This just in! Michael Moore is a moron! Oh, and a communist too.

Michael Moore has recently premiered a new movie. You may recognize the name. He has been made famous for such works as “Fahrenheit 9/11” (Tells how Dubya & Co. used the vicious terrorist attacks on New York that killed thousands as justification for hunting down and killing terrorists) and “Sicko” (Details why Private Health care in America sucks while Fidel Castro has the best system EVAH!). These movies are on my list of things that I “Must do”, right under “Poke self in eye with stick”. Also known as the exploding fat guy with chili dogs from “Team America: World Police”.

This new movie is entitled “Capitalism: A Love Story”. It premiered in a Venice film festival on September 6th. It walked away from said festival with two awards. Which awards, you ask? Great question!

So anyway…

From the Reuter’s article:
“Blending his trademark humor with tragic individual stories, archive footage and publicity stunts, the 55-year-old launches an all out attack on the capitalist system, arguing that it benefits the rich and condemns millions to poverty.

‘Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil,’ the two-hour movie concludes.”

Fun Fact: Evil Capitalism is the financial philosophy that has given us life spans of 70+ years, a TV in nearly every home, an automobile in every driveway, and made it possible to become annoyed if your communication across the planet takes longer than 5 seconds.

Fun Fact: Communism is the system that gave us…Great spy movie villains. And…Vodka! Don’t forget gulags. Everyone loves a good gulag.

"You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy."

Democracy: A system of government which involves direct voting by citizens, popular in Ancient Greece. (As opposed to a Democratic Republic, popular in America, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, Australia, Poland…etc. It is kind of nit picking, since the vernacular uses Democracy and Democratic Republic interchangeably, but it’s my blog, so deal with it.)

Capitalism is not a system of government, and thus you cannot replace it with democracy. Communism, too, is not technically a system of government. However, since it is practically impossible to enforce such a philosophy through anything but a one party autocracy, it could be said to be merely a flavor of authoritarian government.

Reuters: “Moore even features priests who say capitalism is anti-Christian by failing to protect the poor.

‘Essentially we have a law which says gambling is illegal but we've allowed Wall Street to do this and they've played with people's money and taken it into these crazy areas of derivatives,’ Moore told an audience in Venice.”

Christ taught we should render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. We ought to be generous to our fellow man. Note He did not say the government ought to be generous with our money. I believe Christ would say that it falls on the Capitalist person to use his wealth for the common good.

Secondly, I’m sure Michael Moore’s next movie will show the footage where the Wall Street investors pulled out their pistols, pointed them at people’s heads, and forced them to give them money (You know, what our government does). What? They didn’t do that!? You mean people invested in something that was risky of their own free will, knowing full well that they might lose money doing it? Freaky.

From Michael Moore’s website: "It's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' and the 'love' refers to how the wealthy love their money, except this has a new twist: They not only love their money now, they love our money. And they want our money." – Michael Moore on The Jay Leno Show

Hey Mikey, newsflash: They’ve always loved your money. It’s called profit. You want their sevice/product, they provide it, and you give them money, which they love.
Roll this situation back to Adam and Eve’s grandkids. Let’s take Joe. Take is not much of a man’s man and can’t make a straight spear to save his life, but boy Joe can weave a find basket. Steve over there, he can churn out spears like there’s no tomorrow, but baskets, not so much. Joe trades Steve some outstanding baskets for some outstanding spears. Joe wins. Steve wins.

Fastforward this situation a bit. Perhaps Joe decides that he isn’t going to do anything but make baskets, because he can do it really well. He trades these baskets to others for things he needs, like food and clothing. He even gets other people to make baskets with him, and together they make the best darn baskets two chickens can buy! Whammo. That’s Capitalism, baby.

The problem everyone has with Capitalism is that it isn’t fair. Someone who is smarter, harder working, or just luckier than the next guy is going to do better. You will have those who succeed. You will have those that fail. Communism sounds so much nicer. Everyone works hard because it will help everyone else. No one goes without, and we all live in peace and harmony.

The problem is that humans are not like that. The reason Capitalism works and Communism fails is because Communism doesn’t take into account flawed humanity. Capitalism says that people are by nature greedy and selfish. They will work hard when it benefits them, because it benefits them. That hard work, in turn, will benefit everyone else. If you need proof of the flaws in humanity you need look no further than your local toddler. The untrained tot is naturally selfish, greedy, and unconcerned with anyone else’s needs, wants, or desires. That is the natural state of humanity.

Fortunately, I have good news for anyone who does want to see this movie. In order to remain consistent with his own convictions, Michael Moore will be making obscene profits at the box office giving this movie away for free! He’s also going to travel to all these premiers via private jets polluting the environment horse and buggies driven by the Amish. I’d go, but I have to find that darn stick first.

Obama’s Zombie Approval Rating: 4%!

Like the walking dead shambling at the necromancer’s call, so now has the Obama Approval rating risen from the grave to prey on the living. What’s the occasion, you ask? Some pressing matter of national urgency? Perhaps the spirit of St. Ronald miraculously possessed our POTUS and turned him into a small government capitalist? No, my friends. Nothing but the most weighty of national, nay, Galactic! matters would suffice to pull this corpse from death’s embrace. I am speaking, of course, of September 15th, 2009.

Obama to Kanye: You’re such a jackass. As you are no doubt aware Kanye West charged the stage during the VMA awards when Taylor Swift won. He proceeded to take the mic and proclaim that Biance (No, I didn’t have to google the spelling!…I just checked it after.) was the best artist EVAH and should have won instead. Later on when Biance was making her remarks on stage, in an outstanding display of grace and class, turned the mic over to Taylor Swift so that she could have her time in the spotlight. (Side note: Biance Approval Rating: 58%, up from yesterday’s “Biance? Isn’t she that singer? You know, the one with the song?”)

From the Politico: “ABC's Terry Moran set the Twitter-sphere all aflutter when he wrote [on Twitter]: ‘Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a “jackass” for his outburst at VMAs when Taylor Swift won. Now THAT’S presidential.’

"In the process of reporting on remarks by President Obama that were made during a CNBC interview, ABC News employees prematurely tweeted a portion of those remarks that turned out to be from an off-the-record portion of the interview. This was done before our editorial process had been completed. That was wrong. We apologize to the White House and CNBC and are taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again."
I want to go on the record right now and say Good on Ya, Mr. President. Kanye is a jackass and deserves to be called out on it. I appreciate a politician who can tell it like it is. More points would have been given if this had been on-the-record, and even more if you had called a special press conference to say it, because that would have been friggin’ hilarious.

So, Obama’s Undead Approval rating now stands at 4%! [Sure, I could instantly negate all this by taking into account certain other things. For example, the outlawing of private insurance attempt to make a public health care option. Or perhaps how he has completely thrown the Polish right under the Comrade Bus on the missile defense shield, and completely bent over to Russia while shouting “Take me now!”. I could, but I’m not going to because: 1) That would also negate the five minutes of careful research that went into this post, and 2) I don’t feel like it. So there.]

Gun Control with Ted Nugent

I have been asked to write a blog about my stance on gun control by a friend of mine who also happens to be a cop. I’ll relay an interesting anecdote from him in a moment, but first, let’s hear from someone who is even more passionate about gun rights than I am. That fellow’s name is Ted Nugent.

It is interesting to me that people always point only to the 2nd amendment as justification for owning guns. Of course, I do believe that the 2nd amendment does guarantee us just that, but Ted makes an excellent point right out of the gate. All beings, from mankind right down to the tiniest of organisms, understand and embrace their natural right to defend their own life. If their thought process is developed enough they also extend that right to envelope defending others that are close to them. No one has ever had to explain or justify to a monkey why, when attacked, it should, can, and will use every means available to defend itself. As in Ted’s example, if you attacked an imaginary man who was completely separated from any society, this man would require no justification or explanation for defending himself from you by whatever means he had at his disposal.

Those who disagree with the right to keep and bear arms for the private citizen often say that it is guns that allow for so much violence in society. They point to tragedies where gunmen wander through schools or stores and mow down innocents, then scream that guns need to be restricted. The argument falls short for a plethora of reasons.

First, examine the method by which we are supposed to restrict the ownership of guns. That method is by creating laws. If we just had another law to prevent murderer Bob from having a gun, then we wouldn’t have any problem. This argument requires that you forget that the murder, or robbery, or rape, or whatever other crime the person committed while using his gun, was also outlawed. A criminal is, by definition, a lawbreaker. Clearly, they will not be deterred simply because there is a law standing in their way. Their victims on the other hand are lawabiding citizens, who will be deterred from bearing arms if there is a law against it. In other words, the only people who you will disarm are the very people who won’t commit the crimes you are trying to prevent in the first place! By outlawing and restricting guns you are creating an environment where the lawbreakers have fire superiority over the common citizenry.

Second, their premise is that if you could channel Harry Potter and magic away every gun in America, presumably except those in the hands of law enforcement and military personnel, then violence would likewise diminish. This argument makes the supposition that human violence is linked to the tool, and not the fallen nature of humanity itself. If you read just a little history you will find that humans have been killing humans long before they had guns. In fact, they didn’t even need knives, though that made it a bit more efficient. Humans have been killing humans since they could pick up rocks and sticks. The problem is the violence of humanity, not the instrument of violence.

Third, since we do not have any Harry Potter wands, they assume that our omnipotent government can keep the guns away from those who aren’t supposed to have them. Remember, our government cannot stop half starved refugees from crossing into Florida in leaky rafts. How are they to stop a well funded black market of firearms? Even Britain, which is many times smaller than America, cannot close its borders to guns. If you don’t believe, simply Google “drive by shooting London” and see the evidence for yourself. How much more porous would our own, much more massive borders be?

Fourth, they blind themselves to the possibility of violence used for good. This goes beyond the scenarios of war and police actions. The private citizen, too, is capable of committing justified violence, even killing, without any malicious intent.

Take, for example, the anecdote of my cop friend. In our city robbers who are attempting to hold up convenience stores have noticed that if they simply pull a gun and demand money the clerk will often be able to press the silent alarm, resulting in the capture of the criminal. So, the criminals have adapted by pulling the gun, shooting the clerk in the stomach, and then demanding the money. The now incapacitated clerk has no choice but to comply. On a video my friend was shown this very thing happened. If guns were kept out of the hands of private citizens, then the story would end with the thief making off with the cash and the world would possibly be minus one convenience store clerk.

Fortunately this is not the case. In the back of the store was Joe Six-pack, presumably there to get his next case of Bud. Joe happened to be a concealed carrying his .45. Upon hearing the shot and demand for money, Joe pulled his weapon. He took cover behind one of the aisle dividers and shot the criminal. The criminal fired back. Joe took cover, ducked out again, and shot the criminal again. The gun battle ended with one dead robber, one wounded but living clerk, one victorious armed private citizen, and no crime being successfully committed. The only dead person at the end of the day was the criminal.

An entire other article could be made going into the origins and intent of the 2nd amendment itself. I believe that this, while useful and true, is wholly unnecessary. I have the right to defend myself, with a gun if I am able, against anyone who threatens me, my family, or any other person I choose to defend.

“If guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.”

”If you’re coming to take my guns, you better bring guns.”

And my personal favorite:

”Peace through superior firepower.”

Great news, comrades! “Green” czar is actually Red!

The internet has been all abuzz with the news that President Obama appointed a “special advisor on green job creation” (read, Czar #457) a Mr. Van Jones, back in mid-March. What makes this particular member of the Obama administration so gosh darn special? He’s a Communist! I don’t mean one of those skulking, behind closed doors socialists you find at Ivy league schools. I mean a straight hammer-and-sickle, “Workers of the World Unite!” Communist.

The internet has been buzzing about this for weeks, but Glenn Beck recently has done a series of bits on his show laying out some of the evidence to support this claim. I know some of my readers are convinced Glenn wears a tinfoil cap when he’s not on camera, but I urge you to listen anyway. If you like, you can mute everything Glenn says and just focus on the actual audio clips of Van Jones himself. They are telling enough without any commentary whatsoever. In fact, if you skip to the minute marks that I list, you won’t have to hear a single syllable of Beck.

Here’s the link to the first set of audio. Brace yourselves: We’re shooting back in time all the way to March of this year, prior to his appointment as the Green Jobs Czar. He says that it’s not about cleaning up our energy production. He states that you can’t take out the “dirty power generation in a system and just replace it with some clean stuff, put a solar panel on top of this system.” What horrible things would happen then?

(03:55)
“We don't deal with how we are consuming water, we don't deal with how
we're treating our other sister and other brothers' species, we don't deal with
toxins, we don't deal with the way we treat each other, if that's not a part of
this movement, let me tell you what you'll have. This is all you'll have. You'll
have solar powered bulldozers, solar powered buzz saws, and biofuel bombers and
we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the
engines and we'll still have a dead planet. This movement is deeper than a solar
panel, deeper than a solar panel. Don't stop there. Don't stop there. No, we're
going to change the whole system.”
(04:53)

Oh the humanity! Bio fueled bombers? Solar powered bulldozers!? Say it isn’t so! Clearly, Czar Van Jones believes that it isn’t about clean air and freedom from foreign oil. He believes it is the market system itself.

Before you listen to this next piece, I want you to remember the last time you oppressed an American Indian. The last time you, personally, beat down an American Indian and took his home. I’m not sure, I just can’t remember the last time I kicked an Indian off his land. I’m sure I must just be forgetting…After all, Czar VJ says that I “owe them a debt.”:

(08:57)“And our Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied
and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot
and windy, well, guess what, renewable energy. Guess what, solar industry.
Guess what, wind industry. They now own and control 80% of the renewable
energy resources. No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them
the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect
that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”(09:40)
(emphasis mine)

Fantastic! Our Advisor for the Creation of Green Jobs wants to punish the Renewable Energy Industry in order to make up with the Native Americans. I’m sure that won’t harm the growth of that industry in any way whatsoever.

On to part two, February 2009, in Berkeley California. A young lady asked future Czar VJ the following question (the audio is a little hard to make out):

(00:45) “Some people are saying that the policies to are advocating, that
businesses should make decisions based on society and not how the market
dictates, sounds somewhat Marxist.” (00:59)

Silly girl! How could she be so naïve, of course it’s Marxism! Listen on for his response:

(1:13)“How is that capitalism working for you? How is that capitalism working
for you? How is that capitalism working for you this year?” (1:33)

Strange. It almost sounds like he doesn’t think Capitalism is a good thing…Huh.
Well, that’s hardly an admission of guilt. Let’s move on.

(4:24)”In this stage of the struggle, and I'll only speak to this stage of the struggle, I'm the best friend capitalists ever had. Thank you very much.”(4:35)

The struggle? What struggle? I must be hallucinating…It looks like he’s talking about capitalism in the 3rd person, like capitalists would find it surprising that he would be their friend.

So what, so he’s a communist. It’s not like he wants to subvert the system that has made America the greatest nation on the planet. It’s not like he’s a revolutionary Communist, right?

(06:08)”we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be. We have to prepare ourselves. We can't just push the people. We can push for (inaudible), but the people --- it must be a dance, you know. We have to listen, listen, listen, listen. And then learn. And then colead, try to coauthor a different future with folks. And we have to assume that's going to take a long time, but sometimes what should have taken another 20 years, Barack Hussein Obama, can take a season.”(06:50)

(07:42)” And this won't --- we have to prepare for this to be a long process even though it probably won't be.”(07:48)

It’s time to face facts: Our President has appointed, as an advisor, a radical devout Communist, who believes not only in crippling business for the good of the environment. Not only believes in paying reparations to every Tom, Dick, and Charley who our Great-Great-Grandfathers wronged 150 years ago. Not only believes Capitalism, the system which has transformed the world from a place where communicating from one town to the next took days to a world where you get irritated if communicating clear across the plant takes more than a few seconds, is something to be mocked and ridiculed. He wants to quietly, carefully, co-lead and co-author a different future!

Why on Earth would our President want such a man as an advisor on the Proper Assembly of PB&J sandwiches (PB first, then scrape the knife, then jelly, by the way), much less the Green Jobs Czar? I’m not going to say the answer to that question. I believe the answer is obvious, and doesn’t need to be spoken aloud.

New York City

I recently returned from a short trip into the Big Apple, New York City. My self-avowed socialist friend of mine was moving and my wife and I offered to help out. To give some background for those who don’t know me well I’ve lived in central Virginia my whole life, aside from a couple months for birth in Baltimore, and a couple years that the military had me elsewhere. I have visited DC and Baltimore, briefly, and had the privilege of visiting Doha, Qatar, once. Nothing prepared me for NYC. Following are my observations.

Apparently people up north don’t pay taxes for roads. That’s the only explanation I could find, since every road I drove on seemed to have an exorbitant toll. The New Jersey Turnpike even had you pay by the mile, but the mystic code that the payments were based on remains completely beyond me.

Once we got into the city our GPS told us to take a few tunnels and plow through Manhatten. Fortunately it was a Saturday, but it still took us an hour to get over to Queens even starting uptown. Here I made another observation: You can’t see the sky. It’s like it doesn’t exist. You look up and all you see is buildings towering. When pedestrians cross the streets they took up the ENTIRE CROSSWALK. It was like a scene from a zombie movie.

Queens itself looked a lot like smaller cities, except with tons more people. It actually seemed quite pleasant, during the day, as crowds go. The natives, whether from Queens or otherwise, seemed to share a natural aversion to manners. It bordered on the bizarre. I am used to meeting people who are rude themselves. What I am not used to is the corner prophet getting fewer weird looks for shouting “REPENT!” than I do for saying “Good morning” when I, alone, pass another lone walker on the sidewalk.

Public transit in the city was relatively well organized, considering that everything up north is union ran and government funded. The prices were outrageous, but at least everything ran smoothly and on time. I would feel chained with no vehicle of my own, but I can see why people in large cities often opt not to own one.

After the grueling drive and moving all the things inside, and a short trip to the Ikea store, we spent the wee hours of the night walking to Times Square. The only word I can find to describe Times Square at night is: Insane. Utterly and completely insane. The buildings move and light up the night with their billboards. I have never seen so many people in one place. A veritable sea of humanity! After shouting down an imbecile who was too free with his tongue we stopped to eat. Another thing I’ll give NYC: They have good food everywhere. No sooner did we step out of the pizza place than we ran right into a desert shop, and the baklava was fantastic.

The next morning we rose early to go see the one thing I wanted to see more than anything else in the city. We took the subway from Queen’s to Staten Island. From there we purchased our overpriced tickets to board a ferry, bound for Liberty Island. Say what you will, seeing the Statue of Liberty is not a New York experience. It is an American experience. The emotion of it still brings tears to my eyes even as I type this, days later. Words like majestic and beautiful fall terribly short of describing the event. I can’t begin to imagine what it must have felt for the countless of immigrants who saw this as their first piece of America.

As I gazed upon her I wondered, how is it that there are Americans who are unaffected by this? How can there be those who live as citizens in the US, and yet hate her so violently? How do their minds work, that they can see this great nation, symbolized in that statue, as the source of the world’s woes?

From my New York experience, I’ve decided that it is a cool place to visit, but I most certainly am blessed to live south of the Mason-Dixon line.

From my American experience I have never been more certain that this is a country worth defending. We have been, and I hope will continue to be, the beacon of hope and freedom in a desolate world.

Lord Specter mingles with the peasants

My source for the following is Hotair.com. Check the article here. There isn’t a whole lot to say about it that Ed Morissey didn’t already say, but as usual, I won’t let that stop me!

Encouraging news from the town square, my friends! It doth seem that the noble Lord Specter of Pennsylvania chose to grace his adoring constituents subjects with his presence in a “Towne Hall” meeting yesterday. Things went rather smoothly until one of the serfs got uppity. Apparently he was under the impression that he had the “right” to ask questions of Lord Specter! His Grace was kind enough to allow the peasant his question, but fortunately only the one commoner got to speak.

Just in case this might have worried the common folk, Lord Specter reminded them of their position.

SPECTER: I’m encouraging constitutional rights. I’m encouraging
constitutional rights by coming to Lebanon to talk to my constituents. I
could be somewhere else. I don’t get any extra pay — I don’t have any
requirement to be here. But for somebody –

To which the crowd replied:

CROWD: [Angry murmuring] You work for us! You report to us!
SPECTER: Okay, okay, number — well, I am reporting to you …

Shocking! With the way they dare question the political autocracy, you’d think these idiots lived in a democratic republic, governed by a Constitution that begins with the word “We the people” or something.

Corporal Punishment

The set up: I recently sent my wife an interesting article on the Biblical justification for spanking. She posted it on Facebook. A family member of mine responded, saying more than once that all spanking is abuse and ought to be outlawed. The following is my response.

You say that all corporal punishment is abuse, and therefore ought to be outlawed. While you’ve already seen a strong Biblical argument for the practice, here are some completely secular arguments for why you are wrong to make such a broad statement.

If we look at Webster’s definition of abuse (a verb, in this context), the applicable meaning is “to use so as to injure or damage: Maltreat”. It can also mean to “attack with words” (aka verbal abuse), and to use something excessively. Clearly one condition of abuse is the infliction of damage upon the victim, physical or mental. I take it this is your justification for your position. There is more to the story, however.

Another condition presents itself if we look into the connotation of the word. Taking a glance at the thesaurus, words that are listed as “related” include: violate, torture, persecute, torment, and others. The antonyms (or opposites) include: cherish, nurture, coddle, and favor. Something most of these words have in common is intent.

Simply causing damage is not enough. For example, if I am to administer CPR to a person I will most likely break many of their ribs. If we take your condition of abuse, then I am guilty of a crime and ought to be jailed. If the second condition is taken into account, however, we can see that my actions, while they did damage the person physically, were intended to aid them, and therefore do not qualify.

Let’s bring this all back to corporal punishment. The questions are: Does it harm the child (a very different thing from simply hurting them), and what is the intent behind it.
We will start by accepting that anyone who were to beat a child (or anyone else, for that matter) with the intent of causing damage and hurting them is abusing them and deserves to be punished.

For the majority of parents this is not the case. When I spank my daughters, I do so because they have misbehaved. The intent is not to cause pain, per se. The intent is to teach them that what they did was wrong, to prevent wrong actions in the future, and to instill in them discipline and virtue. The pain is merely a tool towards that end.

Secondly, when properly administered, there is no lasting physical harm. Depending on the child bruises may or may not form. Some people bruise more easily than others. Any and all such bruises fade quickly, however, and there is no lasting damage done. There could be more of an argument made for the mental repercussions. Even here, though, the argument falls short. Any and every form of discipline will “damage” the child mentally. Even the tame “time out” method is intended to cause social stigma and isolation.

In conclusion: Abuse requires both physical harm and ill intent. While corporal punishment can satisfy these conditions, it does not necessarily satisfy them. Properly administered, it satisfies neither.

Let’s take our discussion one step further: What of not disciplining a child at all, enough, or consistently? Here we see one of the most insidious and prevalent forms of child abuse. It satisfies both conditions.

Firstly, harm. The purpose of parenting is to train children up to be well adjusted functioning members of society. To do this you must instill certain qualities, among them discipline and integrity. Children do not possess these virtues out of the womb. They are, by nature, unruly, dishonest, and self centered. Show me the child who was well behaved and courteous from birth, and I will show you the baby Jesus. Aside from Him, it has never happened in the history of humankind. Anyone else who possesses these qualities learned them from somewhere. Being self centered, unless corrected, the child will act in a way that pleases itself. They are only convinced to act otherwise when doing so causes an unpleasant event. Whether that event be a spanking, a time out, the loss of privilege, or something else is irrelevant.

By not doing what is necessary to give the child the values it requires to succeed in life, the lazy parent has caused permanent and lasting harm to the child’s potential.

It should be noted that positive reinforcement also plays a role. I challenge you to take a toddler who routinely spits at their mother, or hits other children, and simply wait for him to do the right thing so you can praise him. Then take another toddler, and when he hits his fellow playmate, spank him. Then praise him when he doesn’t do it next time. Anecdotally it is obvious that you need both the carrot and the stick.

What of intent? Surely the parent who doesn’t discipline their child only wants them to be happy. Wrong, wrong, a thousand times wrong! The reason parents do not discipline their children is simple, and takes only three words: They are lazy.

Disciplining is tough. It is tiring. It is unpleasant. It is far easier to simply give them what they want, or carry them all day, or spoil them. It is far easier not to do the tough thing, and to discipline your children. The easy way is often the wrong way, and such is the case here. If a parent loves their child, and wants the best for them, they will put aside their own wants and do what is right for them, even when such actions are not pleasant. The parent who does not love their child will take the easy way out. The results can be seen in the behavior of their children.

In conclusion: A lack of discipline prevents children from growing into productive adults, and harms them permanently. It also displays a supreme laziness on behalf of parents. Discipline is an act of love.

If my words have offended anyone, then I regret the offense, but not the position I take. I will continue to discipline my children the way that I see fit, because I love them. Should the most effective forms of discipline become outlawed, then I suppose I should become criminal, because I love my children too much to stop.

The Demise of America

September, 2011. In the face of increased economic stress, the government reacts to save a "failing" market. Increasing intervention in the form of bailouts and regulations cause the American market to be dominated by the public sector. Taxes skyrocket as the Federal government desperately attempts to pay for it's massive buyout of private enterprise. Meanwhile, the drug riddled government of Mexico topples, plunging our nearest neighbour into chaos. As refugees swarm over the border China reads the writing on the wall and dumps the US debt it has in exchange for gold. Left with nowhere to turn the Federal government tightens its grip further, prompting many states to secede from the Union. The Second American Revolution has begun, and chaos reigns supreme.

Science fiction, or (future) historical fact? You decide at Slate.com's "How is America going to end" series. Pick your top five disasters and see the results. They can be mundane. China takes over as superpower or overpopulation. They can be slightly less mundane. Russia hits the button, or smallpox. You can even go way out on a limb and go with an alien invasion.

My picks (as I described at the beginning of this blog):

1. Nationalized industries
2. Tax revolts
3. China unloads US treasuries
4. Mexico fails
5. State sovereignty movements

Once you've picked your fatal five peruse their predictions. They cover four of the "most likely" possibilities and causes, from secession to global warming. It's tough to agree with everything they spout out as fact (The world is going to go up in a ball of fire! We're all doomed!), but keep in my they are predicting the future, which is by nature a little crazy. Personally, of their four, I see the "collapse" and the "global conquest" scenarios as the most likely.

Obama claims stimulus pork free?

Yesterday I was riding along in my gas guzzling pickup truck, content and happy in the knowledge I was destroying the environment for future generations. While I contemplated various evil, capitalistic thoughts, I heard the following quote from the Leader of the Free World, while at a town hall meeting in Raleigh, NC:

“Less than one month after taking office we enacted the most sweeping economic recovery package in history. And by the way, we did so -- (applause) -- we did so without any earmarks or wasteful pork barrel projects, pet projects, that we've become accustomed to. Not one was in there.”

A few things happened at the moment I heard this. My head exploded, my jaw dropped, and my brain went into instant lockdown. No thought was permitted as I carefully repeated in my mind what the President had just stated. Then, like a small frightened child, one lone thought entered my brain: “Did he just say…What I think he said?” I couldn’t believe it. We are all used to politicians lying to us. The right, the left, the center; they do it all the time. What I am not used to is a politician being so bold about it.

It was later that I realized the malfunction. Normally, in a bill, you’ve got the beefy portion of the bill that does what the bill is supposed to do. Attached to it you’ve got the pork, extraneous projects designed to benefit constituents. The reason he isn’t seeing the pork in this bill is because there is so much, it blends in! What we have here is a case of chameleon pork, or porkeleon spending.

The GOP leaders published this list of projects they are dubbing pork. Some of it can be debated. Let’s pull a few highlights though:

• $75 M for “smoking cessation activities”
• $25 M for tribal alchohol and substance abuse reduction
• $1,200 M for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs
• $100 M for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

Golly, I was worried about that recession, but now I can rest safe and secure in the knowledge that there will be no more Indian Whiskey and Weed nights at the reservation. Summer camp for kids, now that’s economic stimulus!

This is all to say absolutely nothing of the massive chunks of the bill that are “discretionary”, which have yet to be decided. These portions will be given out to various localities to spend, and the usefulness of those monies will depend entirely on the goodwill of the local politicians.

CBO, now with Chuck Norris deadliness!

I’m not quite sure when the transformation took place. Were they there all along? Did they just get hired? Did they experience a sudden uptick in their consumption of Holy Ambrosia (AKA Dr. Pepper)? Regardless of the cause, the end result is the same: The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) is officially a BAMFs. They recently delivered a Chuck Norris strength roundhouse kick to the collective face of the Galactic Healthcare bill, and by extension, President Obama.

I took it upon myself to read the 18 page report published by the CBO. As you can imagine, it is about as thrilling a read as the instruction manual to your toaster. Fortunately, I also found this analysis by Keith Hennessy, which is a much easier read.

I’ll start with my impressions from the toaster manual. They begin tamely, by analyzing the effect on private coverage. It starts to really heat up around page 12. Check out these bullet point impacts on the labor market (Emphasis mine):

• Requiring employers to offer health insurance – or pay a fee if they do not – would be likely to reduce employment, though the effect would probably be small.
• Providing new subsidies for health insurance that decline in value as a person’s income rises could discourage some people from working more hours.

The first one is pretty self explanatory. Higher cost of employment = Less employment! The following paragraph states that this would be an “8% increase in the cost of hiring a worker making the minimum wage”. That’s right. All those poor working mothers we’re supposed to feel sorry for are hereby getting the shaft. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

The second one is clearly bad, but how bad? It functions off a principle they call the “implicit tax”. Basically, the subsidies you get for working decrease the more you make. The withdrawal of those benefits increase your costs, effectively “taxing” you the difference. How much is this implicit tax? Roughly 20%, they say. This means that every extra hour you work is effectively “taxed” at an additional 20% rate, because that same hour is causing you to lose healthcare benefits.

Of course our friends at the CBO save the best for last: Budget deficits! This is where Keith Hennessy focuses his article. Rather than throwing numbers at you, here’s a handy graph so you can see it all at once.


From the blog: “The House bill raises $87 B of taxes in 2019, compared to the $151 B net spending increase in that year. The area between the light blue and yellow lines is the deficit impact. Up to 2013, the bill collects more in taxes than it spends, so the bill actually reduces budget deficits in the early years. After 2013, the light blue net spending line is above the yellow tax line, so the bill adds to the deficit. In 2019, the bill increases the deficit by $151 B – $87 B = $64 B. The net of the deficit-reducing and deficit-increasing areas is the $239 B deficit increase over 10 years from the first table above. Again, all of these are CBO and Joint Tax Committee numbers.

Now we turn to the long run, relying on that key CBO paragraph. Here are the key numbers:
The net cost of the coverage provisions would be growing at a rate of more than 8 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; we would anticipate a similar trend in the subsequent decade. … Revenue from the surcharge on high-income individuals would be growing at about 5 percent per year in nominal terms between 2017 and 2019; that component would continue to grow at a slower rate than the cost of the coverage expansion in the following decade.”

What happens when your spending grows faster than your revenue? You get this:

Did you hear that sound? That’s the sound of the CBO curb stomping the Obamacare plan. Of course, there is a simple solution to the entire problem. We can just tax the rich into oblivion! They won’t mind, they’re evil anyway. They certainly would never see such taxes as an incentive to leave America and do business elsewhere.

The plan was terrible because it attacked your liberty. The plan was horrible because it expanded government. Now the plan can be shown to be ridiculously expensive. Think on that, and then ponder this: We were told by our Commander-in-Chief that the plan you saw above had to be passed by August. Be warned if it is tried again: You will need this knowledge to defend your liberty from an ever growing power hungry Federal government, hell bent on mortgaging our futures.

Returning from hiatus

Almost a month ago I noticed that people were reading my blog. Suddenly I had people come up to me, asking questions about my latest position or rant, as if it were normal and natural.

Strange, I know. I'm not quite sure how this happened. Regardless of the cause, I had a solution. I said to myself, "Self?" "Yes?" I answered. "How about we go on a completely unannounced and unplanned hiatus, not post anything at all for almost a month, then come back like nothing happened?" Yep, that oughta do it.

So, here I am again. In all seriousness, I did not plan to be away this long. Life got the better of me for a while. Fear not, eager reader (and Fluffy the imaginary monkey, of course), for I am returned. I will likely not be as active as I once was, but I will endeavour to provide the same mediocre quality of opinions and comments as always! We aim to please, here at Just Another Capitalist.

Comparisons: Pirates vs. Ninjas

Comparison debates are made every day. Socialism vs. Capitalism. Christianity vs. Islam. Ford vs. Chevy. But there is one issue that outstrips them all, and that is what we will examine today.

Pirates vs. Ninjas

Swashbuckling buccaneers, or black clad warriors? To start with you may want to examine this excellent source, which compares the two in a very unbiased manner.

The rules:

1. We aren't debating which you'd rather be, or who is cooler. We are comparing sheer awesome deadliness. We will try to replicate the conditions that such an epic showdown would occur.
2. As in the source above, ninjas get no extra-dimensional magic tricks.
3. Also as in above, pirates aren't crazy supernatural and/or undead pirates. The term "pirate" in this debate is nearly always meant to refer to European/Caribbean pirates, a la Blackbeard. That is what we will be using here.

Item #1: Terrain

With any conflict, terrain is important. It goes without saying that pirates have a significant advantage when at sea thanks to their profession. Ninjas, on the other hand, would have the advantage on land for the same reason. The slideshow points out that water covers 3/4 of the earth's surface, giving the pirate a sheer surface area advantage. However, 99.99% of humanity (everyone except sailors and pirates) live almost exclusively on the land. Even pirates frequent coastal towns to rape/pillage/gather supplies/get drunk. For this reason any conflict would most likely happen there, giving the ninja the upper hand.

Item #2: Armament

The pirate had a wide array of weapons at his disposal. From militaryhistory.com:

• While the pirate had access to muskets and crossbows, they "prized the pistol above all other weapons." This was a short range weapon that could fire one large ball, or several small ones like a shotgun. It was single shot, so many pirates (for example, Blackbeard) carried multiple pistols. Their range was "an effective range of only 3 or 4 yards". Because deck boarding was a crowded melee, accuracy was not a concern.
• "The most popular pirate sword was the cutlass, a crude, heavy, single-edged sword that was typically about two feet long. Although somewhat clumsy, this sword was easily wielded during a crowded battle, and relatively cheap." Here we can see they go for quantity, rather than quality. Once again, designed to be used in a crowded melee brawl.
• The pirate ship was a weapon as well. Unfortunately for the buccaneer, since this fight is occurring in a port town, the cannons aren't of any use.

The Ninja, too, had an assortment of tools. His gear goes beyond simple combat implements. Source: The Ninjutsu Society

• "Ninja Tou: This was a sword with a plain square tsuba (guard). Like all the weapons of the ninja, this had more uses than simply attacking the enemy." The scabbard was longer than necessary for the weapon, allowing it to conceal powders, poisons, documents, shurikens, etc. It could also be used as a step to get to hard to reach places. They were not as high quality as the samurai katana, and so the ninjas practiced using their entire body momentum to generate killing force with their slightly curved blade. It deserves to be pointed out that the katana is widely regarded as one of the finest blades ever crafted, so even a lesser blade crafted by legendary Japanese smiths would be formidable.
• A plethora of other melee weapons are commonly used by ninjas, depending on the situation. These can include:

1. Bo staff, known for it's defensive capabilities (A ninja armed with a bo could keep as many as 5 men armed with swords at bay)
2. Kusarigama (or sickle with weighted chain) that could be used for climbing or slashing in combat
3. Jutte, which could be used to capture an evaded blade
4. Yari or Naginta (long spear and halberd like spear respectively).
5. Shuko/Ashiko, claws worn on the hands and feet that could be used to aid in climbing. They were also raking weapons and could even be used to capture swords.
6. Kusarifundo (chain-weight) was a short chain with weights attached to each end.. It was swung to achieve great momentum and then aimed to strike with the very end of the weight for maximum impact.
7. Shurikens, which can refer to any thrown weapon. They range from disks with 3-8 blades to sliver-like lengths of metal that were used like throwing knives, poisoned or not. Ninjas typically carried 9 shurikens, as the number 9 was believed to be lucky.
8. Miscellaneous other tools, including: Sight obscuring powder, caltrops (barbed metals that were scattered on the ground to discourage pursuit), bows with poisoned arrows, and others.

Item #3: Training & tactics

Pirates came from every walk of life. They depended on their abilities as seamen to sail, and lifetimes of practice would make them very competent sailors. In battle, however, it was somewhat different. Formal training was unlikely, but practice and experience were not. (Source) The usual prey of a pirate ship would be a lightly armed merchant vessel. If ever approached by a foe that appeared to be close in strength or weaponry they would run rather than fight. They would rely first on intimidation to have the crew surrender, so that the booty could be taken with no fight. Should this prove unsuccessful, brute force and superior numbers were typically used. They were renowned for taking no prisoners in this situation, likely to prevent fights in the future.

Ninjas, on the other hand, were typically either born into the ninja clan or were joined to it shortly after birth. The child would grow living, drinking, and breathing ninjutsu. Much like the Spartans before them, every facet of life was focused on training for the young assassins. The very nature of the ninja makes their histories difficult to discern. What is clear, though, is that the ninja's life was Ninjutsu. The ninja prefers to fight from the shadows, striking and then vanishing, rather than engaging the enemy forthright.

Item #4: Numbers

In the most likely, coastal town, scenario the pirates would be on shore leave. Drinking, carousing, raping, pillaging, etc. It is doubtful the entire crew would be massed at one place, but it is equally unlikely that any pirate would be alone. As a pirate sloop could carry around 75 people, we will say that twenty pirates, or a little more than a quarter of the crew, are travelling together. We will also give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are fully armed and equipped, and that it is a dry night (so their gunpowder will work.)

The ninja clans were entire collections of families and could consist of fifteen or more fully mastered ninjas, as well as numerous trainees of varying levels of skill. It is unlikely that the clan would send every ninja they had, even for a battle of this magnitude. Keeping with the same ratio, we will say the ninjas send about a quarter of their elite, or four master ninjas.

The conclusion

Finally, we arrive at the battle itself. Who will win?

Twenty pirates

Four ninjas.

I'm going to spoil the ending for you: The ninjas win. Here's why:

• The pirates don't know they're coming. Why? Because they are ninjas, stealth is what they do.
• Being in an ambush position, the ninjas will be able to set up at range with bows or shurikens. Traps and other devices could also be laid in the kill zone. In the opening volley of projectiles the ninjas can be expected to kill at least one person each (with poison and whatnot), not to mention various eye irritants and other chemical weapons they could employ.
• At this point, 20% of the pirates are dead or dying, and the rest are having a bad day. The ninjas could either employ more shurikens (they have 9, remember), or close to hand-to-hand.
• The pirates have their firearms. They are well suited to a confused melee, where there are enemies everywhere and accuracy is not an issue. In this case, however, numbers count against you as you are just as likely to hit a friend as a smaller, more agile foe.
• The pirates weapons are crude, their training minimal, and so the ninja will undoubtedly outdo them in hand to hand. Again, well suited for attacking a lightly armed merchant vessel. Not so much against heavily armed and expertly trained avatars of death.
• Morale will quickly become a factor. Having been ambushed, attacked with chemical weapons, and having experienced shocking up front casualties (For comparison, there was an 11% casualty rate on D-day), and with no treasure and/or rum likely to be gained by staying around, it is unlikely that the buccaneers would stand and fight. The ninjas on the other hand are devoted to their clan to the point of suicidal death and/or disfigurement.

Estimated casualties at end of battle: Pirates - 10+, ninjas - 0-1. Pirates flee the field.

Showdown: Cake vs. Pie

For centuries, mankind has been plagued with questions. What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? What is the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything? (That one is 42, obviously). Today we will take one of these ultimate questions and settle it, once and for all.

Cake vs. Pie

Let's start with definitions.

Pie:

From Webster's:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English
Date: 14th century
1: a meat dish baked with biscuit or pastry crust — compare potpie
2: a dessert consisting of a filling (as of fruit or custard) in a pastry shell or topped with pastry or both

Cake:

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse kaka; akin to Old High German kuocho cake
Date: 13th century
1 a: a breadlike food made from a dough or batter that is usually fried or baked in small flat shapes and is often unleavened b: a sweet baked food made from a dough or thick batter usually containing flour and sugar and often shortening, eggs, and a raising agent (as baking powder) c: a flattened usually round mass of food that is baked or fried
2 a: a block of compacted or congealed matter b: a hard or brittle layer or deposit

Versus

The largest difference between these two dishes is versatility. A cake, being tied down by its batter, is limited in possibilities. You can only fry and mix eggs and flour so many ways before you start repeating yourself. A cake is a cake, no matter how you slice it.

The pie, on the other hand, is nearly limitless. Starting on the outside, the crust can have many variations: Simple dough, gingerbread, oreo, graham, chocolate...The list goes on and on. The filling itself is even more varied. You want fruit? Try apples, cherries, or blackberries. In the mood for something more light? Meringues of every size and description. Cheese? Perhaps you should sample the cheesecake (which is clearly a pie, despite the name). Pies aren't even limited to deserts. Meat pies and pot pies bring it to the dinner table. It could even be argued that pizza is a form of pie.

Since every person has different tastes it is important to be able to appeal to the masses. Here, pie clearly wins hands down. [EDIT: It also deserves to be noted that the cake depends on a parasite, namely the icing, for it's appeal and flavor. Pies, on the other hand, rely on no one for their tasty goodness.]

Socially, cake does have one advantage. They have managed to corner the market on birthdays. After all, no one wants a birthday pie. That's great for the one day. The other 364 days of the year, you've got pies. In comedy, cream pies have been used for decades in routines throughout the world. And let's face it: When your dessert shares its name with "a block of compacted or congealed matter", it's hard to rally behind it. Bird's of a feather flock together, after all. Congealed matter anyone?

Politically, cakes have been used by dictators to suppress their people for centuries. Simply recall the popular phrase "let them eat cake", which (while its origins are murky) is a symbol of aristocracy. On the other hand, let's have another quote: As American as Apple _______. Fill in the blank, my friend.

In conclusion:

• Pie's are far more versatile
• Cakes only dominate for one day, or roughly .27% of the year
• Pies are popular for 99.73% of the year
• Pies are funny
• Cake=congealed matter & aristocracy
• Pies=Freedom and America.

Handy Haversack o' News (now with ninjas!)

Alright, so there aren't actually any ninjas. But there is news.

• Michael Moore (is it just me, or does he look like an extra from "Dawn of the Dead"?) has this to say about the new Government Motors: "I'm pretty excited to own a car company!" The reasons are clear and compelling. With the government at the wheel, we can ignore all those silly market forces and get to what's really important: Building green vehicles nobody wants. Finally!
• Confirmed: Media biased towards the left. Here's a nifty video that shows economic coverage of a recovering economy in 2003, vs. the tanking economy of 2009. Bonus points if you can figure out which one gets more negativity!
• Paranoid, or just safety minded? Bullet proof backpacks and toddler bio-hazard suits, these things are perfect for Father's day, provided your father is a right-wing extremist like me. Seriously though, who wouldn't want a flame thrower on their truck? No one I know.
• Retired state dept. employee arrested for spying. American Thinker has a very in depth, step by step article you can read here. Basically, the fella and his wifey are head over heels in love with Cuba and the socialist regime there, so they are recruited to spy for the island nation. I wonder...is hanging still allowed for treason?

Hah! Bet you didn't see that coming! That's the thing about ninjas, and why they are WAY more awesome than pirates.

Mediocre Experiment: Nazis, Cameras, and organs!

Normally I would've posted my legislation on the issues facing the Magic O, but due to a slight miscalculation the website processed my decisions almost immediately. You'll have to trust that I chose accurately. Here's the Reader's Digest version:

Issue #1: Nazi sympathizers propose rally
A) Ban due to hate speech
B) Allow, regardless of content.

I chose A.

Issue #2: Install cameras in public places to reduce crime.
A) Do not allow, invasion of privacy.
B) In public, people can see you! No privacy in public, install cameras.
C) Cameras clearly invade privacy, so let's have our citizens barcoded into a national database!

I chose C. The government can manage your needs that much easier, and crime will stop in it's tracks!

Issue #3: Compulsory organ donation
A) Enforce, the dead don't need organs.
B) My organs, my choice.

I chose A. Lower health care costs for everybody!

So, here's our weekly standings.

The Commonwealth of The Magic O
“YES WE CAN!”

Category: Democratic Socialists
Civil Rights:Some
Economy:Fragile
Political Freedoms:Some

The Commonwealth of The Magic O is a small, safe nation, notable for its burgeoning quacking tree frog population. Its compassionate population of 26 million are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

The government -- a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked, socially-minded morass -- juggles the competing demands of Religion & Spirituality, Healthcare, and the Environment. The average income tax rate is 44%, but much higher for the wealthy. A small private sector is led by the Soda Sales industry, followed by Basket Weaving and Door-to-door Insurance Sales.

The quacking tree frog is a protected species, it is illegal to make racist remarks in public, citizens are barcoded to keep track of their movements, and organ donation is compulsory. Crime is totally unknown. The Magic O's national animal is the quacking tree frog, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the dolla bill.

The Magic O is ranked 1897th in the region and 35,991st in the world for Largest Gambling Industries.

Dr. Tiller, abortion doctor, slain

On May 31st Dr. Tiller was shot on the foyer of his church. He was 67 and was most well known for his controversial abortion practices.

Normally when I write up my opinion on a story, for myself and Fluffy the monkey, there's some kind of grey area. It takes a little bit of thought and time along with a healthy dose of sarcasm. Here goes my analysis: Shooting an abortion doctor in the face is murder, and ought to be punished as such.

Well, that didn't take long.

Now I have a dilemma. You probably stumbled in here on your way to something more entertaining, and that one sentence of in depth analysis won't keep you here long. So, I've attached below my complete position on abortion itself. It was written as a letter to an inquisitive co-worker. Enjoy:

Many people believe me to be passionate about a lot of issues. Truly, this is the only one that really deserves the title. I believe that abortion is murder. Period. How could you not be passionate with a position like that?

A coworker of mine wanted to hear my reasons for being pro-life, so I wrote her the following paper. I figured I might as well post it for the rest of the world.

"I’m going to lay out the Abortion Argument as best I can, and give you my reasons for being pro-Life. First, some definitions:

What is an abortion? Webster’s defines it as: “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” It also states: “spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation — compare MISCARRIAGE” So, all miscarriages are abortions. Not all abortions are miscarriages. In the political sense, the term “abortion” is generally applied only to non-natural, intentional terminations of pregnancy. This is the definition I will be using.

What is pregnant? “Containing a developing embryo, fetus, or unborn offspring within the body”. Note: No exclusions are given based on the stage of pregnancy. If you are gestating a human that is yet unborn, you are pregnant. Thus, you are pregnant from conception to birth.

What is infanticide? Webster’s says it is simply “the killing of an infant.”

What is an infant? “A child in the first period of life”.

What is murder? “To kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice”. Obviously, if the law itself is in question, then we must disregard it (to prevent circular reasoning) and cut straight the latter half.

The definition of murder gives no leeway as to the age or position of person (though the unlawful clause excludes criminals). Therefore, if it is alive, human, and innocent, to kill it is murder, which is a universally accepted wrong. Since all infanticides are murder, and murder=wrong, infanticide must therefore also be wrong.

There are many different forms of abortion, depending on what stage the pregnancy is in when terminated. You can find a listing of many options at this site. They range from drugs to induce delivery early on, to surgical options, including sucking the fetus out. Another form of abortion, rarely performed, is the infamous partial birth abortion. This can be done during the third trimester, though it is more often done in the second. Here they induce labor and deliver the fetus until only the head remains in the womb. Scissors are then inserted to pierce the skull. The skull and tissue is then collapsed and it is then delivered the rest of the way and disposed of.

They all have one thing in common: They end the pregnancy of the mother, through the destruction of the fetus. Is this infanticide? Since the only qualification for murder is “life and humanity”, which in this case go hand in hand, the only real question is: When does life begin? After all, if something is not alive, then there is no moral value and the destruction of such a thing cannot be wrong.

There are very few who would support any sort of abortion post-birth. Once outside the womb, all children are considered human. But what about before that? To answer, we turn to science.

This site says: “A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Empirically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if it’s human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception.

Biologically, from the moment of conception this new human being is not a part of the mother’s body. Since when does a mother’s body have male genitals, two brains, and four kidneys? The preborn human being may be dependent upon the mother for nutrition, however, this does not diminish his or her humanity, but proves it. Moreover, dependence upon a parent for survival is not a capital crime.”

I’m not sure that I can be any more profound or eloquent than the experts, so I will leave their argument to speak for itself.

Moving on, common arguments for the pro-Choice stance.

1: It is a woman’s right what she does with her own body.

Yes, undeniably, it is her right. This argument makes the assumption, however, that the infant is simply another organ attached to the mother with nothing special to distinguish it. Yet, there are many differences. First, this “organ” very quickly has organs of its own. In fact, within the first month, the little ‘organ’ has a brain of its own which directs a heart of its own to beat to its own rhythm. Show me the kidney that can do that, and I will recant my position!

Also, a liver, stomach, or kidney will never, ever be anything else other than a liver, stomach, or kidney. They have one specific purpose which they fulfill without any other reason for being, and they will remain in the body indefinitely. The child, by contrast, is in the womb only temporarily and will eventually be birthed.

Finally, I firmly support a woman’s choice. That choice happened when she chose to have sex. The purpose of sex is to procreate. If a baby is conceived, that was what was supposed to happen. We do not murder out of convenience. (Note: Rape will be dealt with later.)

2: If abortion is murder, then so are periods and masturbation.

Again, the difference here is potential. An egg, on its own, will never be anything but an egg. A sperm, on its own, will never change. Fertilize the egg, however, and barring anything unfortunate, the new cell will divide and reproduce a brand new human.

3: It can’t be human before “x” day because it is not viable outside the womb. (Another variation of this argument claims that since the child is wholly dependent on the mother for survival, it is a parasite and not a human.)

This argument states basically that since the fetus cannot survive on its own, it is not human. In that case, abortions should be allowed at least up until age 2, and possibly much later. A newborn child, fresh out of the womb, will die if not cared for. A toddler is unable to find food and fend for itself in the world. According to this argument, we should be allowed to slay said children if they become inconvenient.

Likewise, this argument also lumps together anyone on life support (they cannot survive without it. They aren’t independently ‘viable’), including those who artificial hearts.

Obviously, viability cannot be used as a yardstick for life. If this were so, Aubrey, Alexis, and millions of others would be candidates for abortion.

4: I don’t agree with abortion personally, but I can’t dictate that to someone else.

Abortion is only wrong if it is the intentional slaying of a human. As outlined above, if the thing is not alive then there is no reason to be against it. If it is alive and human, and it is not guilty of some crime, then destroying it intentionally is murder. It is either A, or B. Wrong, or not. There is no middle ground allowed in this logical argument.

Thus, this argument says “I believe abortion is the intentional slaying of a defenseless child, but I can’t tell someone else they can’t do it.” This is obviously insanity.

5: What about when the mother’s life is in danger or the child will be born with some sort of defect?

First: Who defines defect? Today a defect is a horrible disease. Tomorrow? Missing a hand, a leg? Brown hair as opposed to blonde?

Second: Tests are not completely accurate in this regard. For example, my wife’s family’s youngest daughter, Kara, was supposed to be born with several deadly diseases and defects. She was going to die instantly, and if she somehow survived, her entire life would be full of pain. Today she is a healthy and very intelligent 6 year old girl.

Third: From EPM.org: “While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother.”

Last: Even if you allow that this circumstance could happen, ask yourself this: You are walking across a road, and next to you is a small child. Suddenly, you see a bus bearing down on the both of you. You only have time to jump out of the way yourself, or push the child to safety. Only one of you can survive. Who do you pick? The answer in a moral sense is obvious: You save the child. The answer is even more obvious if this child is your own.

The last question is the most controversial.

5: Abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

The argument contends that because the mother did not choose to have the child, she should not be forced to carry it to term. The pregnancy is seen as a punishment on the victim.

Rape is a very traumatic and tragic event. Sometimes, a child will be conceived out of this forced union. No one would wish further suffering on someone who had to go through something like this. If you choose to have an abortion, however, all you are doing is committing a crime yourself. In your hurt and distress, you are choosing to slay a completely innocent child whose only crime is being conceived. The child cannot be held responsible for who its parents were. Your right to choose was forcibly taken away, but if you abort, you are committing an even worse crime upon the child.

Perhaps the mother does not think she can raise the child because of where he came from. The truth is, though, that she doesn’t have to! There are literally thousands of parents who are waiting in line to be blessed with this baby. They will pay for every penny of expense, and you never even have to lay eyes upon the child if you do not wish to.

Rape is a crime. So is murder. As horrible as the crime committed upon the mother was, it does not make committing an even worse one upon another innocent excusable.

[Here I took out a very personal story related to this issue. It is relevant, but not appropriate to post to the world. If you want to know it, ask and you may receive.]

I’m sure you can tell that this is a very important issue to me. Of all the people on Earth, children are the ones most deserving of our care and protection. It is one of the greatest tragedies that our generation is seeing millions upon millions being murdered every year. They cannot speak for themselves. We must speak for them. I hope this helps.

Jordan"

GM is too big to fail. Newsflash: Failed anyway.

Remember all the shouts we heard way back when, how the US Auto makers were too big to fail? "They can't go bankrupt!" they screamed. "We must give them money to save jobs!" they pleaded. All would be well if Uncle Sam (a.k.a. You and me) just gave them a little bit of cash to see them through. Well, I for one am sure glad we listened. Boy, it would've been terrible if they had gone bankrupt and restructered into a leaner GM! I can admit when I was wrong, and here goes: You were right, Big Government. You were right, Super-CEO Obama. GM cannot be allowed to go bankrupt.

Whew. This just in: Government pushes GM into bankrupcy.

Wait, what?

General Government Motors will now have owners in the following percentages:

1. US Government: 60%
2. UAW (United Auto-Workers Union): 17.5%
3. Canadian Government: 12%
4. Bondholders: 10%

Ouch. Kinda sucks to be a private investor, huh? That's right, GM will now be 10% owned by private enterprise. Now that's just plain good old fashioned fascism socialism Capitalism!

HotAir did a good analysis of how much private investors were getting shafted. Read it here. In short: US government gets ownership for $834 million per percent of ownership. UAW: $629 million per percent of ownership. Private investors: $2.7 billion (with a B) per percent of ownership.

Ouch.

The Magic O Update

Thanks to recent action in our pet nation, The Commonwealth of the Magic O, we now have the following:

Category: Democratic Socialists
Civil Rights:Excellent
Economy:Developing
Political Freedoms:Very Good

The Commonwealth of The Magic O is a tiny, socially progressive nation, notable for its burgeoning quacking tree frog population. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 12 million are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

The government -- a sprawling, bureaucracy-choked, socially-minded morass -- is mainly concerned with Religion & Spirituality, although Education and Social Welfare are secondary priorities. The average income tax rate is 39%, but much higher for the wealthy. A small but healthy private sector is led by the Soda Sales industry, followed by Basket Weaving and Tourism.

The government is seen to favor Catholics, voting is compulsory, and tourists from around the world come to visit the country's famous rainforests. Crime is relatively low.

Three more issues now confront our intrepid leader:

1. A recent poll has revealed high levels of dissatisfaction among the populace about tax rates.

A) "Do you know how much of my year's work goes to the government?" demanded angry worker Bianca Longfellow. "Too much! Government spending has gotten way out of control. It needs big cuts in welfare, health, and education. But leave those subsidies to business alone. We need them to create jobs."

B) "It's not the AMOUNT of tax, it's where the burden falls," says student activist George W. Wu. "And at the moment, far too much of the burden is falling on the poor. People on high incomes still have more money than people on low incomes. I don't think I need to say anything more than that."

C) "I don't object to the amount of tax, I object to where it's being spent," says social reformer Anne-Marie Shiomi. "I'd like to see everyone have a choice as to where their dolla bills go every time they fill out a tax return. Everyone would feel a lot better about opening their wallets if they had a say as to where the money went. I think you'd see a lot more public money going to education and a lot less to business."

My choice: B, because we have to spread the wealth.

2. In a bid to provide a new revenue stream for The Magic O's Beef-Based Agriculture industry, it has been suggested that quacking tree frogs could be added to the menu.

A) "The fact is, the quacking tree frog population is out of control," says Beef-Based Agriculture spokesperson Bill Christmas. "We have to do something about them anyway, so why not market them as tasty snacks? We could have quacking tree frog kebabs, quacking tree frog pies, quacking tree frog-on-a-sticks--the possibilities are endless! Let's not pass up this golden opportunity to provide a feast, if you will, for our economy."

B)"I agree that something needs to be done about quacking tree frog over-population," says random passer-by Buy Thiesen, "but eating them? That's kind of gross. Let's just shoot the ones we have to and shovel their bodies into ditches like normal."

C)"I am shocked and appalled!" declared SPCA President Samuel du Pont. "If anyone needs to be culled, it's us humans. The quacking tree frogs were here first, remember? We need to take this as a sign to get our industry--agriculture in particular--to back off. The quacking tree frog is part of what makes The Magic O a great nation!"

My choice: C. Gotta save the planet from that evil industry.

3. Last night the respected tabloid TV show "60 Minutes" ran a report on The Magic O's rising divorce rate. What is happening to the nuclear family?

A) "There's a simple solution," says Pastor Felix, of the Catholic Church. "Divorce should be illegal. 'For better or worse,' anyone remember how that goes? We should return to the good old days, when you got married for life and stuck by your partner no matter how much of a drunken, abusive, adulterating disappointment they turned out to be."

B) John Black, author of the hit book, 'Men are from Mars, Women are from Some Whole Other Place,' has a simpler solution. "If couples would just call each other 'darling' once in a while, there would be far fewer relationship breakdowns. A little affection is all it takes. So the government should make it mandatory: call your spouse 'darling' at least once a day, or face a fine."

C) "There's a simple way to boost the marriage rate," says gay rights activist Colin Shiomi. "Abolish those arcane laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. It's obscene to treat people differently because of their sexual preference. Besides, everyone knows gay relationships are more stable than straight ones."

My choice: B. Obama has come out against gay marriage, and what better way to strengthen marriage but a little bit of government intervention?

And...I'm back (with a Haversack)!

Greetings, fellow consumers of stolen wisdom. There is a good chance that, at this moment, most of you reading this blog are more informed than I am. I recently had a week long shortage of care. I impersonated your average American sheep and stuck my head deeply in the fine aggregate known as sand.

But no longer! So, to catch up quickly on what has gone on during my short hiatus, here's a Haversack full o' news.

• North Korea successfully detonates a nuclear bomb. Unlike the last test in 2006, this one yielded results. The bomb gave off a force on par with the Hiroshima bomb of 1945. Beloved Leader Kim has also said that they are no longer bound by the Armistice that ended the Korean War, and threatens war if the US or S. Korea act on their threat to search N. Korean ships. Personally, I am amazed. You mean strongly worded UN resolutions didn't stop Kim from gaining nuclear weapons? Inconceivable!
• Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Of course, she is a middle of the road, impartial judge, who will not allow anything to influence her interpretation of the Constitution. Don't believe me? Check the quotes: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." No sir, no racism here! How about justice activism? "[the] Court of Appeals is where policy is made". Glad to see she knows her role.
• Biden decides secret VP bunker not so secret after all. Good ol' Joe, during the Gridiron club dinner (That the Pres. decided to snub, only the second time in history), let slip that there is a secret bunker under the Naval observatory, which is now the domicile of the Vice President. He then went on to describe in detail the tour of the place. I didn't see this in the article, but I'm pretty sure he went on to say that he often jogs by the lake in the early morning, alone. Silly Joe!
• The White House makes children cry. A group of children arrived from Conway Elementary School, eager to tour the White House. Starry eyed, they got up extra early. When over 100 kindergartners arrived at the doors, they were told that they could not come in. Why? Because they were 10 minutes late, and the White House had to get ready for a luncheon with the Steelers. Serves those rotten kids right. That'll teach them to be late!
• Finally! Zombie fire ants. Not quite Dawn of the Dead, but still! Researchers have found a parasitic fly that "dive-bomb" the fire ants and lay eggs. "The maggot that hatches inside the ant eats away at the brain, and the ant starts exhibiting what some might say is zombie-like behavior." Basically, they wander around aimlessly until their heads fall off. These flies are now being imported to farmers in Texas and other places to control the fire ant population.
• Newsflash: RNC to label the Democrat party as the "Socialist" Party!
• Newsflash: NOBODY CARES! Hey, RNC, why don't you try poopy head next? That's the ticket! Here I have to agree with RNC Chairman Michale Steele, as much as it pains me to do so. Do I think that the title is accurate? Absolutely! They are cruising us towards European style socialism at Mach speeds. The fact remains that labeling them Socialist in this dramatic manner is not going to achieve anything, and will actually make you appear to be exactly what you are: Spineless cowards with no real substance who are pandering to the masses in a vain attempt to recapture a fire you long since lost when you sold your soul to the Left.

UPDATE: Kris, a friend of mine, pointed out that what O is really cruising towards is not European style socialism, but actually fascism. He is correct, though functionally the two are very similar. Even though socialism abolishes private property, and fascism retains it, the fascists don't allow you control of said property, so it is not really yours in the end. Here's an excellent article that goes through the similarities between socialism and fascism.

The Mediocre Experiment: Decisions

As I outlined yesterday, The Mediocre Experiment is just getting underway. Right now our fledgeling nation has three decisions before it.

Issue #1: It's time for the government to hire a new religious advisor. Your people have narrowed down the candidates to:

A) Catholic Archbishop Randy Shiomi: boasts an excellent track record, having rapidly increased church attendances in his constituencies through the "Reaching God Through Guilt" program. Seen as a solid choice.

B) New Age thinker Bianca Hendrikson: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."

C) Finally, there's Calvin Jones. "If I am awarded the appointment, I will immediately resign," the ex-schoolteacher has declared. "Because, frankly, God is a big load of hokey. I'll be doing everyone a favor by just shutting up about it."

I'm going with A. Obama played on his religion a bit during the campaign. Not a whole lot, but enough.

Next up: Prospecting company Nukes4U has uncovered a large uranium deposit in The Magic O's south-west.

A) "This is a terrific find!" claims Nukes4U CEO Buy Li. "It will provide an enormous stimulus to our economy and create thousands of new jobs. It's win-win! All we need from the government is permission to bulldoze the rainforest that's on top of the deposit."

B) "You've got to be kidding," says Green politician Colin Hanover. "This rainforest is thousands of years old! This country needs more environmental protection, not less. And to destroy the environment in order to mine uranium that then goes into nuclear bombs--well, that really sticks in my craw."

C) "There's no need for an either-or decision," says the government's Minister for Mining, Clear-Felling, and the Environment. "We can preserve most of the rainforest and allow mining of a small part. After all, think of all the good that the money from this uranium deposit can bring to The Magic O."

This one is a no-brainer. It's B all the way. Obama, like many other politicians, is completely on the green train. Choo choo!

Finally: In response to a slow news week, certain highbrow newspapers have stirred up the debate over voluntary vs compulsory voting.

A) "Compulsory voting makes about as much as sense as having the death penalty for attempted suicide," says civil rights activist Peggy Li. "You can't force people to be free! You can only give them the choice. Besides, if all those derelicts who can't be bothered to get off their butts once every few years voted, who would they elect? I shudder to think."

B) "It's not contradictory at all," argues political commentator Larry Summers. "The fact is, if not everyone votes, the outcome isn't truly representative. Some groups--like elderly gun nuts--vote more often than others. That's why we always end up with such terrible politicians."

C) "This raises an interesting issue," says George W. McGuffin, your brother. "And that is: why do we need elections, anyway? Seems to me it would be much simpler if you just decided what was right, and did it. Wouldn't that save everyone a lot of time?"

B wins out again. You can't be relied upon to vote. So, the government will make sure you do. Sounds reasonable to me. How else can we be really representative?

Let me know what you think of my choices in the comments. I'll hold off on committing to the legislation for a bit. Remember, this isn't what you or I would choose. We aren't enlightened. This is what our fearless leader Comrade Obama would choose.

The Mediocre Experiment

So I've been pondering what to do with my usual Friday segment, now that our fearless leader has reached rock bottom. I've been taking an impromptu hiatus from the being informed scene, burying my head in the sand like the rest of the population for a couple of days. In that time I've come up with an idea all on my own. How would you like it if we could run an amazingly accurate simulation of what our country would look like if our President could do whatever he wanted? Anything he wanted, done! What if we could use this simulation to accurately predict the future of our country, and how we would get there? This kind of simulation would have all the trimmings: War, graphics, violence, zombies...Maybe some politics...Anyhow, it would be cool. I'd call something like that "The Great Experiment".

Unfortunately, after my extensive 30 seconds of research I realized that something like that would cost money. So, I scrapped that, settled for "The Mediocre Experiment" and created a NationState. NationStates is a little web site where you can create a nation, give it a name, and make decisions. You get up to two issues to decide a day, and based on your decisions, your country evolves. You are given a title for your government (From Capitalist Paradise to Corrupt Dictatorship to New York Times Democracy) and rated on Civil Rights, Economy, and Political Freedoms. You can check out our new nation, the Commonwealth of The Magic O.

At times through the week I'll post what the decision our little microcosm has before it, and what I think Obama would do given the choice. You can suggest differently if you like, and at the end of the week we'll see what's going on in our island of paradise.

When you create your nation you are given a small questionnaire to get you started. I tried to answer as neutrally as I could (simply "undecided" was not an option.) In the interests of fairness, here's the questions I was given and the answers I gave (answers were A) Strongly Agree, B) Agree, C) Disagree, or D) Strongly Disagree):

1: A country should be judged by how it treats its worst-off citizens. B
2: Corporations do more good for society than harm. C
3: Marijuana should be legal. C
4: The world needs to rediscover its spirituality. B
5: A lot of what's wrong with youth today could be fixed by a year's military service. C
6: Capitalism is on the way out. B
7: Without democracy, a country has nothing. B
8: It's more important to deter criminals than try to rehabilitate them. C

Admittedly even having to answer a questionnaire like that taints the experiment, but remember, this one isn't Great, just Mediocre. As it stands, our country is classified as "Democratic Socialists". "The Commonwealth of The Magic O is a fledgling, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its burgeoning quacking tree frog population. Its compassionate, intelligent population of 5 million are fiercely patriotic and enjoy great social equality; they tend to view other, more capitalist countries as somewhat immoral and corrupt.

The enormous, socially-minded government juggles the competing demands of Education, Social Welfare, and Healthcare. The average income tax rate is 35%, but much higher for the wealthy. A small but healthy private sector is led by the Soda Sales industry, followed by Basket Weaving and Cheese Exports.

Crime is moderate, and the police force struggles against a lack of funding and a high mortality rate. The Magic O's national animal is the quacking tree frog, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the dolla bill."

So, there you have it! Long Live the Commonwealth!