Hypocricy of life

Haven't you noticed it's usually the same group of people who "mourn" every american soldier killed and obsess over the body count....the same people who will defend to the death the "right" of a pregnant woman to have her baby slaughtered for any reason whatsoever. Which is it?

Sick

Abstinence -- The final solution

It is indisputable that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Therefore, I submit that this is where the majority of the effort should be spent in education.

Consider the following as logical consequences of a widespread total embrace of abstinence, even without any moral considerations:

Primary effects:

1. Unwed pregnancy and births would drop to zero (rape excepted, but we'll address that in a minute)
2. Because of #1, abortions would decline by 99+%
3. Within two generations (if not sooner) STD's would be all but eradicated

Secondary effects:

4. The pornography industry would all but die
5. Due to 4, the incidence of rape per capita would be reduced by 99+%
6. Due to 3, money currently being spent on STD research could be diverted into other endeavors, such as cancer research or refunded as tax cuts. The positive economic impact would be profound.
7. Health care costs across the board would decrease slightly, as doctors, specialists, funds, and resources currently tied up in treating victims of irresponsibility could be distributed back through the medical field and automatically we would have an upsurge in the supply side of medicine and healthcare.
8. Due to 1,2,3 overall quality of living for everybody (but especially the poor, who are hit hardest by the associated problems) would rise dramatically, relieving them almost completely of the burdens associated with single mother households and abusive family situations.
9. Due to 4, overall sadistic crime (sexual assault, murder, domestic abuse) would drop drastically, further contributing to a higher standard of living for all groups of people.

This is obviously not a comprehensive list, but it is all directly derivative of a simple concept that everybody already knows, but few are willing to accept.

Who's lying about Iraq?

Lots of great references in this piece. It's long but well worth the read.

Commentary

GM Cuts 30,000 jobs

FOXNews.com - Business - GM to Close Nine Plants, Lay Off 30,000: "GM has been grappling with high health-care and commodities costs, loss of U.S. market share to foreign rivals, and slumping sales of large sport utility vehicles that used to be its profit centers, but have now lost popularity due to high gasoline prices."

Comments?

Vonnegut talks about Terrorists - Updated

Kurt Vonnegut, prominent author and anti-war commentator, has some rather inflammatory comments about terrorists...Or does he?

Upon reading this post at Espella Humanzee, I got to thinking about some of the knee jerk opposition to statements like Vonnegut's: Here's an example from E.H.

"He praised terrorists as "very brave people". I suppose he supports the murder of innocent men, women, and children, too?

I cannot wait for the morally bankrupt sixties generation and their "anti-heros" to pass away into the nothingness that spawned them.

While Vonnegut does add some anti-American, anti-Capitalist statements, I'm more interested in only his statements about the terrorists themselves, and not about the terrorists' reaction to the US, or their supposed purpose. For instance,

"I regard them as very brave people, yes."

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high."

"They are dying for their own self-respect,"

I don't think those comments all by themselves signify support of terrorists...Think of it this way: Adolf Hitler, for as terrible as he was...He really was a great leader. He had a natural talent for stirring up excitement and passion in large crowds. That doesn't mean I support, admire, or condone anything about him, it's a statement of facts.

Any open, intellectually honest discussion must necessarily include a discussion of objective traits, and an honest evaluation. That said, however, I don't think Vonnegut is completely neutral, given his record of strong anti-bush, anti-war. Even still though, even in condemning terrorism, it's okay to recognize and understand some of the things Vonnegut talks about, maybe the anticipation of death, the "high"...Stuff like that...With the caveat that it cannot be allowed to alter the important conclusions of, "these people must not be allowed to do these things". It's all about recognizing what's important and what isn't, and separating what is significant from what is not.

The other parallel I can think of is using Nazi medical knowledge captured after liberating the death camps where these horrible experiments were performed. A good civilization would never perform those experiments, and, having knowledge of them, would move heaven, earth and hell to stop them...But after all efforts have been made, upon discovery of the completed work...There should be no reason not to integrate the knowledge into modern science. The simple mind believes that the method of collection dictates the use, but in reality, the method of collection and the data itself are unrelated.

Back to Vonnegut and objective characteristics of terrorists, there are three questions, "what motivates them?", "what do they do?", and "what should we do about them?". The first question is irrelevant to the other two, which are actionable.

Additionally, Vonnegut's statement, "They are dying for their own self-respect," I believe is true, but not for the reasons he cites. Ultimately all people are driven by a need to feel important, or respected. This is always variable depending on that person's hierarchy of values. For the suicide bomber, they're out to define themselves as dying for a cause they believe in. It doesn't matter if the cause is good, bad, or indifferent... The important thing to them is they believe it is, and derive their worth, self-respect and mission from it. Where I disagree with Vonnegut is in his assertion that it has been the USA corporations that have deprived these people of their self-respect. Nobody can take away another person's self respect without the consent of that person.

Update 11/21 10:46: I want to add comments and discussion directly to the original to get more exposure, because there is more to understand.

Comment from Espella Humanzee

I don't understand how blowing up an innocent Iraqi child into dozens of bloody pieces can be termed a brave act.
I can't comprehend how any human being can derive their self respect by exploding a bomb in the midst of joyous wedding party.
I won't explain away the act of beheading a young man as he is bound and screaming for his life.
Vonnegut uses methods and madness of the left to excuse barbaric inhuman behavior. These monsters don't need to be explained or understood. They need to be stopped.

Bravery and honor should not be used interchangeably. Usually they are used together, but when you stop and think about it, they are fundamentally different concepts. Blowing up a busload of children is evil, barbaric, and sadistic. I think "brave" would need more examination. The use of language is a delicate art, really. I think when we throw around words too much, they lose their real meaning. Such as the left calling everything they disagree with "hate speech". It has become so that the word "hate" has lost all real meaning. Similarly, bravery and honor are used together so often and so completely that when one is used, the other is assumed to be implied. Such is not always the case.
Keep in mind, I'm not "explaining away" or supporting Vonnegut or any of the left's defenses of terrorism, merely using them as a springboard for discussion on the use of language and precise definitions. Even when those definitions have connotations usually reserved for contradictory ideas.
One definition of bravery is, "a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain without showing fear."
By a strict definition, could the bombers be exhibiting bravery by facing death without fear? On a personal level (personal to the individual bomber), I think that could be an accurate descriptor. Does this imply honor or any form of goodness? Most certainly not. Perhaps as a general strategy (as applied to a group, the terrorists), bravery would have no application at all. As we know, the majority of the actual suicide bombers are young, naive recruits who are invigorated by rhetoric and indoctrination, who then show up at a camp and say, "I want to die for the glory of Allah." The USE of these young men has no shred of bravery, but does that necessarily mean bravery cannot be exhibited on an individual level?
On self respect, are not these same young men taught that it is respectful to die killing infidels? Few humans will act voluntarily in a manner inconsistent with their value systems, from which they decide what they feel is good and respectful and what is not. The fact that these people have horribly wrong, twisted, purely evil views, does not negate the fact that they feel what they are doing is good.
The important difference in analysis is in the belief that not all value systems are of equal value. Those who use this same language to excuse immoral behavior (or more accurately to demonize those who they mutually disagree with) believe that there is no such thing as good and evil, or that the feelings they are explaining are justified because of actions taken against the group in question. Whereas a different world view states that it even with an understanding of evil behavior, this behavior is still evil, and to come to the conclusion, "we are right and they are wrong", or more generally, "This behavior is evil and other behavior is good in and of itself, independent of the motivations behind it".

Update 2 11/21 11:13:

I also don't believe the goals of understanding and eradication are mutually exclusive. They may not be co-dependant, but that doesn't mean some of the characteristics can't be spoken of accurately. No praise is necessary, but I believe accuracy and clarity in describing both actions, and right/wrong is absolutely essential. Any time fact/truth has to be ignored to avoid weaking a popular position, the validity of the position needs to be evaluated, and/or the conclusions drawn from the facts need to be re-examined. Is that not the very concept we try to argue to liberals when they ignore things like the WMDs that have been found in Iraq, or that the senate voted to authorize war?

I'm not saying the conclusions need to change, I'm just saying that accurate description of motivations of terrorists does not affect the validity of the need to eliminate and/or restrain their ability to make the rest of our lives' miserable.

Update 3 11/21 11:44:
An exactly accurate description of something must necessarily agree with a perfect moral judgement. It does everyone a disservice to dismiss all discussion based on a pre-existing moral conclusion or vice versa. This is not to say the pre-existing conclusion is wrong, or that discussion can or should alter the conclusion, but what's wrong with understanding the world? My whole point is that it is possible to simultaneously make a moral judgement and an intellectual evaluation, and have both be 100% valid independent of one another.
The reason this doesn't happen much is because nobody on earth has a perfect knowledge of how to accurately evaluate all things, therefore percieved descrepencies in an objective evaluation vs a moral judgement must necessarily come from an incomplete understanding of one or the other. Or both.

The House thinks we're there to stay

403 - 3.

That's the vote against immediate pullout from Iraq in the U.S. House of Representatives. This is a good thing, and might help undo some of the damage caused by that idiotic vote in the Senate earlier in the week.'

Update: Great commentary from Powerline

More on WMDs and Inspections

Where the WMDs Went is an interview with Bill Tierney, "a former military intelligence officer...also an inspector (1996-1998) for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) for overseeing the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles in Iraq. He worked on the most intrusive inspections during this period and either participated in or planned inspections that led to four of the seventeen resolutions against Iraq."

You wanna know what the inspectors "didn't" find? read this article

New Iraq Documents and WMD info

Espella Humanzee | Conservative Man: Playing with Grenades -- He found it first...but the direct link is just below:

Apparently the Iraq Survey Group weapons search team has found some incriminating documents adding to the list of evidence tying Saddam to Al Qaida, and proving that he actively hid WMD.

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California. By Richard Rushfield

Political Poseur - Pretending to be a Republican in Blue California. By Richard Rushfield

Michelle Malkin: DUMB MSM EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY

Michelle Malkin: DUMB MSM EUPHEMISM OF THE DAY

Good news....if only

Wouldn't it be so nice to have a news channel where, 24/7 they reported good news? I think that would be a real great break from the body counts, the missing children, the murders, the environmental disasters, high gas prices, and all that stuff. I wonder what kind of capital expense it takes to start up a cable news channel? I know Fox News Channel was up and going for years before it ever really gained traction. Would people have to discover it on their own? Would other news networks cover it like everybody did when Air America Radio started up?

I don't know the first thing about creating a news channel, but if I could, I think I would. I'd make one that spent most of it's time on good news...focusing on what is good about America and the world, the successful aspects of the War on Terror, updates on good economic developments, encouragement from our neighbors, etc. I bet it could be done with the right combination of optimistic people, and some investment money.

So, anybody willing to lend me some money and see if it can be done? I'm willing to give it a shot.

Can't wait to see where this leads...

Voters in San Fransisco voted to ban handguns outright (police and security guards excepted), and also to ban the sale, manufacture, distribution and transfer of all firearms and ammunition.

Here's what's going to happen: Law abiding citizens will turn in their guns...the criminals won't. Violent crime will increase because now the criminals know that the good people of SF will no longer have handguns with which to protect themselves, and those who have long guns will be unable to buy ammo within the city...

Liberal naivete is going to get more good people killed and robbed. Idiots.

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Windfall profits by Walter E. Williams

For those of you who think oil companies should "be held accountable" or "give back" their profits for the last few quarters, here's an explanation of how profits work in a supply and demand driven economy.

The short version is supply and demand, along with rising prices, help to bring supply to where a commodity is needed. Creating impediments to profit and supply side business only serve to create shortages and damage economic well being of a country, region or state.

Time out

I'll be taking a couple days off from blogging and commenting and such for a business trip. Don't get too lonely without me! Nobody responded to my offer to analyze the G.A.O post-election report, so I'm going to assume nobody wants actual facts presented firsthand.

See y'all on Monday

The good news from Iraq is not fit to print - The Boston Globe

The good news from Iraq is not fit to print - The Boston Globe

Read the article....I'll write about it later if I have time

Democrats' Poll numbers

Hmm...looks like the President isn't the only one with low poll numbers...Check this out from Espella Humanzee

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey. Oct. 6-10, 2005. "Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Democratic leaders in Congress are doing?"
Approve 32%
Disapprove 48%
Unsure 20%

Liberals on Bush

Dennis Prager just made an interesting point on his radio show. Liberals and Democrats have worked to portray Bush as less than intelligent, yet they endow him with super human abilities to know things that nobody else knows, and to orchestrate massive PR campaigns, wars, etc.

Niger's Uranium

From the State department: Niger's top exports are Uranium and livestock.

Saddam didn't go to Niger for cows. Whether or not he actually bought any yellowcake uranium from Niger is immaterial. The fact that he tried is proof that he was serious about his nuclear ambitions.

Uranium in Iraq

From newsmax.com regarding the New York Times (of all places) reporting on Saddam's stockpile of Uranium:

In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

UPDATE: From WSJ Editorial (free registration required),

Al Gore from September 23, 2002, amid the Congressional debate over going to war: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Or how about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, from October 10, 2002: "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. . . ."

Oil money

I just heard on the radio that some people in congress are pushing a bill that would make oil companies pay a lot of money out to poor people who "can't afford their heating bill". Do you know what that's going to do? It's going to raise energy prices because energy companies are going to have to make up the lost revenue somehow.

Unbelievable

New Template Updates!!!

For someone like me who isn't particularly well versed in HTML, it's exciting to add new features to my blog, in this case the biggest one is the new field, "Links to this post" which allows others to easily link to my posts in their posts. Whether or not anybody will do that is up to them, but the option's there, which is good. Now all I have to do is come up with something interesting enough to say that people will want to quote it!

On another note, I can't believe "Blog" isn't in Blogger's spellcheck database. How strange is that?!?!

Intellectually ignorant Left

This column by Dennis Prager explains quite well something I'd been thinking about today as I was responding to a hateful, dismissive and abusive attack on me at another blog by a liberal who thinks I'm an evil heartless bastard or something to that effect.

I don't even remember the exact words...Well, here's what this person said to me:

How else could you possibly back up a statement like this: "No, I don't believe corporations should pay taxes." Good God... you give me the freakin creeps with every comment of yours I read... you are absolute pure unadulterated evil.

Is this person's sense of good and evil really THAT tied to how tax money is collected?

Anger and taxation

All you hear anymore from the left is how "Angry" and "Outraged" they are at this or that in the government. It almost doesn't matter what it is, from not enough taxes on the hated rich, to a car accident some republican was in 20 years ago, to the whole Rove/Libby/Plame affair, to disaster response...And then in the same breath we hear that the government is running out of money, that there's a huge deficit and the way to fix it is to give the government more money. I ask this: If the government is so corrupt, so evil, so imperialist, so fascist (not my words), then why do liberals constantly lobby to transfer more and more and more of our hard earned money to them? Seems like the people should hold the government accountable for waste by not giving them any more until they've learned to use what they have. Instead it's more like, "Oh, the bucket is full of holes, we need to put more water into it faster to keep it from drying up" While any attempt to fix the holes is denounced as "Racist! Fascist! Bigot! You Hate the Poor! That Bucket has every RIGHT to be full of holes! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR VALUES ON THE BUCKET!"