Capitalist Shrugged

United Auto Workers are Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 23:17:00 +0000

I have a beef to pick with the auto industry workers that are in a union. A lot could be said about what this union has done and how it actually destroyed jobs, rather than secure them. If you bleed a business too much it won't be able to survive. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk directly to the United Auto Workers or anyone that is in a similar situation.

The way that auto workers worked was really quite simple. You worked on an assembly line, you had your particular job on the assembly line and that yielded very good pay/benefits. Your job wasn't exactly challenging, but the union was there to protect you and insure your wages. During the years you worked there you spent most of your inflated wages on "life". Instead of saving, growing, learning and a lot of other important things, you just lived beyond your means. And then when the plant closing came you complained.

I have some advice for you and for anyone that is in a similar position.

If your job can be learned in as little as a week or two, you do not have job security. Union or not. It becomes less secure the more money you make.
Your job isn't the most valuable money maker in your life. It is you. If you're not growing each year and building your "human capital" during your life, than you're worth nothing as are the skills people are willing to pay you. If you don't carve a niche in the market, build up your skills with experience and courses, you're just wasting your time. You're going to get blind sided one day.
The money you do earn on your paycheck doesn't have to be spent all up before the next check. There is this thing called savings and investing. If you don't have any emergency savings than you're an idiot. If you're not putting away dollars for retirement thinking you'll have a big fat pension, you're an idiot. If you buy a house with a little or no downpayment, you're an idiot. At least live within your means. Live below your means, so you can leverage cash.
Don't be some self entitled little prick because you are the worst people to hire. No one wants that type of worker. They want skilled people that get the job done. End of story. You're not special.

Out of all these points, the second one is the most important. If you're not building your skill set and becoming a more valuable person you're just playing with fire. There's a lot of ways to get human capital which include work experience, courses, specific jobs, independent research, etc. Screwing doors on an automation line is not building your human capital, especially if you've been doing it for a few decades.

I Support SOPA and PIPA

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 03:34:00 +0000

Well, let me correct things, I don't know if I should support such laws because I haven't actually read the bills in their entirety. I know enough from the usual talking heads, social media influence and general stupidity of arguments that most likely people are fighting without exposing their true intentions (like net neutrality, which I don't support).

Everyone should know by now that I'm a strong supporter of intellectual property rights (more here). Thought, art, engineering, entertainment are all forms of intellectual property. Creators have every right to protect their property from what I'll call moochers, which I derive strictly from the book Atlas Shrugged.

I find arguments to be all over the place when it comes to pirating and stuff like that. The reason for this is that you have people of all political stripes united on the issue, which means that there is something up. When you see communists and Ron Paul supporters siding with each other you know that there is something up.

For the duration of this article, I'm going to use stealing and copyright infringement as the same thing.

Let me try to sum up all the views into three categories:

I hate rich people
Copying isn't stealing/Intellectual property doesn't exist
I'm entitled

1. I Hate Rich People

This is your typical left-winger type argument. They look at a musician or a movie studio and think they have a lot of money, so they have the right to steal the work. This attitude is something that is very closely related to the entitled attitude.

They take because they think that they're being exploited as a consumer. I don't know how that works though. Often their arguments revolve around "why would I pay $15 for a crappy album made by a corporate manufactured band" or "why would I pay $12 to see a movie that sucks". Are these arguments for why you have the right to steal intellectual property? They seem like arguments not to consume, which is your choice.

I've heard this type of argument over and over again. The only thing a rational person can say to such a thing is "why would you pirate it, if it sucks?"

2. Copying Isn't Stealing/Intellectual Property Doesn't Exist

I find this to be the funniest of them all. I typically run into this type of argument from libertarian/Ron Paul/Austrian economic type people, though a lot of people of all political stripes use the argument.

Of course copying isn't stealing (in the legal sense), it's copyright infringement. Usually people that use this argument tend to be of the entitled category, but they think they can slap out this pseudo-intellectual position and what can you say?

The intellectual property existing versus not existing is definitely a poor position to come from. Many important things that hold intellectual property have benefited your life, so it's such a stupid argument.

3. I'm Entitled

This is basically the brat. They're all brats, but this is the biggest brat of them all. They'll use all the arguments to justify why they do it, but all they're really saying is that it is their Sweet 16 and they better be spoiled.

-------

The problem, at least from the "property" side of things, is that people seem to think property can only be based on scarcity. The idea is if I own the land, no one else can own it too. But property isn't really based on the concept of scarcity, but really the idea of value. And thought has value, some more than others.

Imagine you're developing the cure for cancer. You dedicated 8 years of your life working, testing and going through the regulatory process to bring this to the market. By the time it makes it to the market you've spend a $100 million on research and development. Imagine someone buying the medication, copying it and selling it for a fraction of the price (because they didn't have to spend $100 million developing it).

This person or business would be a moocher and as the person developing it the only word you could come up with is theft.

This same argument can be applied to almost anything. Writing a book for a year (without pay) and selling it. I had an argument with someone over sunglasses. They said cheap sunglasses and expensive sunglasses cost the same to manufacture. This is a true statement, but the "intellectual" value poured into a cheap pair of sunglasses is a lot less.

Anyone that doesn't believe in the concept of intellectual property is anti-man. The brightest minds lose their incentive to pour their wisdom into the market place. Imagine having a job where you produce intellectual items. Say your boss asks you how to do things and one day your boss says, "I'm just not going to pay you because they're just thoughts"? I know how stupid these arguments can seem, but the counter is from such a retarded point of view.

------

So I'm sure some of you are thinking what this has to do with my support of SOPA and PIPA (or at least the ideas behind them). I have to bring it up because you have to know that intellectual property rights are the key to this argument. This isn't about censorship. Every whining brat on the internet and social media is probably pirating, but they have something nice to hide behind "censorship". And you know it.

The big argument I hear about this is that these bills allow the government to run just like Chinese internet censorship, where they can shut down/block sites that they want and that's all there is to it.

*rolls eyes*

Google had a blog post that just pissed me off. Let me quote a little bit for you as it is so retarded.

These bills would grant new powers to law enforcement to filter the Internet and block access to tools to get around those filters. We know from experience that these powers are on the wish list of oppressive regimes throughout the world

So, oppressive regimes use the same technology eh? I hear that oppressive regimes have police officers too. Should we get rid of them? I hear they have roads. Should we get rid of them?

These bills wouldn’t get rid of pirate sites. Pirate sites would just change their addresses in order to continue their criminal activities.

This one pissed me off the most. Of course it won't completely stop pirating, but it will eliminate the vast majority of it in the United States. If The Pirate Bay is blocked and they have to setup a new one, well, a fraction of people will actually find it. And block it within an hour until they stop. It's actually quite an effective solution.

The foreign rogue sites are in it for the money, and we believe the best way to shut them down is to cut off their sources of funding.

This is what is happening now and it's not fixing things. Essentially Google thinks that they should treat this as an international trade issue. Oh wow. You really mean it Google. We can treat it just like it has always been treated. What a position!

The idea is that countries with poor intellectual property rights (ie: China, Russia, etc) will dictate how Americans can access things and subvert laws of other countries. Does the internet need to be governed by the lowest common denominator when it comes to world governments? If this was child porn we wouldn't have a problem (oh SOPA and PIPA will help stop child porn).

The other argument that I hear is that they'll start censoring sites, basically at random. Someone posts something bad on Facebook, it'll be shut down. Put up an offensive picture on reddit, site shut down. Give me a break. This is scare mongering of stupid proportions.

The day that police officers were given guns to carry, they could go rob people, murder people. You can do anything you want with a badge and gun. Why the assumption of the worst?

Let me show you how it WOULD work. FREE SPEECH is a RIGHT in the United States, so censorship wouldn't stand. Sites that promoted CHILD PORNOGRAPHY would be shut down. When a site had an issue with copyright infringement the owners could fix it after complaints and such. Sites that ignore such legal warnings (like the Pirate Bay) would be shut down.

I know you morons like to think that the government is out to get you and police state, insert generic conspiracy theory crap, but you're not that important. They're not going after websites. They're targeting sites that pirate.

------

When it comes to SOPA and PIPA, I don't know if they're the best way to enforce this. This type of argument is fair. But everyone is arguing about censorship and shutting down websites. It's all so stupid and it's coming from the worst ideological position (a pirating position).

Stealing intellectual property is WRONG! We should all be working to strengthen intellectual property rights and the enforcement of them. Eventually that is going to lead to the internet. So back off and stand up for the rights of creators, engineers, artists, producers, actors, etc.

If you don't like that, don't come back to my blog.

Edit:
I did some research and it seems like ALL the arguments against SOPA and PIPA are blatantly false. One of the big complaints is that the government or government censor gets to decide what sites are shut down, without due process. Guess what children, not true.

Check the following from Wikipedia's Protect IP Act page

The bill provides for "enhancing enforcement against rogue websites operated and registered overseas" and authorizes the United States Department of Justice to seek a court order in rem against websites dedicated to infringing activities, if through due diligence, an individual owner or operator cannot be located.^[11] The bill requires the Attorney General to serve notice to the defendant.^[12] Once the court issues an order, it could be served on financial transaction providers, Internet advertising services, Internet service providers, and information location tools to require them to stop financial transactions with the rogue site and remove links to it.

Okay, let's dissect what this says. The first point, a court order is needed. This makes it 100% legal allowing for due process. The second point is that it is designed to go after sites DEDICATED to infringing activity (whether on purpose or the owner of the site has abandoned it). The defendant of said site will be served notice by the attorney to comply.

Guess what children, this law is actually quite reasonable, rational and moral.

The same is true for SOPA, which you can see on Wikipedia's Stop Online Privacy Act page

The bill would authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to seek court orders against websites outside U.S. jurisdiction accused of infringing on copyrights, or of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement.

Look children, yet again a court order is needed. This time it is for sites located outside the US borders.

Yet again, reasonable, rational and moral.

Did anyone actually look into the facts of the case? Nothing but FALSE fear mongering.

Facts about Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 01:47:00 +0000

I feel the need to write this post as I've seen some surges in polls regarding Ron Paul. I know that you can't put much into polls involving Ron Paul because typically the one that counts (elections) show a much different result. Anyway, I feel like I need to write about this. There is a lot of misinformation out there on him. I find that his supporters are literally marketers for him and I mean marketing in a way of selling his ideas, not really giving you a fair shake.

I think I can give you much better facts on him since I was a supporter back in my more "ideal" time in life. Since then I've smartened up and became much more rational. In that time I learned a lot of the discussion points and the way things are argued. My Ron Paul facts will be very accurate and I know a lot of his fanatical supporters won't like that. If you're one of those people, eat me.

Ron Paul is a Racist

Don't let anyone, ever, convince you that he is not. Fanatical idiotic Ron Paul supporters may try to convince you otherwise. About 10-15-20 years ago Ron Paul produced letters to supporters in his community and mainly in his area of Texas. These letters are the items you really need to read. This is the true ideological point of Ron Paul and a huge part of his followers. And there's a lot more in there aside from racism

Let's review some of the quotes:

"Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks." - Ron Paul on the LA riots (June 1992)
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. Laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul in 1992
"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people [white people], but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul in 1992.

This is just a small selection of what is out there. I suggest you find actual copies of the newsletters on the internet and read them for yourself. There's more in there than just racism. There's conspiracy theories and the typical "Jews own the world" type crap.

Anyway, Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul himself have a very pathetic excuse for this. They say it was taken out of context. Oh, but than they said, it's completely fabricated. Oh and about the time Ron Paul began more Republican runs he has said he didn't write them. With different excuses to explain this, you can pretty much tell that he was involved. Even if you buy into the fact that someone else on his campaign wrote it and sent it out (as a letter with Ron Paul's name on it) you should never be able to get away with it. No politician could live this down yet Paul supporters think it's a conspiracy against him by the "media".

Ron Paul is an Isolationist

This is a point that makes Ron Paul supporters blood boil. I think the main reason is that it is so true, but they have an excellent rebuttal for it. If you bring up the isolationist point you'll often hear something along the lines of "he's not about war. He's about being friends with countries and having free trade with them." It does sound nice and very peaceful, but it doesn't negate the fact that he's an isolationist.

For example, Ron Paul is against GATT, NAFTA, FTAA and every other single form of a free trade that has ever been introduced in Congress under the guise that it isn't "true free trade". There's also the other excuse which is a conspiracy, world government type deal, but I'll save that for another bullet point.

It's true that these agreements aren't technically "free trade" as there are rules and regulations. Just as there are rules and regulations in the United States on "trade" within it. In the world we live in, we need agreements to liberalize trade and make it easier. Anyone with a brain knows that these agreements are progress to a freer world and freer markets.

Ron Paul's view on free trade is known as unilateral free trade. This is where he executes a free trade in and out of the country, just on the US side. He has no desire to negotiate an agreement with other countries because he doesn't believe in it and he doesn't like telling other countries what to do. Despite your opinion on whether this is a better form to achieve free trade is up to you, but we can all agree that it is an isolationist point of view.

The other point is that he doesn't seem to care about the world outside the United States the immediate effect on the country. If you go back 250 years, it was quite easy to hold the Ron Paul position because the world was a different place. If the British were sending troops over to fight, it took them a month to cross the Atlantic. Today, we have intercontinental ballistic missiles. We have technology that can destroy the lives of millions in a matter of seconds. This same technology is being pursued and already achieved by theocratic nuts and dictators.

You just can't hold a position like this. It isn't rational.

Ron Paul on Iran

One of the most troubling Ron Paul facts are his idiotic and completely dangerous views on Iran. Despite all the racist, conspiracy theories and all his odd policies the scariest thing I've ever heard him say is that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and we have no right to stop them. This is very dangerous, anti-man, anti-mind talk.

Libertarians and Ron Paul are very emphatic about rights, as am I. The difference is that libertarians don't really know where rights come from. We have the right to free speech, but a libertarian couldn't tell you where that right comes from. They'd probably say the constitution, but that doesn't really get down to the core. Rights don't come from God and rights don't come from existing. It's this unknown that inevitably leads to Ron Paul supporters (and libertarians for the most part) to defend Iran and defend the "rights" of Iran.

What's worse is that you often hear a blaming of American and a blaming of the free world. It's the core points (or lack thereof) of libertarian philosophy that leads libertarians to the point of view that Iran has equal rights, the same rights that a free democratic society has. This is a severe and dangerous look at the world.

Rights are in fact born out of the requirement to live your life properly and to the best of your ability. When rights are taken away, the lives of people suffer and are often lost. This same thinking applies to governments, but not equally. A free democratic country is better than a theocratic dictatorship. Dictatorships and theocracies don't have rights.

This means that we don't have to give Iran the benefit of the doubt. This means that we don't have to wait and avoid a preemptive strike. We don't owe a dictator anything as a free society. We don't have to listen to them.

Rational thought tells us that crazy theocracies cannot have nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. We don't owe them an explanation. We don't owe them a benefit of the doubt. We owe nothing less than destroying the capabilities that lead to this.

Not only has he expressed this dangerous opinion, but he just expresses factual incorrect information on the subject. In the past, Ron Paul said that Iranian democracy is a model for other countries in the Middle East. Sounds like a nice statement, but Iran is a theocratic dictatorship.

Ron Paul also says that there is no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. Well, there is the IAEA report that was released November 8 2011 that says so. He says that there is no credible evidence. Of course, Ron Paul would never listen to the IAEA because they're a branch of "world government" which exists to take over the world and all the rich Jews will steal his gold, or something like that.

Ron Paul is the king of Conspiracy Theorists

I wish I could show you a video I seen on Ron Paul's Congressional website a few months after 9/11. This was a time before Youtube, as I remember watching the video through Windows Media Player. Ron Paul was standing in front a crowd in his town speaking and he said that the government was pulling the wool over the eyes of America. Literally coming out and saying that it was an inside job. Go find the newsletters he wrote about 15-20 years ago and you'll see plenty of conspiracy theories.

With the popularity of the internet growing and the ability to share information, Ron Paul has become more popular and has really toned down the conspiracy stuff. But he still has the underlying words where he almost comes off as one. This attracts a lot of conspiracy theorists to him. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters believe in whacko conspiracies.

I know that is a very generalized and subjective statement, but serious go to a Ron Paul forum and just lurk. Read what they say. Whacko people.

And this is something that doesn't stop with 9/11. If you believe in this type of crap you almost guaranteed believe in "the Jews" are behind (insert whatever). The Jews run the media. The Jews are part of the New World Order. The Jews run all the bailed out banks. There is absolutely no end to the amount of retarded conspiracies that savages like Ron Paul supporters come up with.

Even though Ron Paul has shut up about Israel and "the Jews" recently, it can still be found on his newsletters. The conspiracies against Jews are the ones that annoy me the most. Conspiracy theories in general piss me off, but when it involves Jews it comes from the most vial place and it just disgusts me.

But the conspiracies don't stop there. One of the Ron Paul facts that you probably hear about was his opposition to the "NAFTA highway". He says he opposes it for "sovereignty" reasons. I say he opposes it because he views NAFTA in general as a way of building a "North American Government" and eventually world government type deal. The fact is that it is just a road. It's made of asphalt and you drive your car on it. It's not a conspiracy. It's a road.

Ron Paul's favorite conspiracy theorist is Alex Jones who runs two websites known as InfoWars and PrisonPlanet. I will not link to these websites as I don't want to do them any favors. Alex Jones is literally screwed in the head. It's not like this guy has one conspiracy, it's that everything is a conspiracy. This includes con trails to 9/11 to police state to UN troops taking over the United States to brain washing chemicals in the drinking water. Absolutely crazy stuff. Ron Paul is a continued guest on his talk radio show. Continued. This guy is insane. Look up his Youtube videos and see the crazy stuff. I can't believe people exist like this.

Ron Paul hates Gay People

Often Ron Paul supporters will try to show a softer and gentler side of Paul that is for the LGBT community. They have a quote from him saying that he views all of God's creatures equally or something like that. And I often hear them say that he's against the amendment to ban gay marriage. Yet again, don't be fooled by this.

The Ron Paul newsletters, yet again, expose a much different story and an extreme view on gay people. He said that gay people should be rounded up and quarantined from society because of AIDS. This sums up his view right there. There is nothing else to be said on this topic because of what he has said in his newsletters. That opinion is based on nothing more than bigotry and hatred.

See what his buddy Alex Jones says.

Ron Paul Hides Views "Constitutionally"

You ever notice that Ron Paul and his supporters talk a little too much about the constitution instead of coming out and just saying what they believe. This is a planned act because they can hide more radical opinions of him. The way that Ron Paul interprets the constitution is that there is very little power that the Federal government has. We can all argue the degree of this statement, but it's a convenient way to hide your opinions.

For example, there is no where in the constitution that gives the federal government power to regulate or define marriage. So when you hear a supporter saying Ron Paul is against federal attempts to ban gay marriage you're not getting the whole story. Ron Paul is against gay marriage. He doesn't like it, and he doesn't want to see it happen. This is something that he supports on a state level or a municipal level.

If you get down into the core beliefs of Ron Paul and his supporters you'll find a very clueless belief. One of the big ones is that Ron Paul actually wants to live in a religious theocracy type government, but it has to be on the state level. He's a proponent of government and religious mixing. He doesn't believe the separation of religion and state, which I think is bad.

Don't be fooled when you hear Ron Paul play the constitution card because he's really working to hide a more offensive position.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution

Stupid. He's a doctor as well, and he doesn't believe in evolution. Absolute complete retard. What else can I say.

---

These are the big Ron Paul facts that I've displayed here. I bring this from a unique point of view and I hope I illustrated a lot of the main points you should take away from this. I'll probably end up coming back to this and writing more because I literally get pissed off thinking about him and the stupidity of him. I'm hoping this changes minds and makes the world a better place by turning people off of him.

Shortly after posting:

I'd like to add something that shows a lot of what I'm talking about. I was going to post a video of Mark Levin talking about Ron Paul. I vaguely know who Mark Levin is and I don't really know much of his views. Though I do know that he's against Ron Paul and I know he has boycotted such events that allowed Ron Paul to be involved.

I thought instead of posting the video, I could post a picture as a picture speaks louder than words.

Edit Jan 15 2012:

Found a nice site dedicated to exposing Ron Paul supporters. A very interesting look at things as Ron Paul supporters are worse than Ron Paul himself.

Retarded Occupy Wall Street Comments

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:35:00 +0000

Since my post on how I thought Occupy Wall Street is Stupid, I've been getting a lot of traffic. The vast majority has been quite positive, agreeing with my post. Over the last few days I've been getting very pro-occupy wall street comments and this mainly corresponds with the traffic dying down a bit. Plus occupier are being evicted. Anyway.

Normally I just delete comments that are so retarded. Normally I allow stupid, but if it falls into that fringe of catchy stupid/conspiracy crap it goes. I thought I'd share the ones I get here and people can see. I'll even reply to them. *More will be added as they come in.

It is an anti-corruption protest! What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves) it is a huge disservice to the American people, who deserve to have political representatives who act in the best interest of the constituents.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM not Corporatism which we see today. Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility. They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank. They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

So the OWS is actually fighting for capitalism and democracy, corporations to abide by laws and morals, what is wrong with any of that?

I just can't get over the stupidity of this statement. It's one part Ron Paul retarded and one part Liberal. And you know that it is a good mix.

It is an anti-corruption protest!

No it's not. From the Occupy Wall Street website: "...aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people..." I at least hope you remember all the "We are the 99% crap". You're not the 99%, but that is another story. It's a socialist movement. One that isn't looking to "end corruption", but to distribute wealth away from the rich and give it to others.

What's wrong with the U.S. public demanding true representation in D.C. (the only thing being represented is the wants of corporations, who influence policy in every sphere- medicine, food, banking, you name it, so that the very people making the policies which regulate these industries are paid off by the industry themselves)

For me, this stuff falls into the realm of conspiracy theories. There always some group moaning about how the "big corporations" are running everything. Even though the corporations don't have the right to vote and pay taxes, while every American citizen of the age of 18 can vote, whether they pay taxes or not. It's almost as bad as the claim that people are too stupid to know who to vote for. The evil media brainwashes people into voting for certain candidates and no one else has the intellectual power to see past it, except for yourself.

In short we are fighting for true CAPITALISM

Not true. Nothing really to say but that.

Corporations having more rights than people and having NO responsibility.

Such as? Do they have the right to vote? I seriously would like to know because I actually own a small corporation, so I want to know what sort of bonus rights that I have (especially the ones about world domination).

They are fighting to reinstate the Glass Steigel Act, which separates the banking arm from the investment arm of a bank.

That doesn't sound like "true CAPITALISM". In fact, I'm pretty sure the Glass Steigel Act does the complete opposite of what you stated.

They want to audit the FED, that privately owned bank to which the U.S. public will always be in debted.

Another glorious conspiracy theory. All that crazy Jekyll Island stuff and rich bankers planning to take over the world. The only problem with this is that it simply isn't true.

The reason I posted this comment is because it just shows you how the stupidity of fringe right and fringe left actually mix quite well. It's literally one part crazy Ron Paul and one part crazy Ralph Nader. Creepy.

Can Particles Travel Faster Than Light?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:30:00 +0000

I thought I'd talk about something related to science because it is something that greatly interests me. No doubt you heard recently that scientists have made a particle go faster than the speed of light. The big deal in the science world is that Einstein's theory was that the fastest a particle could go was the speed of light. And since a lot of the physics we know today is based off this assumption, it's a really big deal. You can read about the news when it first came out here.

I was skeptical for a few reasons, but I'll go into that in a little bit. Today, a group of scientists in Italy are claiming that in fact that the study is wrong and that it's not traveling faster than light.

But ICARUS, another experiment at Gran Sasso - which is deep under mountains and run by Italy's National Institute of National Physics - now argues that their measurements of the neutrinos energy on arrival contradict that reading.

In a paper posted on the same website as the OPERA results, the ICARUS team says their findings "refute a superluminal (faster than light) interpretation of the OPERA result."
They argue, on the basis of recently published studies by two top US physicists, that the neutrinos pumped down from CERN, near Geneva, should have lost most of their energy if they had travelled at even a tiny fraction faster than light.

But in fact, the ICARUS scientists say, the neutrino beam as tested in their equipment registered an energy spectrum fully corresponding with what it should be for particles travelling at the speed of light and no more.

I'm fairly confident that the Opera experiment (the group the found a particle faster than light) is wrong. I hate when the media gets ahold of science and related matters because you never get a full picture. You often only hear a conclusion on the study. Without an understanding of methodology used to achieve results, how can you really know what is going on.

In a world of 'nothing faster than light', you can't measure anything faster than it. It's not like they had a speedometer to measure such things because there is nothing in science that we know of that could possible measure that. This means there is another methodology and another form of measurement for this type of thing. In this case it's a basis of the particle energy, which also happens to be another type of assumption science (just as the nothing faster than the speed of light is).

I think when you hear about quantum physics (quantum mechanics), which is the physics of the subatomic, you should be skeptical. It's actually a very tough science that we frankly don't know much about. It's growing and I think the studies are important and the more we learn the better, but I just get annoyed with so called "findings". Especially the ones picked up by the media.

Things like string theory, which by objective standards is retarded, is picked up by media and made to shine. Though the real science establishment won't touch it.

So think people. Remember that quantum physics/mechanics is a tough science to do. There's a lot of promise in the subject, but it's tough to figure things out. The measuring is by far the hardest. I find what they do very interesting and if I could be involved in such scientific projects I would. But take what you hear with a grain of salt because the standards are just not the same.

Occupy Wall Street is Anti-Semitic

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:54:00 +0000

I really didn't want to make another post on the Occupy protesters. I really don't care really because they're simply insignificant to the public. The fact that they're "occupying" a public parks has soured public opinion for them. A lot has already been said in the Occupy Wall Street is Stupid post.

I was actually compelled to post for a few reasons. I saw something in the news about Michael Moore replying to the evictions of "occupiers" in New York. I didn't actually go to his website, but I did see a little screen shot of what he said. He had a quote from the New York constitution that basically said people have the right to assemble and protest.

I thought I'd lay this out for people of the occupy movement and supporters of it;

You absolutely have the right to protest and assemble. However, you do not have the right to "occupy" public parks that taxpayers pay for. You can still assemble and protest. Ordinary citizens like to go to the park. They like to walk their dogs and just enjoy the scenery. It's a park. The vast majority (more than you) are sick and tired of the hippy fest in the park. That's why you're getting kicked out. Go to a camp ground, pay your fee and have your own occupy town there.

This really doesn't even count the excessive damage and clean up costs that cities (ie: taxpayers) are paying for. Of course, these protesters make up a proportionally less of those tax dollars to pay for it.

Anyway, the other reason why I felt the need to post again is conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic behavior. I'm not really a big fan of conspiracy theories. The conspiracies really put you in the category of "sub-human". It's completely ridiculous. The vast majority of conspiracies are about police brutality and police state funded by the NEW WORLD ORDER paid for by big corporations and blah blah blah. The Occupy Vancouver organizers issued an "unofficial" list of demands. Not only did it include stupid things like Universal Health Care covering massages, but it also covered 9/11 investigations.

Really can we please escape the 9/11 truthers. If you really believe in "social justice", why do you throw a bone to 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Come on!

I've been getting a ton of traffic lately from Facebook. I ended up looking at one of the groups that was sending traffic. I couldn't find exactly where my link was, but I looked through the page. It was Occupy Portland. For the most part it is the usual stuff, but than you'll see the main buzz words "Jew", "Zionist" and "Israel". IT just sickens me. I'm sick and tired of the Elders of Zion crap that continuously finds itself in public protests and the people that protest see it and allow it.

It annoys me.

Occupy Wall Street is Stupid

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 22:50:00 +0000

It is hard for me to actually express my disdain for this type of protest and the worst part is that they really aren't that big, but because the media keeps presenting them as big we're seeing them spread across cities. I look at that chick in the promo poster and I think about why she doesn't have a camo skirt on or something like that. We are talking about socialists that are trying to make change to the "evil capitalist empire", so I'd assume they have more of a militant goal.

When I see these people in the protests I see nothing more than people I would regard as hippies. And maybe that is an over simplified view, but that's just the way I see it. People that aren't willing to fit into the normal parts or niches of society. They regard money as the root of all evil, though they wouldn't say that. But the organizers keep it simple and it's redistribution of wealth.

Hearing comments from protesters blaming the rich. They don't work as hard as us. They just sit in their big executive chairs, and cash big checks. Really? Pouring people coffee is harder than running a business with 10,000 people. They're working hard thinking and I guess that is the big difference. They're paid for their thoughts, their expertise and their experience. And I hate to break it to you, but your amazing skills pouring coffee into a cup or scrubbing toilets isn't that high of a demand.

To suggest that someone who is smarter than you (and yes they are) owes you is nothing more than Karl Marx ideology.

In this economy, a lot of people have lost their jobs. I don't agree that banks or any business should ever be bailed out, but it happened. But there is no excuse for a protest like this. Most people that go to these typically just come for an hour and leave. But the professional protesters hang around and sleep in tents. If they put as much time into developing their skills and looking for new work (or starting their own business) they'd be employed.

The rich don't owe you. If I make more than you, it doesn't mean I owe you for making less. No one owes you anything and sooner that gets into the heads of the "entitled" we can move out of this economic recession. The only way we'll get out of this recession is the desire to make money. Profits drive economic growth, so you guys better embrace it.

How to Spot a Relativist?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:51:00 +0000

I've talked on this blog lately about relativists, in particular the cultural and moral relativists. I've been seeing this lately with the Ground Zero Mosque. A site like reddit is a epicenter of this relativism.

How can you tell? Well, if you bring up an argument against Islam you'll be met with a rebuttal about Christianity.

What you should take away from that is that people are not rebutting your point, but rather comparing and contrasting it in an attempt to marginalize your point. In order to have a real discussion with someone you need to be able to discuss facts objectively, the issue at hand and live in reality.

Often those people that really are often huge relativists will come up with rotten comparisons and just horrible examples as a means to make your point relative. In fact, in a discussion recently about the Ground Zero Mosque I was told that the Christian faith has killed several millions (just this year) and Islam has only killed 3000 (back in 2001). This is literally the crap you get.

Oh and I was also told that Hitler and Nazism is apparently a Christian event.

When it comes to talking to a relativist, the best thing you can do is just not talk to them. Frankly you'll save yourself a lot of time and a headache because you can expect the same sloppy comparisons with an attempt to marginalize every point you make. But if you must talk with a relativist you just have to make sure that you don't get off in side tangent arguments. So if you're wanting to discuss Islam, you'll probably end up on Christianity. If you want to talk about terrorism, you'll often end up on the United States.

There are a lot of reasons for why this always happens. I suppose it is this belief that all people should be equal, and if one person is successful, that is proof that they made someone unsuccessful.

For example, America is a free and prosperous country, so in their head that is proof that America makes the Middle East poor due to it's policies. I've even had people suggest to me that women are second class citizens in the Palestine because America supports Israel.

When you get right down to it, all you can do is sum it up completely as a rejection of reality. They just reject reality.

Objective Fact: A suicide bomber (Islamic) blows themselves up to kill infidels and with the belief that they'll be going to a better place (72 virgins in paradise).

Relativist: A suicide bomber blew themselves up because of American Imperialism, stealing Middle East oil, America's support of Israel (and a laundry list of other examples).

I actually use my brain and the last thing that pops into my head is blowing myself up when I don't like something. Shell drills for oil and not me, I should blow my self up, ending my life. American policy isn't what I like, I should blow myself up. America supports Israel, I want to blow myself up.

Wait, I don't think that way. I'm actually sane. I value my life, instead of thinking blowing myself up is the best step to the next (and better) life.

Objectivity is such a valuable concept. I hope you have it. If you're a relativist and want to talk about Islam. Talk about Islam. Christianity, isn't Islam. American foreign policy isn't Islam.

Intellectual Property Rights - A Moral Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:16:00 +0000

The music industry and the movie industry have been fighters against intellectual property theft (yes I used the word theft. If you comment and start talking about definitions, I'll delete it. Fair Warning). This is a fight that I'm on their side. Even though groups like the RIAA and MPAA are demonized and described as "fascists", "totalitarians" and "dictators" (yeah retarded) they are the ones that are MORALLY correct.

I'm glad to see that the Adult Entertainment Industry is starting to fight back too. Remember that hard work, thought and things that are intangible are still pieces of value. If they weren't, there wouldn't be an excuse to pirate it. I'm posting a video that the adult entertainment industry has made because it makes the solid point. If artists, designers, and all intellectual creators are not paid for their work and mooched off of by looters they will eventually stop producing it. Enjoy.

Stem Cell Research Pros and Cons

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 03:18:00 +0000

Since I have got a lot of responses for another post on a controversial science that I don't think is controversial, I thought I could do another on stem cell research pros and cons. There are a lot of strong opinions on this subject and I think what is most profound about this particular issue is that it is heavily engrained into politics. And when you have politics meddling around in science you know that there will be a lot of half truths and other fodder innuendo. I wanted to at least set things straight and get right to the facts.

What is Stem Cell Research?

I'm not going to give an overly detailed and scientific overview of what exactly this is. It's just far too complicated for me to go into a post on this. If you want to read something detailed you can check out the following page on Wikipedia.

Essentially a stem cell is something that can be developed into a wide and diverse range of other cells. I guess you could call it a premature cell that will eventually develop into a more complex cell. The science really took off when science realized that if you placed a stem cell around some other cells, it would develop into the cells you put it around.

This may seem like a bunch of science talk, but there are a lot of uses that we can get out of such a cell and I will go into them in my stem cell research pros and cons post.

Pro: Cure Disease, Spinal Cord Injuries, Blindness, etc

The medical applications of stem cells are literally endless. The big problem we have with many conditions is that we can't replicate the cells or grow any that would work in certain areas. I'll just talk about the most popular area, which is the spine. When you have nerve damage in the spine you're pretty much stuck with the results. But with stem cell research we can actually create the cells that make up the spinal nerves and fix it. I know we're not there yet as a science, but this is the potential of what we're looking at.

The same thing is true when we consider blindness. We haven't been able to cure blindness because we haven't been able to create the cells of eye sight. But now with a stem cell we can create them and possibly repair eye sight. There are an endless amount of applications that we could apply stem cells too and some of them are included below:

Baldness
Blindness
Deafness
Stroke
Traumatic brain injury
Learning defects
Alzheimer's disease
Parkinson's disease
Missing Teeth
Wound healing
Bone marrow transplantation (currently exists)
Spinal cord injury
Osteoarthritis
Crohn's disease
Various Cancers
Diabetes
Muscular dystrophy
Myocardial infarction
And more

This is probably the biggest point of any of the stem cell research pros and cons you could possibly have. There really isn't much more I can say for pros since this is essentially why science has gone into the arena. It is essentially the next evolution on modern medicine and it is quite amazing what they'll be capable of doing.

Cons: Aborted Fetuses

EDIT: I want to point out something about the "aborted fetuses" argument. The best stem cells are found in an embryo that is only 5 days old known as a blastocyst. I'm sure that this fact means no difference to those that oppose it since an embryo is created after fertilization of an egg.

You can still harvest stem cells from an aborted fetus and it has been done. It's just you don't necessarily get the right stem cells or the best that you need.

Abortion is really where stem cell research enters into politics because we're talking about embryonic stem cells. There are other ways to get stem cells though known as adult stem cells. I'm not going to go into detail about how they obtain them, but they don't require the destruction of an embryo, which is the main and only controversy associated with this science.

This is really all the stem cell research pros and cons that I have. On the pro we have ground breaking science and on the con we have a destruction of an embryo. Honestly, I don't have a problem with using embryonic stem cells because we're talking about an abortion here. You might as well put all stem cells to use for the absolutely amazing and powerful science that is being done.

I don't think anyone can really be against stem cell research, just the means of obtaining it. We have the alternative of using adult stem cells, so we shouldn't have a problem. Personally, I think scientists should be using whatever they think is the best for research and creating breakthroughs. I could care less if it comes from an aborted fetus or somewhere else.

Some people might make the con argument of that we're playing God doing this. I don't recognize this argument as I see it as nothing more than a call of the primitive. It is just a rejection call to modern medicine and I can't validate that sort of stupidity.

Edit: I should also point out that the stems cells found in embryos, fetuses and adult stem cells are all different. Capabilities are at the highest with embryos and lowest with adult stem cells.

Marijuana Legalization Pros and Cons

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 01:37:00 +0000

I thought I would get onto a topic that has a little more interest in the youth and something that I'm sure more readers will "sort of" agree with me. I'm going to do a post on marijuana legalization pros and cons. I know how people tend to be on the internet about this, especially since the crowds tend to be younger and social sites tend to show a very pro decriminalization of marijuana opinion. I thought I could get an opinion in on this and see who can agree with me.

I want to first start out by saying that I used to support legalization of all drugs. This is an opinion that I've been questioning lately. It's probably something I can go into on another post since I would take up way too much time to go into here. Marijuana legalization is something that I would probably legalize, but it would be the last thing on my list if I had the authority to do such a thing.

I want personally state that I don't think drugs should be taken and this includes marijuana. I think they're bad. I run into people who were right into pot when they were in high school and today they have a dazed look in their eyes. I don't think they're good. I think they create intellectually slow, stupid and lazy people. I know I'll get a handful of comments from people that don't like me saying that, but it's the way I see it. Anyway, on to the marijuana legalization pros and cons.

Pro: Readably and Easy Available Medical Marijuana

I'm actually a big supporter of medical marijuana since it can help a lot of people and I think the benefits outweigh the problems. When you consider a person who has cancer that is going through chemo and radiation, they'll be sick and nauseas all the time. Marijuana is a way for them to get relief from the worst feeling they'll ever experience. And considering that people will battle cancer for years it is something that I want to see more people using.

I know there are other areas where medical marijuana has important uses. I couldn't possibly list them all, but they are out there. Steve Kubby is someone that has adrenal cancer, which I believe means he has tumors growing right inside of his bones. It is supposed to be quite painful and causes his blood pressure to skyrocket. Marijuana helps him control his cancer and has been believed to keep him alive longer than any doctor thought he could. But onto more marijuana legalization pros and cons.

Pro: Eliminates the Black Market

The black market is where the bad stuff happens and I think Mexico is a prime example of what is happening. The reason why the black market always becomes violent is that all economies require a police force and a court system. When there is a disagreement and you can't work it out, you go to court. When someone does you wrong (fraud, stealing, violence) the police are there to stop this and catch the bad guy.

The black market doesn't have the courts or the police, so they have to come up with their own system. This is why you have rival gangs and the mafia heavily involved. If you're selling drugs you join a gang. It offers you protection, turf and other benefits that allow you to sell your product. At the same time you're paying a cut to the violent gangs. And this is inevitably what creates the problem.

At least if marijuana become a legal commodity it could be sold by legit businesses. When this happens you have full access to the real legal system and the gangs and mafia are no longer needed. Since they are no longer needed they lose many important funding sources that allows them to recruit members and load up on weaponry. It is essentially a way of removing the funding and taking it away from them. There are many marijuana legalization pros and cons, but I think most people view this as the most important one you can mention.

Con: Marijuana Causes Increases in Psychoses

I know I'm going to get the people that will come in and claim that marijuana is completely healthy and blah blah blah. It's not. It's not good for you. I want to point out that these conclusions aren't coming from correlated data. Correlation is the process of looking at two different variables and looking for similarities in them. It isn't the most scientific. So it would be the equivalent of noticing that people who smoke marijuana are more likely to suffer from some sort of psychoses.

I'm actually referring to longitudinal studies that are just coming out recently because we've finally had the chance to test them out. Longitudinal means that people are examined before they ever touch marijuana and then they're checked in later in life after using marijuana and seeing how they're doing. Someone left a comment on a previous post about me leaving comments with studies and that I should give them in posts, so I will.

doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1212
Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study

"Using cannabis in adolescence increases the likelihood of experiencing symptoms of schizophrenia in adulthood."

Am J Epidemiol 2002; 156:319-327
Cannabis Use and Psychosis: A Longitudinal Population-based Study

"Results confirm previous suggestions that cannabis use increases the risk of both the incidence of psychosis in psychosis-free persons and a poor prognosis for those with an established vulnerability to psychotic disorder."

The Lancet, Volume 370, Issue 9584, Pages 319-328
Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review

"The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong."

I think that is enough studies to show you, and I'm sure some libertarians are wondering what exactly is my problem with people that choose to screw up their life. I actually don't care if people screw up their life. What I'm worried about are people that can't live their life in a rational manner. That has always been a concern of mine and I'm going to say it in my post on marijuana pros and cons.

Con: Marijuana is a Gateway Drug

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack about this. I think people that use marijuana for the purpose of healing themselves are not going to view this as a gateway drug. The simple fact is that they have the purpose of health in mind while they're taking it. The fact is that the "casual use" of marijuana is to get high. Let's just call a spade a spade. People are looking to get high, escape reality and feel good. All the other hard drugs out there create those feelings. And like any drug you get less and less effect every time you use it.

If your goal is to get "high", then there really isn't a logical reason why you wouldn't move onto harder and more dangerous drugs. And yes, I'm going to post studies to help back up my claim that marijuana is a gateway drug.

RePEc:eej:eeconj:v:24:y:1998:i:2:p:149-164
Is Marijuana a Gateway Drug?

"Results provide strong support for the gateway hypothesis, indicating that marijuana use in 1984 increases the probability of cocaine use in 1988 by 29 percentage points for respondents who have never used cocaine by 1984. The implication is that cocaine use can be more effectively deterred by redirecting some enforcement resources from cocaine to marijuana."

DOI: 10.1080/09595230500126698
Is cannabis a gateway drug? Testing hypotheses about the relationship between cannabis use and the use of other illicit drugs

"Animal studies have raised the possibility that regular cannabis use may have pharmacological effects on brain function that increase the likelihood of using other drugs."

I think that is enough studies on that. I have a lot more marijuana legalization pros and cons to go into. And yes this is turning into one long monster post.

Pro: Able to Tax and Regulate

Having the power to regulate such an item gives a little more power back to the people since drug dealers aren't checking the ID of a teenager to see if they're over the age of 18. But at least we can regular it that way and prevent underage kids from getting it. I know they still can technically get it, just like teenagers can get their hands on cigarettes, but at least it is something a little more difficult. I don't think it would be possible to regular the quality grown. I know some government official would think that they could force growers to make a lower grade type of marijuana, which would only create a new black market.

Taxes is an okay argument. I know that it would solve a lot of budget problems in states like California, but I doubt that really would matter over the long run. Marijuana taxes aren't going to save states that are in money troubles because they'll just spend it all and be in another mess. And you couldn’t tax it too highly because if you do that it creates another black market, which we are starting to see with cigarettes. The black market of cigarettes is actually much more apparent in a place like Canada because the taxes are much higher there.

Con: Increases in Welfare and other Forms of Social Assistant by Users

I think one of the main things that annoys me is that people who use drugs are burn outs for the most part. I find them lazy and unmotivated. I don't really care if you disagree, but it annoys me that druggies can collect welfare. All I want to see from people rational thought and rational states, but when you choose to do drugs you deserve what you get. And you deserve no safety net. I walk over bums on the street shooting up heroine and I could care less about them.

That's not to sound mean, it's just the honest way I think about it. Everyone knows drugs are bad and when you throw caution to the win it's your fault. This con could easily be averted by requiring drug tests from people that want to receive any sort of assistance from the government.

I think this is enough marijuana legalization pros and cons for now. I could probably go on and on with this, but the post is getting a little too long now. But I'm going to go into one more thing because I know that many people are going to ask why I didn't talk about it.

It is the subject of personal freedom.

I'm very conflicted on this concept of drug use and the freedom to do it. And the reason boils down to your rational state. Most people in society (I hope 99.9%) agree with keeping drinking and driving illegal. If you think you have the personal freedom to take drugs than you must also believe you have the personal freedom to drive drunk. It's just as simple as that.

I don't believe people have the right to drive around drunk because you can't function in a rational manner. You cannot operate your vehicle rationally and therefore you're not allowed. Simple as that. And the question of rationality outside of the vehicle is debatable. Will marijuana create enough irrational behavior to warrant it being illegal? That is up for debate with people. But I hope most people can see that hard drugs like heroine cocaine and methamphetamine are drugs that make it incapable for a person to rationally control themselves. This is why we find more criminal activity among those that take hard drugs

That is why I didn't bring up personal freedom because I don't think people have the freedom to endanger my life, within reason. All I ask from society is rational thought and drugs are the anti-thesis of that. I guess that conclude my post on marijuana legalization pros and cons, so I hope you enjoy it. And I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of lippy comments for some of my positions too.

How to be a Freelance Journalist

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:50:00 +0000

I thought it would be nice if I made on post on how to be a freelance journalist because it isn't the most obvious thing to do. I'm sure you've heard of news that breaks somewhere in the Middle East or really anywhere, it is always a freelance journalist that is reporting to the major networks what is going on. I know that big news doesn't always happen where ever you may be on this planet, but you have to be prepared for it.

1. Start Your Own Website

What you want to do is pick up your own .com website name and start doing journalism. The easiest and best way to create a brand is by using your name. You put that as your domain name and you will build a brand out of it. At first no one is going to no who you are and maybe they won't know who you are when a big news story breaks, but it is a leveraging tool.

You want to set it up to be professional and to make the point that you're a freelance journalist. This is where you share your own personal well written journalism. Spend some time on stories, do research and interview people on the subject. It's a lot easier than you would think. Build up a nice portfolio of news stories that you have personally done. They'll speak volumes later when you contact a major network during a big event.

2. Have The Right Equipment

You need the right items at your disposal. That means you need a cellphone that you can make calls with, a laptop computer for you to write your story and a camera to take pictures. A camera is something that I think is important, though it is not required. I think when you have the chance to take amazing pictures you can get credit for them in the media.

If I was to pick the best camera for the job I would go with a Pentax Optio Waterproof Digital Camera because they happen to be well made and rugged. This camera is waterproof, shockproof (for dropping) and coldproof, which will cover you for all the important situations you could end up in. The other important point about the Pentax camera is that it is 12.1 MP, so the pictures are going to be crystal clear and big. Lastly, you can also record 720p high definition video with it. This is the type of video that any major network would be dreaming of when looking for footage from a freelance journalist. So definitely have one of these cameras.

When you have a laptop you want to make sure that you have the internet to upload your story. Remember that timing is very important when stories break because information is very scarce. I actually suggest not getting a full laptop, but a netbook. You may want to read the HP Mini 210 HD Edition Review since this is a pretty good netbook.

3. Start Building Contacts

A lot of people think the way to be a freelance journalist is to keep hounding CNN or something. Frankly, you're never going to find a number that would get you to anyone that could help you out. The key is building up contacts slowly and working your way up to the bigger contacts. You want to start locally and keep building them. And what you'll end up with is that your contacts will know someone that can help you get your stories out there.

That really is what happens. CNN is more likely to contact you because your name gets heard from one of your many contacts that CNN respects. And that is how it goes and that is the key to the whole thing.

Now you know how to be a freelance journalist you just have to go and do it. It is a long grueling process, but something that needs to be done. Building contacts at first will be difficult, but if you're doing good journalism the contacts will be come easier and easier to obtain.

Government Mandated Dress Codes

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:51:00 +0000

I thought I should discuss a few things with you about dress codes and things like that mandated down from the government. I wanted to get into the topic of the burka because I have said that I would support the ban on such an item even though I'm against dress codes that come people would find revealing.

If you look at the picture there you have a young lady in a skort. For those of you that don't know what that particular type of clothing is, it is a mix of shorts and skirt. The most popular type is the golf skort, but I'm sort of getting off topic here. Cause I wanted to talk about what the government is in the game of at least promoting to the general public.

I know that the idea of the government promoting a specific idea can be a bit controversial, but I don't see the harm if the idea is RIGHT. Most of the dress code controversies with the government have revolved around clothing that is too revealing or two exposing. And that doesn't necessarily mean exposing of skin, which can be illustrated by half falling down pants showing the boxers look.

I don't have a problem with things like that. You can dress that way if you want and that's the way that I see it. The question for me isn't about how liberally you go with things. The real question I feel it boils down to is whether you're being oppressed into a specific lifestyle, which includes clothing, that you cannot escape. And this is something that goes beyond the burka. But I think the burka is probably about the best illustration where the lifestyle really does have a specific dress code.

And what is that lifestyle: Oppressed Female.

And that's really what I'm opposed too. I don't have a problem with a Burka and I think it would be a very good Halloween costume, but it's what it represents to those that wear it for real. It's a symbol of everything against Western values. If you were truly free with your life and chose to wear this than I don't see a problem.

But these women aren't really free.

It is quite similar to those deeply religious Christians that live in compounds where they have Polygamist marriages and women tend to be married at young ages. The problem here is that it is difficult for them to escape that lifestyle. They dress quite old fashion, but their clothing really isn't the cloak of their oppression as you see with the burka.

I suppose this is where I'm at. We have women that will almost defend what they're doing, even though they're slaves and treated like crap. And this applies to the Christian crazies that create their own compounds. It's a problem that we can't stop completely, but there should be a hand reaching out to them to help them escape.

I thought the Quebec government had a very interesting take on this. They didn't ban the burka for those that wanted to wear it. They refused to provide any government service if you have one. They are standing up for Western values and Western customs. They're keeping the government institutions completely secular instead of bending over backwards to accommodate religious stupidity.

I think we can all stand up for women's right and that includes women that are oppressed by religious dogma. They should be able to wear skirts, skorts, dresses or whatever they want, rather than what a religion wants or what a man wants.

Obama In Afghanistan - Speaking Soon

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:34:00 +0000

I don't usually follow popular trends or what is hot in the news, but I thought I'd do it on this lazy Sunday. Obama is in Afghanistan and I've been curious what his motives are in this country. I know that his has campaigned on adding additional forces there to help win the fight, but I know that his base doesn't necessarily agree with that. It's a tough place to be in.

The fight in Afghanistan is very complex, but something that definitely has to be won. I know that many people think that taking out strategic targets is good enough. That we don't have to get down and dirty by changing the country, but I disagree with that. Power vacuums never really work out for the good. The evil/bad in that country exist because they can. It isn't a matter of removing one group from power that will keep them out and it doesn't mean that the good will fill the vacuum.

This is why we need to win the fight in Afghanistan and it is one of the few positions that I agree with Obama on. By setting up a stable secular government will help the entire world out. With freedom reigning in we can be sure that girls can go to school, women can live better and all Afghans live better. I suppose this is why Obama is in Afghanistan and he wants to reiterate these points.

President Obama speaks at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan soon, so you will want to check that out. The press conference was supposed to start at 2:05 pm EST, but that times has passed, so I guess they're running a little behind. You can view it at the White House website at the follow address: WH.gov/live

Okay, to reiterate everything. President Obama is in Afghanistan and is schedules to speak at the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and he should be announcing the support for the mission there and the need for success.

The Quebec Government vs. Niqab

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:52:00 +0000

One of the oddest places to understand is Quebec and that's not to say I'm suggesting anything bad. For most Canadians it is viewed as some whinny child that will never get its way. It's something that most would regard as much further left wing when compared to the rest of Canada. But something that I really like is that have real pride and desire to defend their culture, which is something I don't see much of in the rest of Canada.

I personally don't believe that people in Quebec are as left wing as they're made out to be. The Bloc Quebecois does quite as a political party because they're sort of just sticking it to the rest of Canada in Parliament. I think if the likes of Maxime Bernier can be elected in Quebec by the largest majority then you really can't center their politics around the Bloc Quebecois. Anyway, enough background and to the topic at hand.

I saved a link a few weeks ago regarding an incident in Quebec.

Que. government forced woman from classroom for refusing to remove face covering

MONTREAL - After months of balancing a woman's religious beliefs with her desire to learn French, the Quebec government stepped into her classroom to offer an ultimatum: take off the niqab or drop the course.

The woman opted to keep her Islamic face-covering and has filed a human-rights complaint against the government.

In a province where the government frequently faces accusations of doing too much to accommodate minorities, these actions have prompted a fair bit of praise.

The woman began taking a French course designed for immigrants at a Montreal college in February but she refused to remove her niqab while men were present.

The college was initially willing to accommodate her, but eventually balked as her demands escalated.

According to a report in a Montreal newspaper, she was allowed to give an oral with her back to the class and asked men to move so they wouldn't face each other.

The breaking point occurred when the woman again refused to take off the niqab, though teachers had stressed it was essential they see her face to correct her enunciation and facial expressions.

In what appears to be a highly unusual move, provincial Immigration Minister Yolande James intervened. Officials from her department, acting with the minister's knowledge, met with the woman to discuss her options.

"The government has specific pedagogical objectives in its French courses," said James's spokesman, Luc Fortin.

"We couldn't accept that these objectives, or the learning environment in the class, be compromised."

Several groups, including several teachers' unions, applauded the government for drawing a line in the sand. So did moderate Muslim groups.

"When people come to Canada we're not coming to the Islamic Republic of Canada," said Raheel Raza, a Muslim women's-rights activist who has argued for a public ban on religious face coverings.

"We are coming here because we want that freedom, we want the separation of church and state."

The question that needs to be asked is how accommodating do we need to be for those that are new here. This is the boundary where multiculturalism runs into problems because there is a culture that defines the country and values that people find important.

Here is an article I saw in the news today:

New Quebec law: Uncover your face if you want to deal with provincial government

MONTREAL — Muslim women will need to uncover their faces from now on if they want to deal with the Quebec government, according to landmark legislation tabled Wednesday in the province.
In doing so, Quebec has delved into sensitive territory where governments in Canada have largely avoided treading. The bill tabled in the legislature says people obtaining - or delivering - services at places like the health-or auto-insurance boards will need to do so with their faces in plain view.
It says people's face-coverings will not be tolerated if they hinder communication or visual identification.
Premier Jean Charest told a news conference that the province was drawing a line in the sand in defence of two principles: gender equality, and secular public institutions.
"This is a symbol of affirmation and respect - first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms," Charest told a news conference.
"This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us. . .
"An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state."
While the debate over such identity issues has raged in Europe for years, Canadian politicians have generally been reluctant to weigh in.
Quebec has been an exception.
The Charest government has actually faced persistent criticism from opponents who say it has done too little to draw up guidelines for accommodating minorities.
Newspapers have been full of stories where people express outrage over perceived religious excesses, and the opposition has clobbered the government in the legislature over its supposed inaction.
The bill tabled by Justice Minister Kathleen Weil explicitly points out that any provisions are subject to the guarantees of gender and religious equality outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Quebec, this debate has consumed a tremendous amount of attention for what amounts to a miniscule number of cases.

It's hard for me to actually add to what Premier Jean Charest said because he pretty much said it all. I know that some multiculturalist (cultural relativist) will see this post and I'm going to be called bigoted or racist. I'll point out that Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. Also, wanting equality under the law is not racist or bigoted.

Let's just get right down to the core of things. I'm an engineer and that's what we do best. We're talking about an ideology that believes women are nothing more than second class citizens. An ideology that believes a woman is half that of a man. And the reason that they wear a Niqab (or burka or hijab) are nothing more than tools to illustrate that women are simply second class. It is one of the most sexiest and anti-female thing occurring in the Western world and there doesn't seem to be enough people standing up to it.

The problem with multiculturalism (in a nut shell) is two specific beliefs: First, the belief that all cultures are just different and second, the belief that you should be tolerant of them because they're different. The first point is a fair point, but the second one isn't. I CAN'T tolerate backwards ideologies and cultures. I just can't do it. If you think women are second class citizens, then I don't want you in this country. I won't respect it, and I assume most people wouldn't either. But when you cloak it in a religion (Islam) it suddenly becomes taboo for me to oppose it.

That is the whole issue and it is what I wanted to say. At least the Quebec government is deciding to fight against backwards culture. They're fighting for equality of the sexes and they're fighting for a completely secular government that isn't going to treat people different because they come from a specific religion. Good for them.

Genetically Modified Foods Pros and Cons

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:07:00 +0000

I am a big fan of genetically modified foods and I think this is just another perfect example of what is one of the greatest things that science has ever done, yet it is completely demonized as an evil by other groups. Genetically modified foods are foods that have their DNA changed to help them thrive better in harsher conditions. With this type of technology we can produce more food per acre of land and have crops that are resistant to things like drought, disease and insects.

I know the idea of playing with the DNA seems scary, but it really isn't that revolutionary of a concept. Selective breading has been a process that has been going on for a long time. Selective breeding is probably happening in your life now by the mate you choose the offspring you have. The DNA changes every generation and there is nothing wrong with that.

The real issue I have is with people waging a propaganda war spreading lies and slanders against genetically modified foods. Things about splicing the DNA of rice with the DNA of a fish seem to be common talking points. This sort of thing happens in a laboratory for scientific study only. The food that you get at the store is modified with other plants to make something better. Many of the people against this also have this view that business is malevolent by nature. I can't argue with people that think like that, but for the rest of you I'm going to show you genetically modified foods pros and cons that are real.

PRO: We Can Produce More Food Per Acre

This is the real pro of genetically modified foods. If a farmer simply changes their seeds to a GMO seed they'll produce 2, 3, 4 or even 5 times as much food on the same amount of land. This is huge and a very important thing. I don't know if you've realized, but there are a lot of people on this planet that don't have enough food to eat. We should be working hard to produce genetically modified foods, so we have more food for everyone.

But this is a tough battle to win when environmental groups lobby the governments of poor countries to deny the entry of GMO crops into their country, most of which comes free from the first world. They are able to convince the politicians in these countries that this food causes cancer, death, mutations, etc. All of that is a lie and no science to back it up. Why do they do this? Environmental groups are anti-science by nature because they view every human advance as a deficit to the environment. I have some more genetically modified foods pros and cons for you because this is a very big issue.

PRO: We Can Grow Food In The Harsh Climates

The reason why many people go hungry in Africa is due to the fact that the climate just isn't that great for farming. Not only do they not have the technology to properly produce regular crops, they're faced with the common problem of droughts. With genetically modified seeds they could produce food without all the technology and water they need. They would get much more food. More food means there is more production and that is more overall wealth.

We have seeds today that are so good at growing that if you plant a seed, the plant will actually produce more and more year after year without the farmer doing it. They'll grow another crop and still have the old crop grow. We're talking about powerful stuff here that could help us produce a ton of food. There are many genetically modified foods pros and cons, but you have to see that this is a big benefit and you should want to do this.

PRO: Less Pesticide Use

Pesticides are a very important part of making sure the crops that are planted will actually survive for the harvest. But when you have insects and other parasites in your region you have to use pesticides on specific crops. We all know that pesticides aren't good for people and those of you that live in close proximity to a farm are more likely to end up with cancer at an earlier age. This is something that can be easily solved with genetically modified foods. When you splice the DNA of corn with a plant that can defend itself from a specific parasite, you can plant corn and not have to worry about the parasite.

And the great thing about the modification process is that you can make different kinds of breeds that are designed for different regions and countries. This means that we can develop crops that will work in just about any place in the world and actively fight against specific parasites and disease that crops would normally be destroyed by. It is very important that people understand the genetically modified foods pros and cons because they're important. I never hear environmentalists talking about how we can eliminate the use of pesticides this way.

CON: Environmentalists Will Whine

The only con I could think of when it comes to genetically modified foods is that environmentalists will go nuts and go on propaganda campaigns. I'll have to listen to them blather out their anti-science agenda and over all anti-man agenda. Even though that is a pretty big con for me because it would absolutely drive me crazy, I think I can live with it. I can only hope the media would smarten up and not allow them to bring their propaganda and outright lies on television.

These are some of the genetically modified foods pros and cons, so I hope you're better educated on the subject. I'm going to make a post at a later date with more information on the subject because it is very important. Genetically modified foods are a good thing and we really need to stop the anti-science dogma from getting their way.

If you're someone that is sick of anti-science and other propaganda on issues, you should read my stem cell research pros and cons post. I decided to finally put the anti-science talk to rest. Marijuana legalization pros and cons might not be related to this post, but I know it's a topic that everyone seems to have position for.

What Passes as Climate Change Science

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:40:00 +0000

There is something that has been really grinding my gears for quite some time. I hate calling this "Climate Change" because it fits into the marketing of something. They called it Global Warming, but they needed something a little more encompassing of every possible scenario that could possibly happen with the climate.

I guess what annoys me is what is promoted as science. We're led to believe there is a consensus on all this, but we're not really seeing the whole picture. Those that are promoting global warming science (climate change science) are well funded, politically motivated and tap into the sentiment that mankind is at its root malevolent to the environment. What we end up with is journalists that are telling us about the solid science. We have musicians and actors telling us about the science.

Climategate opened up to the world some of the internal thinking of the so called "science" that goes on. Science is about free and open debate. It's the ability to express your view, throw ideas around and do the scientific work that needs to be done. There has been bullying and slandering of scientists that disagree. The concept of peer reviewing has been driven to a perverted popularity contest.

I think the most alarming information is the fact that the CRU (Climate Research Unit) will not release the climate data they have. They screen the people who get it. And they're not even responding to Freedom of Information (Act) requests. Is this what we think of when we think of free, open and peer reviewed science?

Professor Phil Jones in the News

I'm sure you've seen this sometime on the weekend. Climate Skeptics (and deniers) are chanting about this and saying that the debate is over. Let me quote what he said exactly:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Basically, he's saying there is no statistical change over the last 15 years or so. He does show a positive trend, but it's not statistically significant. And essentially that means that there is no evidence that this chance is nothing more than chance.

I want to point out that this is what is started to upset me about climate change science. We have Phil Jones talking about a specific time period and skeptics (and deniers) are rebuking him in the same specific time period.

"Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say." --William W. Watt

I hope that people understand that statistics are really something that can fall easily to manipulation. If you need to see the proof look at Washington think tanks on employment/unemployment. They both get the same data from the government, yet can come up with totally different unemployment rates, trends and employment projections.

The statistics are really only as good as your understanding of the definitions behind them and the assumptions made by the person creating them.

The Hockey Stick Graph

I know that there has already been a controversy with the hockey stick graph. I frankly don't care. It's about the little ice age and some warming period that are missing from the graph. You can read about it here.

Look at the graph very carefully. Read what it says in the box. Read it again. If you're not getting pissed off than you don't understand some basic rules of science. It doesn't matter if the little ice age is listed on it. The fact that I'm not hearing any scientists bring up this one simple point makes me question their integrity. Maybe engineers need to take them over.

There are 5 types of data points on this graph: Thermometers (red), tree rings, corals, ice cores and historical records (blue). There are specific ethical things that need to be done when you stick various amounts of data derived from various sources on one graph. The first rule is that you can't look at actual values, just magnitudes. The reason for that is that the data isn't calibrated for each other. There are degrees of errors on data and the way you measure it. The second thing you have to do is measure it over a equal range.

Let's review: tree rings, corals, ice cores historical records will work for the 1000 year timeline on the graph. The thermometers are a relatively new item to the graph. They're more accurate, but you can't throw them on the graph like that. It's not calibrated for the data, which makes it a gross manipulation and this shouldn't ever happen in science.

I suspect the person(s) that created this graph already believed in Global Warming and were specifically looking for something to validate the conclusion. Something that definitely falls into the category of "Cargo Cult Science".

I could really go on and on about this graph and the issues that don't seem to be brought up. Things like degrees of error not being on the graph (I assume, since the gray is not labeled). I'm also curious to know how you objectively and scientifically measure the temperature of the Northern hemisphere with thermometers without having an even distribution of thermometers over that massive land (and water). But I thought I could stick with the statistical issues, rather than the science that never gets talked about.

Graph Ranges and Timelines

This is something that also pissed me off and when I see it, I see dishonesty. Let's take a look at the hockey stick graph again.

Let's look at the y-axis (vertical axis). The range is 2.1 degrees. This is completely appropriate if you're looking at this graph as a stand alone piece of data. I hope everyone would recognize that if the range was changed to 5 to 10 degrees the graph would look insignificant.

This really isn't that big of a deal because it's the x-axis (horizontal axis) that is the real issue. The range is 1000 years. Early I mentioned the no significant warming since 1995 (10 years). The issue with ranges is that you have to pick one that is long enough to show the true story. With a small enough range you can show just about anything that you want. The hockey stick graph is completely insignificant when you put it into perspective.

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. I'm not exactly sure when we got an atmosphere though. We also know that the peak of the last ice age was 18,000 years ago. Do I really need to say that a graph with a range of 1000 years or 15 years or 10 years or 5 years is so damn statistically insignificant that is absolutely brain dead to even consider it. The Earth is billions of years old and we're talking about grains of sand. The last ice age happened between 110,000 years ago and 10,000 years ago. That is a long time, which should provide the evidence for needing a longer time range for these graphs.

Let's look at the graph with a timeline 18,000 years.

The data is from the Greenland ice cores, if you're curious. Do you see the hockey stick? It is completely insignificant on a graph that is of a proper range to study variations in the climate over time of a planet that is billions of years old and a climate that changes over periods of 10,000 to a 100,000 years. The only way that you could use a 1000 year range is if you believed in the Bible (like an idiot) and thought the Earth was 6000 years old.

I'd also like to point out that this graph is in Fahrenheit, which would only serve to make the hockey stick stand out more than it would under Celsius.

I'm not denying global warming or climate change, though I'm very skeptical considering the "woo woo" that seems to be passing as science. The stuff I mentioned here isn't about the science or the data, it's about the way it is presented and it's done in unethical and unscientific manner. That's really my point and it's what pisses me off the most.

FYI: Not spelled checked, so definitely contains grammar and spelling errors. And my letter "R" sometimes sticks on my laptop, so you might find missing "R"s.

Capitalism Quotes: My Favorites

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 22:48:00 +0000

Capitalism is by far the best economic system that we've come up with. And I like to hear quotes from people talking about it or glorifying it. You don't exactly hear the glorification that often today on television or even in conversations with people. Typically the usual whining about it. So I hope you enjoy them.

"All people, however fanatical they may be in their zeal to disparage and to fight capitalism, implicitly pay homage to it by passionately clamoring for the products it turns out."
-- Ludwig von Mises

"History suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom."
-- Milton Friedman

"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."
-- Ayn Rand

"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."
-- Winston Churchill

"Capitalism is our only moral system. All other systems take advantage of man's rights and liberties."
-- Ayn Rand

"By virtue of exchange, one man's prosperity is beneficial to all others."
-- Frederic Bastiat

There are plenty of more capitalism quotes that I like, but I only have so much room and so much time to present them to you. I thought I'd leave you with an interesting video. Keynes and Hayek rap about economics.

Globalization Pros and Cons

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:09:00 +0000

I thought it was important for me to discuss the globalization pros and cons with you because there is so much propaganda working against it. I often hear hyperbolic words to describe it like "exploitation" and rich countries using poor countries, but that's not really what it means. Globalization is the concept of opening up the markets of countries and allowing the world to participate. There are even people that think this is how a country loses wealth because it leaves the country.

I hope that anyone with a brain recognizes that in a market, you don't have the wealth of a nation looted by merely opening up the borders. There isn't a person on this planet that takes their hard earned money and allows someone else to take it. That's not how the market works. Everything is a mutual exchange of goods and services. If you buy a television, from an American retailer that had a Chinese person make, isn't a loss for society or for you. Though some would tell you that an American worker should have made the television.

I hope when I present the globalization pros and cons, you'll at least look at things from an objective point of view, instead of looking at things as exploitation or things of that nature.

PRO: Increased Competition

One of the biggest complaints that I hear about capitalism is the fact that big evil monopolies immerge. I've never seen any big evil monopolies that have occurred in a true free market economy, nor if there was one, why it is a bad thing. But I think everyone appreciates increased competition because it means more innovation and cheaper prices in the market place. With a nice open world market, which you get with globalization, there is no way that you can run into monopolies and things of similar nature.

Something I feel is far more important is that competition leads to the restructuring of a labor force. This is where you happen to find the most resistance to globalization because people fear change. If it is cheaper and better to manufacture in China then Americans will experience losses in manufacturing jobs. This has been happening for some time and we'll continue to see it in the future.

Is that a bad thing? I don't think so, but I know many people that hold these jobs will tell you. But think about this. Agriculture used to be the big labor market in the past. Most people worked in the fields doing horrible work, just to produce enough food for us to all eat. Someone invented the tractor and put a lot of people out of work. Could you imagine how the world would look today if the government forced the ban of the tractor to save jobs? We'd probably still be working on farms.

But instead, these people left their jobs and moved to the cities. The labor force adapted and moved into more manufacturing like markets. Today, we're facing the same type of change. The labor force is moving into the information market and some are calling this the next market revolution. There is no doubt that the Western world is producing the most brilliant minds on the planet. It's a waste of labor to have people here working on a manufacturing line when they could do something a hell of a lot better. This is one of the big globalization pros.

PRO: Everyone Gets Richer

The problem with the anti-Globalization movement is that they assume everything is zero-sum. If I go and buy groceries, I'm somehow poorer. That is not how it works. If I'm willing to pay $500 for a television, I'm not poorer. The business selling the television isn't poorer either. I'm more than willing to give up $500 for a television and the business is more than willing to give up a television for $500. I get something that provides the entertainment I want and the business turns a profit. We're both richer for the transaction.

When I can go into the market in Cambodia and do more profitable business then I'm better off to do that. A farmer in Cambodia can sell food to me and it's not exploitation even if I pay a cheap price. If they normally sold things for a $1/pound, there's no way that I can buy from him at $0.25/pound. If I'm picking up a huge volume, he would go out to get more land and a modern tractor. This helps this farmer produce more food and less cost, which increases their profit margins.

We're all richer when we are able to freely trade in all markets around the world. Globalization pros and cons are usually derived from this particular fact, but if you can get past the hyperbolic terms like exploited you should see we have people that want to do business.

A little evidence to prove my point… Asian countries have been the most open countries to globalization. The continent of Africa is the least open to globalization on the planet (aside from South Africa). If you go back half a century you'd know that Africa was actually a better place to live when compared to Asian countries. But with globalization Asian countries are pushing into the first world. China and South Korea are practically first world countries now. We have Malaysia, which is modern and also Singapore. Countries like Vietnam and Thailand are on their way to being first world too.

Africa has been stuck in a rut. Corrupt politicians that are more interested in tribal living and anti-West dogma. Their markets are closed for business and that is why the people in those countries have the lowest standards of living on the planet. And just consider the fact that Africa is the most resource rich continent on the planet and it's also dirt poor.

There are many more globalization pros and cons. This particular post has got a little too long right now, so I'm going to continue it in the future with more information for you to digest and put into your system.

Another subject that could have a big impact on medicine in the Twenty First century is discussed in my post on stem cell research pros and cons. If you want to know more about personal freedom and related topics you should read my marijuana legalization pros and cons post.

The Cultural Relativists Evasion of Reality

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:57:00 +0000

I wasn't expecting to post so soon, but some journalistic crap fell into my lap and it just proved my point. This is something related to my previous post on Islam and Cultural Relativism. You will need to read that post first before you'll ever understand what I'm talking about in this post.

I made the point in the last post of saying that these people will often excuse bad cultures and even elevate the bad (and put down the good) as a means of balancing out cultures. I just happened to read an article that made me sick. It's disgusting how something like this could ever be published. The fact that no one has fired this person for the article just makes you think.

Honour Killings? What we've done to young Emma is just as shameful by Liz Jones.

I want you to take the time to read that article. The most alarming part that stands out is the following statement.

But can we in the West really claim the moral high ground when it comes to condemning these ‘honour’ killings’?

This is the beginning of the evasion of reality. For some reason it is this position that you have no right to criticize. You'll see the same reasoning of people that think Iran have the right to nuclear weapons. I'm going to break down that entire article for you, just in case you're too lazy to read it.

Basically, Liz Jones is looking at Emma Watson and Medine Memi. Emma Watson was in the Harry Potter movies and Medine Memi was 16 year old girl buried alive in Turkey for talking to boys on the telephone (honor killing).

The reason that Emma Watson was in this article is that she made a lot of money. She's in the top 20 of Hollywood earners this year. And Liz, the cultural relativist, decided to use her to put down a culture and also elevate one.

Her reasoning is that we're evil and bad because we like to see young girls. I'm not sure exactly what she's suggesting. If it is something perverted or something about child labor related stuff. I don't know. But the fact that she views a successful actress making money as something just as bad (or more so) as burying someone alive, paints the picture I was trying to illustrate in a previous post.

So What Did She Do?

Essentially what happened here is that Western culture was put down because a 19 year old girl earned a lot of money. A barbaric culture was elevated (by trivializing it) and disgustingly evading what was done.

There is more to this. What you'll learn about cultural relativists are that facts don't matter to them. Emma Watson made a lot of cash for a number reasons. The most obvious one is that she was part of one of the most successful movie series ever. She wasn't an exploited young girl or some perverted cultural thing, she was playing a character from a book. A 40 year old woman can't play Hermione Granger.

The bigger fact missed here is the list of top earners. Of the top 20 earners in Hollywood, someone else important on the list was there. Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter, was on the same list and made more money than Emma. It just proves that facts were purposely left out and I doubt Liz Jones even cares.

But that's the thing...

Western Culture is put down
Bad culture is elevated
And facts are irrelevant and ignored

I know that this example was rather extreme. I'm still surprised that someone actually wrote an article like this. Most of the comments on the website are people saying how horrible it is and how comparing Emma Watson to an honor killing is wrong and evil.

The Cultural Relativist and Anti-Americanism

This is something that is a little more common and you're going to see this much more. You'll see this just about everywhere outside of the United States. You'll even see it by Democrats and related cultural relativists in the United States. They have this default view that the US is sinister by nature and I hope you're starting to understand why they believe that. But here is a video you need to see from Canada with an interview of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Just watch the way the journalist works. He's trying hard to balance cultures. He's doing it as best as he can and obviously he does it by putting down a free society. I don't know if I can continue to explain the same thing, but you can tell that the host of the show has the pissed off arrogant view of the United States. He's using hyperboles and things like that to describe things.

That video pisses me off, but that is what you're going to see from the average cultural relativist. Facts are evaded. Well facts aren't evaded. Reality is evaded and facts are ignored. Hyperboles are used and it literally destroys definitions of words. When you call Bush a "dictator", you're really destroying the word.

See how he says "stolen" elections when she brings democracy. We all know this guy doesn't think Obama stole the election and thinks Bush did. Reality and facts tell us that neither of them stole anything and the elections were fair, but not to the cultural relativist.

I don't think I can talk much more on this topic because it upsets me. It makes me mad. And I have trouble with people that try to evade reality. You guys can read through this post and get a better idea of how this is being done.

Islamism and Cultural Relativism

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:40:00 +0000

I've noticed over the years that my ideology on life has evolved and grown. For the longest time it was my political ideology that has evolved, but I've found it is my over all ideology, including politics, that has really grown. I try to live my life by reality and objective facts. I want my life to be as a scientist, not as a person that tries to evade reality (ie: religious people, dogmatic people, and even political ideology).

I had to challenge some of my beliefs with regards to multiculturalism and things of that nature. Cultural Relativism is something that his buried deep inside multiculturalism. You find it in left wing people. And you see it less likely in right wing. Yet, I've rarely ever heard a conservative talk about these things and hence why it took so long for me to even challenge myself. And someone that is also a cultural relativist is someone that is also a moral relativist.

Those of you that read this post who are cultural relativists (multiculturalists) will have one word pop into your head: "racist". I'll get into why people feel that way later in this post. I'm not racist. I'm talking about culture, values, ethics and the way people choose to live their life. Something as trivial as your skin pigmentation doesn't determine your culture and if you think it does then you're the racist.

All Cultures/Ideologies/Values Are Equal

This is the axiom hidden deep inside multiculturalism and it's something most people don't see. I never recognized what I was doing for most of my life with this. Are all cultures equal? The objective answer is no. The answer from reality is no. I used to think, who's to say that Western culture is any better than the culture of a tribe in New Guinea.

But is Western culture better than a culture that still sacrifices virgins to their God(s)? Yes. Hell Yes. A culture that sacrifices virgins is primitive, savage, sick, old fashion, stupid, retarded, etc. Is treating women as equals better than the Islamic ideology of treating women as nothing more than property? YES! Women are not property of men and that is the RIGHT ideology.

Are female genital mutilations right or wrong? (A question on moral relativism)

You see where I'm going with all these points. The reality is that there are BETTER ways to live your life. There are BETTER ideologies to follow. And the question really comes down to how much we tolerate variations of this.

Indiscriminants

I know some of you are thinking so what? What's the big deal if a person thinks all cultures are equal? The real issue is how people align themselves inevitably from their cultural relativism. Evan Sayet used the term "indiscriminant" to describe this concept. He's done a few speeches at the Heritage Foundation and I thought the second speech was the best, so here's a link. The video is an hour long, so I'll reiterate the points here that I took away from it.

The cultural relativist tries to evade reality, but it's hard to do. You can't evade the fact that the standard of living in the United States and Israel is far better than the Muslim countries in the Middle East.

Being indiscriminant means that you morally think the act of discrimination based on culture and ideology is wrong (and racist). And that is the main reason why some people will find this post "racist".

This is where the twisted reasoning comes into play. Since the cultural relativist thinks all cultures are equal it must mean that there is some sort of injustice to explain why the United States and Israel are better than these other countries. How else could you explain it if their cultures are equal?

The danger of this way of thinking is that reality has to be explained. And inevitably it involves an act of balancing out the countries. It's the United States and Israel's fault that the Middle East is poor. It's their fault because they stole their oil and land. It's their fault for having bases on Muslim land. Just recently I read a news article that concluded suicide bombings in the Gaza strip were Israel's fault.

What generally happens is that the good or better is put down (slandered) and the bad or evil is elevated. And that's my real issue here.

If you go to vastly multicultural counties (most of Europe), you'll find a disdain hatred of the United States. Why? Because it has to be put down. It's why Bush was called Hitler. American soldiers called Nazis. Guantanamo Bay a death camp. This happens not because American soldiers are Nazis, but because they're fighting people that are actually quite close to being Nazis.

Ron Paul, who I don't think is a multiculturalist but definitely a cultural relativist, thinks that 9/11 was America's fault. He doesn't believe these people were motivated by religious hatred for infidels and thinks America just pushed them too hard. IE: America's fault.

The Promotion of Evil

It isn't enough to put down America. You have to build up the other side. And this is where the whole problem lies. There are very bad cultures moving into our societies and they're spreading. Something that has upset me lately is the Burka and airport security. We live in a country that allows people the right to worship freely, but that doesn't extend anywhere into the lives of others. We have people that think their religious freedom means that they don't have to take off their Burka for airport screening. I'm sorry. You have the right to believe in what you want, but you don't have the right to make us change our screening process because you want to be an oppressed Islamic woman.

But this is what happens. People are fighting for the rights of this "religious minority" and want to help them get the "rights" they deserve.

When the Danish cartoons were published there were riots just about everywhere. It's very easy to see where the cultural relativist would stand on this. They would blame the newspapers for publishing it. They'd blame them for stirring things up or being "racist". They'd blame the government for not helping out this religious minority.

The objective reality of the situation is that free speech was used and they rioted because they didn't like it.

I think the Canadian Human Rights Commissions explain exactly what I'm trying to illustrate with the balancing out of sides. A magazine in Canada published the Danish cartoons and was sued by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. It was Ezra Levant with the Western Standard magazine. He has a great blog, so make sure you check it out. He fought for his right to free speech and eventually won after 3 years (and $100,000 in legal fees).

A Muslim man in Quebec wrote a book that stated that homosexuals should be beheaded. Complaints were made and the Human Rights Commission determined there was nothing wrong with it. Why? Because he was of a backward minority and he needed to be helped out. If you're white though, watch out.

Islamism and Western Culture

The thing that makes Western culture different from that of the rest of the world is freedom, democracy and respect. Muslims are immigrating into the Western world because we are prosperous and that leads to a better life. Most people that come here adapt to our culture. It's not a full adaption, but they adapt the idea of free speech, press, democracy, respect, peace, equality between sexes, religious freedom, etc. Most Muslims that immigrate will assimilate to these very important values. That doesn't mean they can't go eat at a Pakistani restaurant or cheer for their home country at the Olympics.

The key here is that you should pick up the important values that make your new country great and for the very reason that you choose to go there. Tolerance of new people is important too. I'm not advocating intolerance for perfectly rational immigrants.

But what many people don't realize is that people are immigrating to the Western world, not because they want to be Americans or Canadian, but because they want to change the culture of the country. The multiculturalist and the cultural relativist is completely blind to the concept of a cultural minority trying to assimilate the majority.

How do you deal with an influx of immigrants that want to change your country? And not change it to make it better, but to change it to something far more primitive?

That is what we're seeing today, especially with Islam. Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, almost introduced sharia law in the province. He almost did it until someone told him to wake up. Literally court rooms that are governed, not by Canadian laws, but by Sharia law.

If you're unfamiliar with Sharia law than you should really read up on it. It's completely incompatible with Western countries. The concept of individual rights, free speech, equality between sexes, privacy, etc don't work under this type of law. And when I say incompatible, I mean if you're gay you will be hanged in the streets. If you're a female that just happens to show your face or body, you're just asking to be raped. Saudi Arabia is a perfect example of a country where Sharia law is in place. When a woman is raped, it's her fault. She gets lashed and goes to jail. Old men are marrying 8 year olds.

How tolerant can we be to these ideals? It's not racist or bigoted to oppose this.

Islam is a Totalitarian Ideology

Islam is an ideology and I'm sick of people using the word religion because that usually puts this ideology into an area where you can't criticize or say things that might offend. How come it is perfectly acceptable (and actually expected) to be intolerant of Nazism, yet being intolerant of Islamism and Sharia Law makes you some sort of racist bigot?

If you go deep into the religious books of any religion, you're going to find things that you find sick. The question comes down to the ideology and how it has evolved. Christianity today isn't quite as hard line as it used to be. Sure, they have extreme believers, but for the average person they don't even care that much. They're just trying to live their life as best as they can. And this is true for just about all religions today.

Islam at its root core is a totalitarian ideology, which makes it much different than other religions today. It has a goal to spread over the entire planet. But the other aspect is that Islam and politics are one. Or that is at least their goal.

I try to break up Islam into 4 groups of people.

The Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels and is willing to be a religious martyr)
The Passive-Aggressive Fundamentalist (Believes everything, is in a Jihad against infidels, but isn't going to blow themselves up or be violent. They will use democratic and completely legal means to achieve their objective and be the biggest spreaders of propaganda)
The Moderate (Believes in the mystic aspects of Islam. They're not in any Jihad or anything like that. They want to rebrand and change Islam to something that is more compatible with Western culture)
The Average Dude (This is just a person that is Muslim by label. They're not wrapped up in the religion. They probably don't even pray. They're more concerned about living their life)

All of these positions could be applied to just about every religion. And I put them in order of danger. Obviously, I'd like to see all people of any religion fall into the "Average Dude" category. They're the ones that live in reality. I consider most Christians in the United States to fall into the Average Dude category.

The fundamentalist is the extremist. They're the ones that fly planes into buildings and they're the ones that have suicide bombers. They believe in their book so much that they're willing to die for it. The scariest thing about Islam for me is the following statement made by a terrorist:

"We love death more than the infidels love life."

I think most people really have to let that quote marinate into your mind for a few minutes. That is the most dangerous type of ideology. How do you reason with people that love death more than you love life? You can't. And we're seeing this appeasement to terrorists. We're reaching out to them trying to reason with them. The Taliban is currently being negotiated with. Could you imagine how bad the Nazis would of been if they believed in the quote above?

The passive aggressive fundamentalist is the non-violent jihadist. They agree with the goals of the extremists (ie: Islamic totalitarianism and Sharia Law), but they're going to work in a non-violent way to achieve it. I personally think it is this type of group that happens to be much more dangerous than the extremists because they work so well together. I think the best way I've heard this described is that in a game of good cop bad cop, they're the good cops. The extremists are the bad cops. But they're working together for the same goal. You'll find that this group is much more politically active and they play the victim card all the time. Plus they spread most of the propaganda.

The moderate is the person that takes away the mystic side of the religion. Allah gives them meaning, so they're Muslims. They don't believe in all the details, just the "spiritual" side of the religion. I find this to be quite an annoying place for religion. The big issue is that the fundamentalist, passive aggressive fundamentalist and the moderate are all Muslims. And it's one word to describe three different types of people with three different types of goals. And it is the real reason why it is taboo to criticize Islam. These people are obviously better to have in society, but they're almost like a shield for the bad part of Islam.

Moderates are like the people that are trying to make Islam "cool and hip" in modern society. The problem with that is that they're not Muslims and they're not teaching Islam. They're just as big of infidels as I am. The reality is that you can't read the Qur'an and become a moderate. You can only become a fundamentalist (or passive aggressive fundamentalist).

How Many Fundamental (and Passive-Aggressive) Muslims?

The real question people have is how many people fit into the "bad" category for Islam. No one really has a straight answer for this because there is really no poll to take. And if there was a poll, why would anyone answer correctly? The number of violent fundamentalists is a small percentage. But that works out to 12-15 million people at 1%. The real question is how many passive aggressive fundamentalists are there? This number is much larger and scarier.

We have access to election polls in Islamic countries and we can look at how many votes terrorist groups have got.

Hamas: 42.9% (2006)
Hezbollah: 10.9% (2005 Nationally), 21% (2004 Municipal Governments)
Muslim Brotherhood: 20% of Seats ( 2005) *they ran as independents because their party is illegal.

The lowest percentage here is 10.9%. That could mean 120-150 million people. That's a lot. But there are some other polls on specific issues that might actually scare you. A poll done in Palestine found that 55% supported suicide bombings against Israel as a legitimate way to achieve political goals.

I think I'm going to have to do a second part to this post because it is getting way to long. This topic is quite complex and books could be written on it. It's hard to compress this all into a blog post. Make sure you check back for a second part on this.

Forced Spending the Key to Economic Growth?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:26:00 +0000

I'm getting rather annoyed about I keep hearing on television. Economists keep saying that spending is the key to economic growth and it's how we're going to be pushed out of this recession. I'm not denying that spending is part of the economy, but spending inevitably falls under supply and demand. It naturally gravitates to a balance and I think people are missing that.

The main thing that annoys me is that people like Robert Rice and other economists keep saying if the government cuts taxes, bails out the people, gives refund checks that people would save their money or pay off debt. OH THE TRAGEDY!!!! The horrors of saving your money. Oh no!! Paying off your debt. That's treason!!!

There needs to be a balance between capital and spending. Saving your money, paying off debt, investing all falls under the category of capital. Spending is when you consume. Obviously a business will do better if more people buy, but there needs to be capital too. You can't make loans, without capital. You can't make investments without capital.

Americans have been spending way too much and saving too little. Like, this is an undisputed fact. The fact that saving rates have been growing is good. The fact that people are taking any extra money and paying off their debt is good. If you want a credit crisis to be fixed, let people pay off their debt, let people save money. The more capital a bank has, the more money they can lend.

Obviously the government just wants to spend because that's what the government does best. Government spending will never fix this problem. Money that the government spends comes from someone else. The money leaves the economy and comes to them as tax or the money leaves the economy and comes to them as purchased bonds. There's no net gain, just a distortion between capital and spending.

I'm sure I'll get a typical response like "well what would you do?" It's suddenly implied that something must be done. The market is correcting itself from a distortion and that's what has to happen. No amount of spending will change that. When the correction is finished, the economy will be able to get back to business. Cutting taxes would help, but it's not going to change much. The correction will still need to occur.

The only remedy for this problem... is time.

Are Wind Turbines Good Enough?

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:53:00 +0000

I really wanted to mix a little science and politics today. I'm very passionate about this issue because I am an electrical engineer and I did major in power systems. I've had the chance to study, design and work with the "renewable energy" sources that are so hyped by the government. Well, are wind turbines good enough? I would argue no.

Everyone that reads my blog is always suspicious about my motives since I'm a capitalist and obviously wouldn't support such things. With all the subsidies and slimy businesses involved with the government to produce this stuff, it should be enough to make my point, but I'm going to talk to you about the realities.

When I hear Obama talk about solar panels and wind generators, I think he's talking about this new utopia. The talk that we can get off foreign oil and things like this make me laugh.

Wind turbines produce power, but they're just not good enough and here is why...

Space - The amount of space that is required to generate a sufficient amount of power is massive. I don't think people understand the gravity of how much space is required. You need tens if not hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to generate the same amount of power as a single nuclear power plant. This means that huge portions of land (or water) have to be used.

Man Power - Wind turbines require maintenance. The need for millions of people to do all this maintenance will be needed. Let me repeat that... millions of people to do the maintenance.

Doesn't Follow Load - Wind turbines will never become a significant electricity source because they are unable to follow the load of the grid. Nuclear can follow the grid, gas can follow the grid, coal can follow the grid, dams follow the grid. Wind turbines can't because you have to take what you get. If the wind is blowing 30km/hr, that's what you get.

Essentially all power generation (besides the solar panel) is based on a rotors. Wind turbines, nuclear power, dam power, etc is all done through spinning a rotor. This rotor will have magnets on it. When you rotate a magnetic field around wires, you'll generate a current (ie: electricity).

For the sake of efficiency and cost, you want to have less rotors. Rotors are physically moving parts and they will break. Anything that moves will break. Anything that breaks will need to be fixed and undergo maintenance. The less rotors, the better.

That means we need to find a solution where we can produce more power with less revolutions of a rotor.

Nuclear power is by far the superior option. It's safe (despite what ignorant idiots would tell you). A single nuclear plant will have maybe 4 or 8 rotors and power a lot of cities. You'll need hundreds of thousands of wind turbines to produce the same power.

Doing maintenance on 4 to 8 rotors in a single building is a lot cheaper than doing maintenance to 100,000 rotors stretched over 1000's of acres.

----

I'm sure with me making this post that I'll get some very ignorant replies from people telling me I'm wrong. They won't have engineering degrees or know anything about what they're talking about, but I'll get them. Some people have been so indoctrinated by this that they can't accept the fact that it could be bad technology.

Milton Friedman Talks About Greed

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:47:00 +0000

The Similarities of the Religious Right and Communism

noreply@blogger.com (Christopher) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:13:00 +0000

There are two types of people that scare me; those that are really into their religion and those that are into the communist/socialist ideology. People often view the religious right as a polar opposite of communism. We have people on one side voting conservative and people on the other side voting liberal. Both hate each other with a passion and would be offended by being linked to the other group. That's what I'm going to do.

Communism and the religious right both have a philosophy for which they live their lives and view the world. Behind that philosophy comes the concept of values and morality, which both contain. All these beliefs, views, political stances are defined on the values and morality (right and wrong).

At this point you see absolutely no similarities, but it isn't until you look at the core of the philosophies that you can truly understand the nature of both these beasts.

Sacrificing The Individual

Both of these groups believe (at the core) that sacrificing the individual is what needs to be done. Value and morality all come from the sacrifice of the individual.

Communists believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "common good". From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs is derived from self sacrifice. Essentially the "common good" is God and you must sacrifice yourself to God to be a moral person.

The religious right believe that the individual must sacrifice themselves to the "will of God". This is where the concept of "social conservatism" comes from. It has nothing to do with the conservative philosophy itself, it is a branch of religious belief working with government to sacrifice the individual.

Self Sacrifice

Self Sacrifice is the goal of both groups. The communist utopia is a government-less place. There is no government there forcing you to sacrifice yourself to the "common good". For it to work, you must want to do it.

The religious right probably wouldn't fear the communist utopia if they could worship God. It would be their perfect society too. They could sacrifice their well being to other people. They could work for the well being of others, donate money to charities and attack those that dare put their self-interest first.

Self Sacrifice is a feeling created inside people through guilt and fear. A communist would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself when people are suffering?" The religious right would say "how dare you spend your pay check on yourself without giving to your fellow man? You'll be going to Hell, soon enough."

Forced Sacrifice

We live in the society of forced sacrifice. Through government, the religious right and communists run their agenda on people. We pay taxes while money is moved from those of ability, to those with needs. Homosexuals are denied the same contractual rights as heterosexuals.

The individual is constantly under assault.

The Morality is Altruism

I'm going to define this as a religion and it does encompass both groups. This is a moral view that the individual must be selfless, must put themselves second to the will of others.

Charity and welfare are the same things, except the religious right like charity and the communists like welfare. Each one defines value and goodness from an individuals ability to sacrifice to another.

...But Isn't Giving Good?

Why is giving good? Most of us accept at face value that giving is good and self sacrifice is a virtue. We're taught that from childhood. Have you actually asked why?

Why is it moral to not consume for yourself and let someone else consume on your labor?

Why is it moral to sacrifice the productive to the unproductive?

Why is it moral to put your self-interest below someone elses?

There is an inherent contradiction in this morality, which makes it moot. It's moral to give to someone else, who will use it for their own self-interest, but if you don't give and use it for your own self-interest - you're sinning (you're greedy, piggish).

I don't expect to get through to communists because from what I understand with interacting with them is that they don't have a concept of morality (right and wrong) or a concept of rights and things of this nature. They sacrificed themselves to the "common good" along time ago.

I don't expect to get through to the religious right either since they've sacrificed themselves to God along time ago.

I just wanted both of you to know that you walk hand-in-hand in the destruction of the individual. And even though you view yourselves as opposites, you actually believe in the same things, just not the same methods.