the "illegals." I only have a problem with "immigrants" if they come here illegally, remain here undocumented, and refuse to pay taxes, learn English, and assimilate into our culture.

Otherwise, I have no problem with them. In fact, I gladly welcome them into our country, and only wish that our immigration process wasn't so contrived as to force them to arrive illegally rather than legally.

Vox Day, on the other hand, seems to be one of those "types" who opposes any immigration, legal or otherwise. To him, America is for Americans and Britain is for the British--by which, of course, he means white people. Foreigners are apparently unwelcomed "invaders" who need to be kicked out, even if it means a bullet to the head.

But the victim wasn't an "invader." He was an immigrant who arrived in Great Britain over 30 years ago through the country's immigration process. The fact that he was approved proves that he was invited; otherwise, he would be an "illegal" immigrant.

But of course, it doesn't matter if the man was legal or not. To Vox Day, he's yet another brown person undermining white culture:
Multiculturalism is worse than murder.  It is even worse than mass murder, being more akin to genocide. It is attempted sociocide.
Really? Multiculturalism is murder? Is that why our most prosperous time as a nation was the 19th century when we experienced our highest influx in immigration as the "Great American Melting Pot"?

I don't think that's a coincidence. When you invite people into your country to seek a better life for themselves through hard work, the end result is increased living standards for everyone.  That combined with our laissez-faire capitalism and our rugged individualism helped make us the most prosperous nation on earth.

Yes, multiculturalism can be a problem if the immigrants involved refuse to assimilate into the host culture. But otherwise, multiculturalism benefits us as a nation by combing other cultures with our own, creating a stronger culture. After all, a beam forged from many metals is stronger than one forged from only one metal.

But apparently, we as a society should reject immigrants and force them out of our country, even if it means beating the crap out of them. After all, other countries do it:
As for the self-hating fifth columnists who piously mouth PC sacraments like "racists have no place in our society", I suggest they go and try settling in India or Jamaica or Nigeria so they can discover how the people they are so eagerly welcoming to settle in their country truly feel about racial differences.
Oh, so because third world countries treat their immigrants like crap, we as a more civilized first world country should treat ours like crap as well.

Oh wait, I think I have that backwards: because we are a more civilized society, we should not stoop to the level of third world savages by beating the tar our of anyone wishing to settle here.

So yeah, Vox, when you advocate such savage behavior, don't act surprise when others call you out as a savage.

Happy Palm Sunday 2013

And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples,

Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,

Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,

And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.

And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

- Matthew 21:1-9 (KJV)

Here's wishing my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ a blessed Palm Sunday.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Nice To Know I'm Making An Impact

Sometimes I wonder if blogging is really worth it. Then I receive personal messages such as this, and I realize that it is:
I searched for Frederic Bastiat a week ago and only came up with a couple results. On a pure whim, I checked again right now, and your most recent Deviation popped up. Good God, we need more people (like yourself) quoting that man.... >_<''

You don't know me. I used to be on here quite a lot, but now I just lurk on this plz account from time to time. I've known about your outspoken libertarian views for some time. Would like for you to know that you stand up for many solid principles. We will never agree on everything, but we agree far, far more than the majority of dA and the rest of the Internet will with me/you/us. Know that you're not alone. ;-)

Friday, March 22, 2013

I Guess I'm A Marxist Now!

I'm a libertarian. As a libertarian, I believe that individuals matter more than collectives. I believe that people should be judged by who they are as individuals rather than by what collective they belong to, be it class, gender, or race.

This is why I cannot stand "libertarians" like FringeElements or LibertarianRealist who hold racist views. Racism is a form of collectivism. Collectivism is the enemy of individualism. Individualism is the basis of liberty. Liberty is the basis of libertarianism. Thus, you cannot be a racist and a libertarian. A "racist libertarian" is just as oxymoronic as a "free-market communist."

Another such oxymoronic--or simply moronic--"racist libertarian" is HeyRuka, a racist hag whose racist views have been thoroughly debunked time and again. And again. And again. And again.

But she's back this time with another video defending her racism--which is just as facepalmingly dumb as her previous ones:

The Marxists want this classless, raceless society. They want to eliminate the ruling class. They want  to eliminate hierarchy. Any group conformity. Any kind of identity. They want to eliminate. They want total equality. Everyone is going to work and give according to their ability. Everyone is going to receive what they define as your individual needs are. And nobody's going to get what they deserve.
Well, gee. I'm against the ruling class (the government and its corporate cronies, that is). I believe in looking past race and class and other forms of collective identity. As a capitalist, I want people to profit from their own individual talents according to how hard they work.


I guess that makes me a Marxist! Raise the red flag, comrades, and sing the Soviet national anthem. Workers of the world unite! (rolls eyes)

There's more failworthy comments from this racist hag's video, but fortunately, the king of epic pwnage Richard Coughlan does a good job tearing her a new one:

I can't speak on behalf of Marxists because I'm not a ****ing Marxist. But I can tell you this: When I think of a society that functions on the basis of equality, it's anything but trying to eliminate people's need to have an identity. It's actually to encourage people to be themselves, be who you are. You all have the right to be who you want to be. Ideally, what I would prefer though, is that people actually build their identity on who they are, not what they are. I don't like the idea that I can live in a world where people are going to look at me and go "Oh, there's a white guy!" and then judge me on that basis. Or "There's a heterosexual guy!" There's a British guy!" "There's a guy with short brown hair or blue eyes or a ****ing **** stain on his face!"
Amen to that!

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Republican vs. Libertarian

Disclaimer: The following conversation is intentionally hyperbolic and features an obviously exaggerated stereotype. It is not meant to be representative of all Republicans--only the stupid ones. The purpose of this conversation is to highlight the doublethink surrounding most Republicans and their claim of "limited government." If this portrayal in any way offends you, kindly hit the backspace button.

Republican: I vote Republican because I’m a proud conservative who opposes big gubermint!

Libertarian: So you support limited government, then?

R: Just like our Founding Fathers: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Chuck Norris!

L: What are your thoughts on our military?

R: I proudly support the troops! We need to support our brave men and women who are fighting for our freedoms.

L: So you support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

R: Course I do! We need to fight the towelheads over there so we don’t have to fight dem over here. It’s part of our God-given duty to protect freedom and spread democracy!

L: And the best way to do that is to wage wars on other countries?

R: Course it is! Nothing spreads democracy faster than bombs!

L: Right then. And what are your thoughts on marriage?

R: I believe marriage is between one man and one woman, just like the Good Lord intended.

L: So you don’t believe in gay marriage, then?

R: Course not! It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

L: So the government shouldn’t allow gays to marry?

R: Not only that, but the gubermint should round them all up and put them in an electrified pen. In a few days, they’ll all die off because they can’t reproduce. That’s why faggotry just ain’t natural. The Bible agin’ it. God’s agin’ it. And I’m agin’ it!

L: What are your thoughts on illegal immigration?

R: We need to stop dem wetbacks from terking our jerbs!

L: And how do you propose we do that?

R: We need to round dem all up and kick their Chicano asses back over the border. Then we need to protect our border by building a fence right across it. In fact, we should build two fences. Have barb wire on both of dem. Make dem electric, too. And then we can dig a moat and fill it with gators. And we ought to have lookout posts with grappling guns so we can turn dem spics into Swiss cheese before they even cross our border.

L: So the government should spend our resources deporting illegals and guarding our borders?

R: Course it should. America for Americans!

L: What are your thoughts on drugs such as marijuana?

R: I’m agin’ them! They’s the devil’s playthings. They’s more of the devil than dem Harry Potter books.

L: So you don’t feel people should be allowed to use them.

R: Nope. They wills mess yous up real good. Nobody should be addicted to nothing--'cept alcohol and tobaccy.

L: And what if someone uses them in the privacy of their own home?

R: Then the police ought to bust down their front door, beat them over the head with their police sticks until they’s black and blue, and then haul their stoned ass off to jail where they can’t hurt nobody.

L: What are your thoughts about school prayer?

R: I believe that all the little childrens should be free to pray in school if they’s want to.

L: So you only believe in voluntary pray?

R: I thinks every morning, our children should start the day by praying to the Good Lord God Almighty and reading from His Word, The Holy Bible—King James Version, specifically!

L: So you’re for mandatory prayer and Bible reading, then?

R: Just like the Good Lord says it in His Good Word: “Train up a child the way he should go…and don’t forget to beat him!”

L:  But what if a student isn’t Christian? Should he be required to pray and read Scripture?

R: Course they should. What do you think edu-ma-cash-ion is fer? To turn children into God-fearing Christians!

L: So let me get this straight: you think our government should force non-Christian students to pray and read Scripture in public schools?

R: Yup!

L: And it should prevent people from taking drugs?

R: Uh-huh!

L: And deport illegal immigrants while preventing others from entering the country?

R: Of course!

L: And prevent gays from marrying?

R: Damn straight!

L: And wage wars on other countries?

R: Murica! Fuck yeah!

L: And you claim to be a limited government conservative?

R: Course I is! I ain’t no gubermint-luving pinko Commie fag liberal Jew.

L: But in what way do you support limited government?

R: I oppose gun control.

L: So you believe people should be allowed to own guns?

R: Just like our Founding Fathers and Good Lord intended. Only a well-armed populace can defeat gubermint tyranny. Guns don’t kill people, people do!

L: Well, that’s one thing we can agree on: the government should not prevent people from bearing arms.

R: Well ain’t you smarter than a steaming-pile of Sunday Morning pig droppings!

L: I also don’t believe the government should prevent people from using drugs.

R: Come again?

L: Or from marrying the ones they love, even if they’re the same gender.

R: Say what?

L: Or force children to pray and read scripture in school?

R: Blasphemy!

L: And it ought to fight illegal immigration by making it easier for immigrants to enter the country legally, rather than waste its time deporting the illegals already here, or beefing up security along the border.

R: The heck?

L: And our military should be reserved for defense. We shouldn’t be waging wars on other countries, especially over vague notions such as “stopping terrorism” or “spreading democracy.”

R: What in tarnation is wrong with you, boy?! What type of terrorist-sympathizing, fag-enabling, pot-smoking, Satan-worshipping, Obama-supporting Commie pinko liberal hippie Jew are you?

L: Actually, I’m not a liberal.

R: Yer not?!

L: No. I’m a libertarian.

R: What in God’s name is that?

L: Someone who believes in limited government, unlike you. I believe the government should leave people alone and allow them to live their lives freely provided they harm no one else.

R: What kind of horse manure is that? We can’t allow people to run around doing Lord knows what. We’d end up like Sodom and Gommorah! No! We as a country need to uphold God-fearing ‘Murican values.

L: And you think the government should enforce those values on others?

R: Damn straight!

L: So you believe in big government, then?

Click-Click. BANG!

R: Hey Ma! I caughts me a liberal. Heat up the stove. We’s eating tonight!

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Debating "Rape Culture" With Linkara and Chick

Last night, I was involved with my first heated Twitter debate, and ironically enough, it was with two of my favorite internet reviewers: Linkara and Nostalgia Chick.

Lewis, Lindsay, in the slim chance either of you are reading this, I mean no ill-will towards either of you. I enjoy your reviews immensely.

However, you two should stick to reviewing comic books and movies. Political commentary is not your forte.

Anyway, the entire debacle started when Lindsay tweeted this:
@Linkara19 @krameralex95 Who fuckin cares if women are like... in any way oppressed... I mean they can vote and hold office.
And herein lies the problem I have with feminists: we have a fundamental difference in what constitutes "oppression."

To me, people suffer "oppression" when they are systematically denied the same rights that everyone else in society has, thus relegating them to second-class citizens.

However, feminists like Lindsay believe that "oppression" also constitutes differing societal expectations of the two genders.

This isn't oppression. This is human nature, and considering how our species is sexually-dimorphic, it's something to be expected.

I tried explaining this in my reply to her:
@thelindsayellis @linkara19 @krameralex95 If they can vote and hold office, then they're hardly being oppressed, now are they?
To which Linkara interjected:
@BlameThe1st @thelindsayellis @krameralex95 Yeah, so virgin/whore dichotomies are a myth and rape culture doesn't exist. Thanks.''
See what I mean? A fundamental difference in what constitutes "oppression."

Who cares if women have the exact same rights as men? Some have to endure being called "sluts," and that's just as bad as not being able to vote! (Rolls eyes)

And then Lindsay added:
@BlameThe1st @Linkara19 I was dearly hoping you weren't going to tweet at me again, bro. We have ungodly high rape rates. Something is up.
Ah yes, the "rape culture" claim. If that were true, and American society permitted rape, then it would only follow that sexual assault rates would be through the roof. However, seeing as how such rates have been on the decline over the past 20 years, that hardly seems to be the case.

Now many have brought up on Twitter that the stats I cited were over three years old and only covered "reported" rape. However, I feel they still count. Three years is hardly a huge time gap, so they're still relevant.

As for "unreported" rape, it's hard to determine them since they are unreported. So reported rape is the only thing we have to go by.

But then Lindsay had to reply with this:
@BlameThe1st @Linkara19 Good. Then clearly I'm imagining the sexual harassment I get every time I go to a bar.
WTF? The discussion is on rape. I bring up rape statistics. Lindsay brings up sexual harassment statistics. Not the same thing! That's like having a discussion on traffic accidents and bringing up car theft! Non Sequitur!

Then someone named Lotus Prince interjected with this gem:
@BlameThe1st @Linkara19 @thelindsayellis @krameralex95 "Other countries have more" =/= "Don't worry about it an America."
No. That's not what I'm saying! Rape is a problem here, yes, but compared to countries with real "rape cultures" like the Congo and India, it isn't that big of a problem.

Over here, rape and other forms of sexual assault are on the decline, while over there, it's so permissible that no one even cares. Thus why I don't believe America is a "rape culture."

Perspective, people!

And to top of this guy's blatant anti-intellectualism, he added:
@BlameThe1st @thelindsayellis @Linkara19 And it's not at zero.
No. It's not zero. It never will be zero. Ever.

Zero is not an attainable goal, so setting it as one is not reasonable. The fact that sexual assault rates are not at zero does not prove that America is a rape culture. If that were the case, then every country on the frigging planet is!

What matters is that rape in this country is on the decline. DECLINE! And has been for over two decades! The same is true for violent crime as a whole!

America does not have a rape problem. America does not have a violence problem. On the contrary, America is becoming an increasingly safer country to live in.

So don't worry. Be happy!

To add to the overall fail, one person even tried to cite the recent Steubenville rape case as proof that America is a rape culture.

Anyone who has visited my Tumblr and Twitter accounts know how I feel about that. It was a sickening event that should have never happened.

With that said, it was only one incident in one town, and thus not indicative of the country as a whole. Using it as proof is anecdotal evidence, and thus not reliable.

I bluntly explained that in a reply, to which Linkara replied in the most face-palming leap of logic I have ever witnessed from him:
@BlameThe1st @Slatefield @Alfougin ...Are you suggsting that the stuff happening around Steubenville didn't happen? I'm with Lindsay. Done.
WTF? Where the hell did I say that? Where? When? How?

How do you get "Steubenville didn't happen" from "Isolated incident; anecdotal evidence"?

For a guy who makes a living reviewing comic books, something is extremely wrong with Linkara's reading comprehension here.

And with that, the conversation ended. There's more fail within it, but if you'll have to visit the conversation to see it for yourself.

I warn you: you will facepalm!

Again, Lindasy, Lewis, I love you both and your work, but please stay clear from politics.

Sunday, March 17, 2013

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Kiss me Im Equestrian! by =thecoltalition on deviantART

Happy St. Patty’s Day, every pony! Hope you all are wearing green, and that no pony is getting too drunk. (I don’t have to worry about that, since I don’t drink!)

Here’s “Another Irish Drinking Song” to celebrate. (And it’s an AMV!)

Erin Go Bragh! ;)

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Twitter and Tumblr FTW!

I know I said I was going to put my blog on hiatus, but for some reason, I can't seem to stay quiet. I keep running across news articles, videos, and other fun stuff that I just can't keep to myself.

So I decided to remedy this by posting my random musings and sharing the cool stuff I run across on my Twitter and Tumblr accounts.

What's that? Didn't know I had a Twitter and Tumblr? Well, now you do. So feel free to follow me on both!

Seriously, it's been a while since I used either. It's been over a year or so since I used Tumblr. It was gathering cobwebs and dust bunnies when I returned to it. But now it's updated and running again. So again, if you're on Tumblr, feel free to follow me!

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Gov Did It!

With insipid drivel like this, perhaps "Big Think" should consider renaming itself to "Little Think."

In his recent blog post, Orion Jones shared an infographic showing how the 20th century was the least violent period in history.

And to what does he attribute this lack of death? Government, of course! What evidence does he have to support his claim? None whatsoever!

You know, I'd say that this is as equally pathetic as young-earth creationists trying to credit life in the universe by yelling "God Did It!" but that would be unfair--to the creationists!

To their credit, at least creationists try to provide some rationale and evidence for their beliefs. They argue that complexity in the universe and in the lifeforms that inhabit it are the result of intelligent design, and then try to prove their hypothesis by pointing to examples of "design" in nature that could only result from an "intelligent designer" rather than through "random chance and accident."

Accept it or reject it, you have to at least admit that this explanation is far more intellectually honest than statists trying to credit non-violence among human beings by yelling "Gov did it!"

Okay, to be fair, he does provide a citation to back up his claim: a selection from Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan--you know, the same Hobbes whose ideas about absolute monarchy and the divine rights of kings have long since been rejected by Western civilization.

Again, perhaps the site should rename itself to "Little Think."

Who'd I Choose As Pope

As a protestant, I couldn't care less who the next Pope is. Christ is the head of my church. Not some robed old geezer with a funny hat in Italy!

Though I would gladly make Alicorn Twilight Sparkle the head of my church any day! :D

Sunday, March 10, 2013

Open Letter To Tiffany Willis

Dear Tiffany Willis,

You argue in your recent article 10 Facts That Prove America Is Becoming More Liberal that Americans are becoming more “liberal” because more are supporting issues such as same-sex marriage, drug legalization, and immigration reform.

My first question for you, then, would be how do you define “liberal”? Do you define it by the classic definition or the modern definition? Are you a “classic liberal” or a “progressive liberal”?

I ask this because liberalism, as a philosophy, has changed over time. When it first originated, “liberalism” was about individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism. In this sense, the Founding Fathers and other enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill were “liberal”—that is, they were “classic liberals.”

However, as times changed, so did liberalism. With the introduction of Marxism, “liberalism” became less focused on the rights of the individual and more on the welfare of the collective. Thus liberalism transformed into what we now know as “progressive liberalism,” or "progressivism."

To illustrate this drastic shift, one need only read The Second Treatise of Government by the father of liberalism himself John Locke. If Locke were alive today preaching what he wrote in his treatise—the foundation of liberalism itself, “progressive liberals” such as Michael Moore would decry him as a Ron Paul-loving far-right reactionary.

This is the problem with defining “liberal” by terms such as the political “left” and “right,” which is what you seem to do in your article. You seem to conflate “liberal” with left-wing.” This isn’t accurate. Yes, left-wingers support same-sex marriage, drug legalization, and immigration reform, but so do right-wing "libertarians" like myself. (As for global warming, while most right-wing libertarians like myself do not believe in it, many do, though they disagree that environmentalist solutions such as Cap and Trade are the proper solution.)

In other words, Americans may becoming more “liberal” in the "classic" sense of the term, but not so much the "progressive" sense, as you seem to imply; if anything, it would be more accurate to say that Americans are becoming more “libertarian” than "liberal."

Which leads me to my question for you: You claim that more Americans like yourself are beginning to believe in, as you put it, “mind your own business” and “live and let live.” I know that, as a libertarian, I believe that. My question is: do you believe that?

Before you answer that question, please consider the following questions:

1. Do you believe that individuals have a right to defend themselves? If so, do they have a right to defend themselves with whatever arms they see fit, or should the state restrict what arms they can or cannot bear? Do you believe the state should prevent me from owning an automatic assault rifle? (As you replied to one comment: if you don’t want an AK-47, then don’t buy one. But don’t prevent me from buying one.)

2. Do you believe women have a right to their own body? If so, do they have a right to pose nude in front of a camera or to elicit sex for money? Or should such “objectifying” activities be prohibited by the state? Does “female bodily autonomy” only apply to abortion and birth control? (On that subject, should taxpayers be forced to pay for abortions or birth control, even if they morally or religiously object to them? Should business owners be forced to fund them for their employees, even if they morally or religiously object to them?)

3. Do you believe that individuals have a right to put whatever substance they want into their own bodies? Or should politicians like Michelle Obama or Michael Bloomberg be allowed to limit what junk food we can consume? Again, does “bodily autonomy” only apply to drugs, or does it equally apply to junk food, raw milk, and alternative medicine? Why should I have a right to smoke pot but not to consume raw milk or more than 16-oz. of soda pop? Moreover, do I have a right not to wear a seatbelt or not to wear a helmet? Or should the state force me to wear both? Should it force me to be vaccinated? Should it force me to drink flourinated water?

4. Do you believe that individuals have a right to love, marry, and have sex with whomever they love? If so, do they have a right to do so with as many people as they love? Does the “right to marry” equally apply to polygamy, or does it only apply to gay marriage? (Also, do you believe the state should prevent people from loving or having sex with each other through “age of consent” laws? I do not support pedophilia, but if two teenagers under the legal age of consent have sex, should they be prosecuted as sex offenders?)

5. Do you believe that individuals have a right to the fruits of their own labor? Or do you believe that the state is entitled to a share of it? While I do believe some level of taxation is necessary, I feel the way that taxpayer money is currently collected and spent is grossly immoral. Case in point, income tax. While we’re on the subject, if we are all to be treated equally, should we also be taxed equally, or should some be taxed more than others? Another case: the estate tax. Am I entitled to my inheritance, or is the state entitled to a share of my deceased relative’s wealth?

6. Do you believe individuals have a right to their own private property? Or should the state be allowed to dictate what they can or cannot do with it? Should they be told what they can or cannot build? What color they can paint their house? How tall they can allow their grass to grow? If an endangered species is alleged to live on their property, should they be evicted from it, even if they’re disabled? Also, should the state be able to seize private property through “eminent domain”? Should they be able to seize private property and sell it to prospective corporations if their proposed boondoggles would serve “the public interest”?

7. Do you believe that business owners have a right to employee whomever they want? Or should the state force them to only hire American citizens? Should they be prevented from hiring people overseas or from hiring people who are not American citizens? (Moreover, as a consumer, do corporations and the state have the right to dictate what I can buy from other countries?)

8. Do you believe that business owners have a right to offer wages they consider fair? Or should they be forced by the state to pay their employees a minimum wage? If so, what should be the minimum? $10/hr.? $20? $50? $100? If they refuse to pay their employees more than $100/hr., are they being greedy and selfish? If a teenager is willing to work for less than minimum wage, should he be hired, or should he be prevented through minimum wage and child labor laws? Would that be fair?

9. Do you believe that workers have a right to unionize? Do they have a right to join a union? Inversely, do they have a right NOT to join a union? Or should the state require them to join one in order to have a job? (Moreover, should public unions be treated the same as private unions, despite the obvious differences between the two?)

10. Do you believe that people have a right to association? Do they have a right to associate or not associate with others? If so, do business owners have a right to deny service or employment to people they do not wish to associate with? Or should the state force them to associate with these people? For instance, should the Boy Scouts be forced to accept gay, transgender, or atheist members? Should Chik-Fil-A be forced to accept gay marriage? Moreover, should business owners be forced to meet racial and gender quotas? For every white male employee, should they be forced to hire a black employee and a female employee (or would a black female employee suffice)?

11. Do you believe parents have a right to send their children to the school that best meets their educational needs? Should they be allowed to send their children to a public school outside of their school district? Should they be allowed to opt out of the public school system and send them to private school or charter or parochial or magnet? Should they be allowed to home school or even “un-school” them? Should they be allowed to send them to a school that doesn't teach evolution? And if they’re allowed to opt-out of the public school system, should they receive tax credits? After all, no one should be forced to pay for something they do not use. Or do you believe otherwise? (Also, do you believe local and state school systems should control their own educational standards and curriculum, or should that be controlled by the federal government?)

12. Do you believe that individuals have a right to fund their own pension plans? Or should they rely solely on government programs such as Medicare and Social Security? If I find a pension plan that offers better benefits than either Medicare or SS, should I be allowed to opt out? Again, if I don’t use it, I should not fund it. Or again, do you believe otherwise?

If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, then I think it's safe to say that you do believe that people should “mind their own business” and “live and let live”; otherwise, that doesn’t seem to be the case for you.



Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Hiatus For Reals!

Remember earlier this year when I wrote a lengthy blog post informing you all that I was putting my blog on hiatus for an indefinite period of time--only to return to blogging one week later and continue for over three months?

Well, I decided to follow up with what I had said and place my blog on hiatus. And I am serious this time!

My blog is officially on hiatus from now until Celestia knows when. No more blog posts. No more art. No nothing.

The only thing I plan to post after this is my list of "Top 5 Best/Worst MLP:FiM Season 3 Episodes." When will it be published? When it's finished!

Other than that, I plan on posting nothing else from now until I feel ready to return to blogging. I simply have too many priorities in my life to make this blog one of them. So until then, this is goodbye, but not farewell.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Hugo Chavez Is Dead!

Do. Do. Do. Another one bites the dust.
Do. Do. Do. Another one bites the dust.

First Gadaffi. Then Jong-il. And Now Chavez! Now only Castro needs to kick the bucket and the world will be dictator free!

Is Big Think Over-rated?

One would assume that a blog site called Big Think wouldn't publish small-minded posts in defense of small-minded concepts like gun control, wealth redistribution, pedophilia, and bestiality; but apparently, the site is only Big Think in name only.

One of its bloggers David Berreby recently wrote a post titled "Is Individual Liberty Over-Rated?" The crux of the post is that individuals cannot be trusted to govern themselves because--shocker!--they make mistakes! And because of this, individuals need a "paternal state" in order to govern their lives for them.

This is hardly a novel objection to individual liberty. It's as old as Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan!

Again, this site is apparently Big Think in name only!

Thankfully, plenty of readers were able to detect the bogosity within the post and point it out in the comment section.

So rather than share a selection from the post itself, I'm going to share a conversation within its comment section. Trust me, it's far more enlightening than the article:
Mary Ritenour: While sensitive to the the problem of individuals making bad decisions, I am concerned about institutionalizing the impacts of paternalistic decisions that, in retrospect, are "bad". A bad decision at an individual level is potentially catastrophic for the individual, but its impacts on society as a whole are minimal. A bad decision at a society level (paternalistic, regulatory, etc, no matter how well intended) has an impact over a wide range of individuals, some of whom will be hurt and some helped by the decision. But even more critically, the feedback loop of learning ("Oh, That was stupid - I won't do that again") is severed by centralized decision making. If the decision maker is not impacted by the decision, he/she has less motivation to admit he/she was wrong, and being in a position of power, more inclined to protect her/ his position rather than acknowledge a very human error.

Until we become perfect, I prefer to make and learn from my own mistakes, rather than impose or be imposed on with others'

Jason Wexler: The only quibble I would have with your comment is that much of the new research seems to indicate that people aren't learning from their mistakes, which is why it is non-rational/post-rational. Rational individuals recognize and learn from their mistakes, non-rational people don't recognize and therefore can't learn from their mistakes, while irrational people recognize their mistakes but refuse to learn from them. Further complicating things is the fact that as Mr. Berreby said all of us fall into each of those categories at least some of the time.

Mary Ritenour: Agreed. Some people never learn from their mistakes. But some people do learn and make different choices. Some people take years to learn. Others learn after one bad mistake.
Additionally, the "lesson" we think someone should learn from a "mistake" may be only our perspective - we may not have all the facts (or different ones). I can't tell you how many times I thought someone was being really dumb until I sat with them and listened and suddenly their actions made sense.

We are too different as individuals, too varied in our experiences, our motivations and our needs to be classified into "rational" and "non-rational", learners and non-learners, etc.

I understand and appreciate the frustration and sadness in watching someone choose to be less than what we believe they can be, but it is not our life, our lesson. It is theirs and it is the ultimate disrespect (and dismissal of of any capability to change) to assume that we know better and demand control over their lives "for their own good". By doing so, we create the very victims we were trying to save.

Jason Wexler: I seem to run into this problem frequently, I look at the collective group while many people are interested in the individual components. I agree that this can suck at the individual level, but on many questions large numbers of people are consistently making bad decisions and not learning from them, and the consequences often go beyond them, to harm others around them or even people they never meet in the case of foolish politics.
When your bad decisions hurt me as much or more than you, I have an interest in mitigating your ability to make them freely.

Jace Clark: By foolish politics do you mean pointless, petty? Or politics you (rationally, natch!) disagree with? Coercive paternalism seems quite frightening to me for any democracy. Legislative bodies (the people's voice) could pass law but the real power would reside in it's implementation, as Cass could tell you. A nudge here, a push there and duly enacted laws could effectively be nullified or even produce the opposite result.

And I can't imagine a bad decision (note: not already proscribed by law) I make hurting you more than me. Certainly not to an extent where you have the right to mitigate my free will.

Homelessness On The Rise In NYC Under Bloomberg

How do you know a politician like Michael Bloomberg is lying? He claims he cares about the poor and homeless!

The NYC mayor recently drew criticism following his remark that "nobody's sleeping on the streets" in response to concerns about shelters turning people away.

Now he faces even harsher criticism in light of a report that reveals that homelessness in his city has increased 19 percent since last year and 61 percent since he took office over a decade ago:
A new report reveals the number of people living in homeless shelters has surpassed 50,000 people a night-- a record high for the city and a 19 percent jump from last year.

And although the rise is a reflection of a broader national trend, the Coalition for the Homeless believes the problems facing New York City are much more alarming.

In fact, the startling numbers show a sharp increase in child homelessness with more than 21,000 children forced to seek shelter each night in January.

Single adult homelessness is also at all time high levels with 10,840 homeless single adults occupying shelters each night.

Back in September, Patrick Markee of the Coalition for the Homeless commented on the rising numbers and said, "Not since the grim days of the Great Depression has New York City had 20,000 children sleeping homeless each night."

The latest report is highly critical of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, noting a 61 percent increase in the city's homeless population since Bloomberg took office in 2002.
Allow me to rip off The Amazing Atheist:

Who sicked the police on the Occupy Wall Street movement? Bloom-turd!

Who wants to ban all sodas over 16-ounces? Bloom-turd!

Who thinks that the police should not serve and protect you if you happen to be a gun-owner? Bloom-turd!

Who wants to force hospitalized mothers to breastfeed their infants? Bloom-turd!

Who wants to prevent New Yorkers from smoking in their own homes? Bloom-turd!

Who banned food donations to city homeless shelters? Bloom-turd!

Who doesn't give a flying feather about homelessness in his own city?

This mother-feather. Right. Over. Here. Mr. Michael. Bloom. Turd!

No offense to actual turds!

Second-Grader Suspended For "Pop Tart" Gun

First, you hear about a kindergartner getting suspended for playing with a pink soap bubble gun, and you think to yourself, "How can it get any worse than that?"

Then, you hear about the fifth-grader getting suspended for playing with a torn piece of paper like a toy gun.

"Okay, that was pretty smegging stupid," you say, "but it can't get any dumber than that. What could possibly be dumber than that?!"

Well, just recently, a second-grader was suspended for shaping a "pop tart" into a gun and playing with it.

Oh yes, those toaster pastries may look innocent enough, but they can be lethal weapons, especially with their hot fruit-flavored fillings. Some poor kid could end up mildly-scolding their tongue!

But we can rest assured that, despite the stupid reason for this suspension, things cannot get any dumber than this.

It's not like a student was suspended for making gun gestures with their fingers and shouting "Pew! Pew!"

Wait! That actually happened?! Son of a...

With such incompetent school administrators in charge of our public schools, is it any wonder why more and more parents are losing faith in them to teach their children?

Chicago Proposes Energy Drink Ban

Chicago is proposing a ban on energy drinks after a teenage girl died after allegedly drinking 48 ounces of Monster.

We've all heard this story before: some dimbulb ends up harming and/or killing himself with a product, so the benevolent nanny state decides to ban said product in order to prevent others from harming and/or killing themselves with it.

We can only hope that these Chicago nannies will at least find sufficient evidence that energy drinks caused the girl's death before banning them. It's not like they would ban something without evidence that it's harmful, right?
In 2011, Fournier was 14 years old. She is believed to have had two Monster energy drinks over two days just before she was rushed to the hospital. She died several days later.

Fournier had a heart condition, and Monster says her death was due to pre-existing conditions. Monster hired doctors to review the autopsy and Fournier's health.

"The physician examining Ms. Fournier's medical record said they found absolutely no connection between Ms. Fournier'salleged consumption of a Monster energy drink and her unfortunate passing," Callahan said.

Fournier died in Maryland. The coroner's opinion reads in part, Fournier "died of cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity."

The attorney representing Fournier's family has filed a lawsuit against Monster. He says Fournier's heart condition was mild and doctors never warned her to stay away from caffeine.

"They got billions of dollars to hire the best PR people on the planet," said attorney Kevin Goldberg in a telephone interview. "They are once again trying to mislead the public and avoid accountability instead of focusing on its failure to warn consumers about the dangers associated with this product."

The autopsy report also shows that a blood test for caffeine was never performed at the hospital.
Never mind. Since when has the state ever needed evidence to enact its draconian policies?

And that's the thing: there is no evidence that energy drinks are harmful. Despite their high-caffeine levels, energy drinks are safe to drink provided they are consumed sparingly. They only pose a health hazard if too much of them are consumed or if they are consumed with alcohol or other narcotics--which has been the case with most deaths involving energy drinks.

But like I said, since when has the state ever required evidence for its actions?

Monday, March 4, 2013

4chan Nails Sequestration (And U.S. Politics In General)

You know your country is royally smegged up when the trolls of 4Chan have a better understanding of politics and current events than does its politicians or mainstream media:

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Top 5 Reasons To Legalize Weed

As much as I disagree with the Amazing Atheist on theological issues and most political issues, I have to admit that he's right on with most other issues such as the War on Drugs.

Here are his five reasons why marijuana should be legal (though to be fair, they can apply to all other illegal drugs as well):

1. The War on Drugs is prohibitively expensive.
2. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
3. Public opinion has never been better to facilitate national legalization.
4. We could generate a new source of tax revenue.
5. The War on Drugs has caused more human suffering than it has alleviated.

Obama's Private Black Army?

There are plenty of reasonable objections to make against Barack Obama.

Claiming that he's setting a dangerous legal precedent by allowing American citizens to be targeted for assassination without the slightest shred of evidence is one of them.

Claiming that's he's raising a private black army in order to instigate a race war and wipe out "white America" is not.
Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt appeared Tuesday on the Talk to Solomon Show alongside conservative blogger Greg W. Howard, of Twittergate fame, for another chance to spew anti-Obama conspiracy theories.

Pratt predicted that President Obama may begin confiscating guns in order to provoke a violent response to justify further oppression, which host Stan Solomon feared would lead to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people.

Solomon: I believe they will put together a racial force to go against an opposite race resistance, basically a black force to go against a white resistance, and then they will claim anyone resisting the black force they are doing it because they are racist.

Pratt: You may be right because he has been sowing the seeds of racial hatred. We were healing quite well as a nation on racial issues until Obama came along and now we have a lot of racial discord.
I really cannot stand conspiritards like this. They only perpetuate the notion that people oppose Obama simply because he's black. While critics like myself try to back up our critiques of Obama with fact, others simply pull their crackpot notions about race wars and government-manufactured superstorms straight out of their plots.

But I'll give Solomon here some credit: at least he admits that his racial-charged conspiracy theory is only his opinion "not based on fact." So at least he's honest about being a paranoid idiot. I wish Alex Jones was that honest!

"A Bullet A Day Keeps the Infidel Away"

So exclaims a two-page magazine spread featured in a publication by the "Religion of Peace."

The spread, which features pastor Terry Jones getting shot in the head, along with a hit-list of those "Wanted: Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam," is featured in the most recent edition of the Al-Qaeda magazine Inspire.

Yeah, al-Qaeda has a magazine. I know! Weird, right?

You have to admire the unintentional paradox of exclaiming "a bullet a day keeps the infidel away" while wishing "peace be upon" the prophet Mohammad.

With obvious calls to violence like this, can we quite with the false equivalency between the "Christian Taliban" and the real Taliban? Radical Christians are not as dangerous as radical Muslims. "Radical" Christians tell you you're going to hell. Radical Muslims will send you there!

Next time you hear a cultural relativist claim that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are the same, show them this spread, and demand that they show a similar example from a fundamentalist Christian. (And no, Sarah Palin's target map does not count. It's not even comparable!)

Saturday, March 2, 2013

NYT Confirms "Equestria Girls" Spinoff

When I learned that MLP:FiM was getting a spin-off series called "Equestria Girls," in which the ponies are turned into human high school teenyboppers, I prayed to God Almighty that this was fake, that it was only a cruel, sadistic practical joke by Hasbro.

Well, the New York Times released an article confirming my prayers, and sadly, it's not the confirmation I wanted.

The article confirms that the spinoff series is going to be released this fall to celebrate My Little Pony's 30th anniversary. (The only thing worse than forgetting your significant other's anniversary is giving them a crappy present for it!)

If the NYT publishes it, then it has to be true.

So it's official: our favorite cartoon ponies who fight dragons and hydras, perform sonic rainbooms, and saved their kingdom from a changling invasion, are going to be transformed into teenyboppers who study for midterms, hang out at the mall, and flirt with boys.

The article also featured this promotional image, and if you thought the previous one was horrendous, you'll consider this one "horribifuckus":

If the premise of the spinoff is that the ponies are sent to our world, then I'm sure they'll blend in inconspicuously enough with their pastel-colored skin, pony ears, tails, and wings!

What I find especially ironic is how so many fans threatened to leave the series because of Twilight Sparkle becoming an alicorn. I'm sorry. That's stupid! There are worse things to happen to a series that would warrant such abandonment--like this abomination! Of all the things that could happen, this is The. Worst. Possible. Thing.

Now if you excuse me, I've got to take the occasional break to look at myself in the mirror and cry!