"Great nations are never impoverished by private, though they sometimes are by public prodigality and misconduct. The whole, or almost the whole public revenue, is in most countries employed in maintaining unproductive hands...Those unproductive hands...may consume so great a share...that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste and degradation of produce occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment."
-Adam Smith
Buckle your seatbelt boys and girls - it's going to be a rough ride.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Vegan Front Group
I heard an odd ad on KEX Radio tonight, so I decided to look into it (what can I say, I'm a research dork).
The group goes by the name, "The Cancer Project."
They say,
"The Cancer Project has two main goals: First, we aim to make cancer prevention a top priority. Just as important, we want to improve survival after cancer has been diagnosed by providing comprehensive information about the role of dietary factors in keeping people healthy."
They even claim to have Anthony Hopkins and Sarah Landon as spokespeople. Sounds good, right?
They go on,
"The Cancer Project provides classes, books, video programs, fact sheets, brochures, and other educational materials on cancer prevention and survival. We also conduct clinical research studies to investigate dietary issues and publicize the need for cancer prevention and the value of healthy diet changes."
They have all kinds of great PSA's about preventing everything from ovarian cancer to obesity in children.
Wow, great group right?
It turns out, the "healthy diet changes" they speak of consists of total veganism. Yup. That's right. No animal products whatsoever. They are actually a front group for militant animal rights activists, giving out "medical" information about the "dangers" of meat and dairy products.
They claim fish oil not only does not help prevent cancer, but poses an "increased risk" factor.
They claim alcohol is so bad that, "even one drink per day increases cancer risk."
They claim "When humans consume meat, dairy products, or fish, they ingest a highly concentrated load of dioxin, which has been linked to several cancers including lymphomas and lung cancer." They do not tell you that dioxin levels have dropped precipitously since the 1970's, and that studies have shown humans must consume large amounts of dioxin (thousands of times more than is legally allowed to be present in FDA inspected meat) for long periods of time before experiencing health effects.
The Cancer Project is an affiliate group of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
According to the Center for Consumer Freedom:
"[The] PCRM is firmly connected with the rabidly anti-medical-research People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has channeled more than $1.3 million dollars to PCRM since its inception. PCRM president Neal Barnard was, until recently, also the president of the PETA Foundation. PETA runs campaigns to boycott the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation because they recognize the value of animal research models in combating diseases. PETA's founding president, Ingrid Newkirk, famously told Vogue magazine: “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it.”
Also, according to the CCF,
"PCRM has been linked with FBI-designated terrorist groups, including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Dr. Jerry Vlasak, the ALF “Press Officer” who is known for openly advocating the use of violence to further animal liberation goals, was a PCRM spokesperson when he first called for the “political assassination” of medical research scientists in 2003. “I don’t think you’d have to kill—assassinate—too many,” Vlasak told activists that year. “I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.” In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of threatening letters with the U.S. president of SHAC, who was convicted on federal terrorism charges in 2006."
"Dr." Vlasak was quietly dismissed sometime after 2006.
Just goes to show, you can't trust what you see or hear.
The group goes by the name, "The Cancer Project."
They say,
"The Cancer Project has two main goals: First, we aim to make cancer prevention a top priority. Just as important, we want to improve survival after cancer has been diagnosed by providing comprehensive information about the role of dietary factors in keeping people healthy."
They even claim to have Anthony Hopkins and Sarah Landon as spokespeople. Sounds good, right?
They go on,
"The Cancer Project provides classes, books, video programs, fact sheets, brochures, and other educational materials on cancer prevention and survival. We also conduct clinical research studies to investigate dietary issues and publicize the need for cancer prevention and the value of healthy diet changes."
They have all kinds of great PSA's about preventing everything from ovarian cancer to obesity in children.
Wow, great group right?
It turns out, the "healthy diet changes" they speak of consists of total veganism. Yup. That's right. No animal products whatsoever. They are actually a front group for militant animal rights activists, giving out "medical" information about the "dangers" of meat and dairy products.
They claim fish oil not only does not help prevent cancer, but poses an "increased risk" factor.
They claim alcohol is so bad that, "even one drink per day increases cancer risk."
They claim "When humans consume meat, dairy products, or fish, they ingest a highly concentrated load of dioxin, which has been linked to several cancers including lymphomas and lung cancer." They do not tell you that dioxin levels have dropped precipitously since the 1970's, and that studies have shown humans must consume large amounts of dioxin (thousands of times more than is legally allowed to be present in FDA inspected meat) for long periods of time before experiencing health effects.
The Cancer Project is an affiliate group of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM)
According to the Center for Consumer Freedom:
"[The] PCRM is firmly connected with the rabidly anti-medical-research People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has channeled more than $1.3 million dollars to PCRM since its inception. PCRM president Neal Barnard was, until recently, also the president of the PETA Foundation. PETA runs campaigns to boycott the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation because they recognize the value of animal research models in combating diseases. PETA's founding president, Ingrid Newkirk, famously told Vogue magazine: “Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it.”
Also, according to the CCF,
"PCRM has been linked with FBI-designated terrorist groups, including the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). Dr. Jerry Vlasak, the ALF “Press Officer” who is known for openly advocating the use of violence to further animal liberation goals, was a PCRM spokesperson when he first called for the “political assassination” of medical research scientists in 2003. “I don’t think you’d have to kill—assassinate—too many,” Vlasak told activists that year. “I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.” In 2001, PCRM president Neal Barnard co-signed a series of threatening letters with the U.S. president of SHAC, who was convicted on federal terrorism charges in 2006."
"Dr." Vlasak was quietly dismissed sometime after 2006.
Just goes to show, you can't trust what you see or hear.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Wow. First the CNN "reporter," now this.
Apparently standing up against out of control spending = stupid, mentally ill, volatile, violent, and above all, racist.
Making repeated sophomoric sexual innuendos, misreporting, reinterpreting history, and poo-pooing citizen movements that don't agree with your own agenda = enlightened liberalism.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Political Education
A lot of people think of political ideologies in terms of "left" versus "right," Communism versus Fascism. For decades, it has been taught that Communism is "far left" and Fascism is "far right." Usually the diagram looks like this:
Consequently, "conservatives" are labeled "Fascists" while "liberals" are labeled "Communists." Since Communist Russia was on the side of the Allies, while Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were the Axis and evil, Communism has been historically seen as positive, while Fascism has been (rightly) seen as evil. Communism was labeled as "Socialist" while Fascism is often associated with Capitalism.
I believe this diagram is constructed with the definition of Communism as "classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general" (Wiki). While this is probably the correct definition of the philosophical teachings of Communism, as practiced, Communism is the exact opposite.
Fascism is usually defined as "a radical, authoritarian, nationalist ideology" that advocates "the creation of a single-party state," that forbids and suppresses "all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement."(Wiki)
I submit that this spectrum is fundamentally wrong. In fact, Communism (as practiced) and Fascism are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is "Stateism."
Stateism is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. It is opposed to individual freedom and individual responsibility. Therefore, I would visualize the spectrum like this:
I could be out to lunch, but that's how I see it.
As for "Capitalism" that is oft maligned, any of these systems could theoretically employ it, depending on who is allowed to control the capital. On the stateism side, the government controls some of the capital (Dem. Socialism), the government controls most of the capital (Socialism), the government only allows those it chooses to have capital (fascism), or the government directly controls the capital (Communism). On the anarchy side, captial is controled by whomever is able to procure it. In Democracy, laws ensure fair tranaction of capital. In full anarchy, capital is procured however individuals decide to procure it.
Right now, the United States is a mixture of all of these. People still have the ability to procure capital, but as you procure more, the government takes a disporportionally larger portion of it, in the form of income, payroll, capital gains, and other taxes and fees. Beginning in the early 1900's and tremendously accelerated during the Great Depression, the Great Society, and other movements, the government has taken over more and more capital (postal service, utilities, passenger rail service, social services, etc.). The government is by far the nation's largest single employer (appx. 22 million people compared to 1.8 employed by WalMart). In fact, government employs more people than any other industry. Recently, we slipped into Fascism by choosing several huge corporations that were "too big to fail" gave them money, and are now beholden to the government.
With so much misinformation about economic and political systems, it seems almost inevitable we will continue the long march to Stateism.
In the 1830's Francis de Toqueville wrote that the totalitarian state would endeavor, "to secure thier [the people's] gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think nothing of rejoicing. For thier happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provieds for their security, forsees and supplies thier necessities, facilitates thier pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? ...After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fasioned them at will, the supreme power extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and most energetic characters can not penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existance; it does not tyrranize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." (Democracy in America, 810-811.)
Consequently, "conservatives" are labeled "Fascists" while "liberals" are labeled "Communists." Since Communist Russia was on the side of the Allies, while Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were the Axis and evil, Communism has been historically seen as positive, while Fascism has been (rightly) seen as evil. Communism was labeled as "Socialist" while Fascism is often associated with Capitalism.
I believe this diagram is constructed with the definition of Communism as "classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general" (Wiki). While this is probably the correct definition of the philosophical teachings of Communism, as practiced, Communism is the exact opposite.
Fascism is usually defined as "a radical, authoritarian, nationalist ideology" that advocates "the creation of a single-party state," that forbids and suppresses "all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement."(Wiki)
I submit that this spectrum is fundamentally wrong. In fact, Communism (as practiced) and Fascism are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is "Stateism."
Stateism is fundamentally opposed to Democracy. It is opposed to individual freedom and individual responsibility. Therefore, I would visualize the spectrum like this:
I could be out to lunch, but that's how I see it.
As for "Capitalism" that is oft maligned, any of these systems could theoretically employ it, depending on who is allowed to control the capital. On the stateism side, the government controls some of the capital (Dem. Socialism), the government controls most of the capital (Socialism), the government only allows those it chooses to have capital (fascism), or the government directly controls the capital (Communism). On the anarchy side, captial is controled by whomever is able to procure it. In Democracy, laws ensure fair tranaction of capital. In full anarchy, capital is procured however individuals decide to procure it.
Right now, the United States is a mixture of all of these. People still have the ability to procure capital, but as you procure more, the government takes a disporportionally larger portion of it, in the form of income, payroll, capital gains, and other taxes and fees. Beginning in the early 1900's and tremendously accelerated during the Great Depression, the Great Society, and other movements, the government has taken over more and more capital (postal service, utilities, passenger rail service, social services, etc.). The government is by far the nation's largest single employer (appx. 22 million people compared to 1.8 employed by WalMart). In fact, government employs more people than any other industry. Recently, we slipped into Fascism by choosing several huge corporations that were "too big to fail" gave them money, and are now beholden to the government.
With so much misinformation about economic and political systems, it seems almost inevitable we will continue the long march to Stateism.
In the 1830's Francis de Toqueville wrote that the totalitarian state would endeavor, "to secure thier [the people's] gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think nothing of rejoicing. For thier happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provieds for their security, forsees and supplies thier necessities, facilitates thier pleasures, manages their principle concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances - what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? ...After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fasioned them at will, the supreme power extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and most energetic characters can not penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existance; it does not tyrranize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd." (Democracy in America, 810-811.)
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Go Figure
Business Week studied the unhappiest cities in America. According to them,
"The city with the highest overall score in our index was Portland, the beautiful Oregon city that also has very high depression and suicide rates."
Hmm.
Coincidentally, Portland is the second most bike friendly city in the world!
And, according to humanevents.com, the 6th most liberal city in America.
Go figure.
"The city with the highest overall score in our index was Portland, the beautiful Oregon city that also has very high depression and suicide rates."
Hmm.
Coincidentally, Portland is the second most bike friendly city in the world!
And, according to humanevents.com, the 6th most liberal city in America.
Go figure.
Pirates
From the New York Times
Our President's response:
"The White House is closely monitoring the apparent hijacking of the U.S.-flagged ship in the Indian Ocean and assessing a course of action to resolve this situation."
Meanwhile, the Americans have apparently taken the ship back. I hope the crew "accidentally" executes all of them, because I fear the new administration will do the same thing they did in reaction to the North Koreans shooting a rocket over Japan:
"..................."
Number of ships hijacked under the 8 years of president Bush = 0
Number of ships hijacked under the first 100 days of president Obama = 1
Number of rockets launched by North Korea under the 8 years of Bush = 1 (it failed)
Number of rockets launched by North Korea under the first 100 days of Obama = 1 (it went over Japan)
Response of Bush to the N. Koreans = strong condemnation and sending anti-missile defenses to Japan.
Response of Obama to N. Koreans = "The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response..."
EDIT.
So the captain sacrificed himself to save the crew. The pirates apparently tried to get away in a little motorboat that has run out of gas or broke down. The FBI has sent "hostage negotiators" to the region, as a U.S. Navy destroyer sits back and watches.
"Pirates commandeered a United States-flagged container ship with 20 American crew members off the coast of Somalia on Wednesday, in what appeared to be the first time an American-crewed ship was seized by pirates in the area.
The container ship, the Maersk Alabama, was carrying thousands of tons of relief aid to the Kenyan port of Mombasa, the company that owns the ship said."Our President's response:
"The White House is closely monitoring the apparent hijacking of the U.S.-flagged ship in the Indian Ocean and assessing a course of action to resolve this situation."
Meanwhile, the Americans have apparently taken the ship back. I hope the crew "accidentally" executes all of them, because I fear the new administration will do the same thing they did in reaction to the North Koreans shooting a rocket over Japan:
"..................."
Number of ships hijacked under the 8 years of president Bush = 0
Number of ships hijacked under the first 100 days of president Obama = 1
Number of rockets launched by North Korea under the 8 years of Bush = 1 (it failed)
Number of rockets launched by North Korea under the first 100 days of Obama = 1 (it went over Japan)
Response of Bush to the N. Koreans = strong condemnation and sending anti-missile defenses to Japan.
Response of Obama to N. Koreans = "The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response..."
EDIT.
So the captain sacrificed himself to save the crew. The pirates apparently tried to get away in a little motorboat that has run out of gas or broke down. The FBI has sent "hostage negotiators" to the region, as a U.S. Navy destroyer sits back and watches.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
