More Blogrollin'

I need to mention a couple more blogs: Dr. Sanity, who documents psychological defense mechanisms at work in the media (something to pay attention to; it's worthless to debate somebody in the throes of narcissistic rage or an affect storm, and so very valuable to recognize those conditions), and neo-neocon, whose series, "A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change," has absolutely riveted me.

More Blogrollin'

I wandered through Anita Moore's V for Victory blog today; it's one I like but do not frequently read. She linked to a post about Life In Hell.

The similarities to Matt Groenig's indie comic strip are sobering. I'm glad I stopped seeing it after I left university.

The Wrath of Khan

For those who forget, Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan is the one where Spock dies. His dying words:

"The Needs of the Many Outweigh The Needs of the Few, Or the One."

That's collectivism in a nutshell, isn't it? But where does it lead us?

We, the many, need health care. Doesn't our need for healthcare outweigh the needs of the few who provide it? Doesn't that mean we should be able to force them to give it to us?

We, the many, need education for our children. Doesn't our need for their education outweigh the needs of the few who provide it? So shouldn't we be able to force them to give it to us?

And the same goes for shelter, food, and clothing, doesn't it? Don't the needs of the many who need these things outweigh the needs of the few who make them? Isn't it immoral for them to deny us what we so patently need, just in order to survive?

For each need that we decide to live this way, we're going to find a bunch of the providers will go into some other line of work where they aren't forced into servitude. And the remainder will get horribly squeezed and overworked, so that there isn't enough to go around. And then the government will start rationing to us the things we need, and whether we get what we need will no longer be in our hands. It will instead be in the hands of the few who have political power. And it is just sinful human nature that they will serve their needs first and leave us only with what they don't want or can't get away with keeping for themselves.

A man who went by the internet handle of Bear once said something on this which I think is very pertinent:

"As an ethical individual, I may decide to yield my rights for the good of the majority, but that decision should be mine, not the majority's."

The Global Warming Hoax

from Catholic Exchange:

And how do you propose to regulate the earth’s temperature when as much as 3/4 of the variability is due to variations in solar activity, with the remaining 1/4 due to changes in the earth’s orbit, axis, and albedo (reflectivity)? This truly is “mission impossible.” Mankind can no more regulate earth’s temperature than the tides.

Even if the “greenhouse effect” were greater than it actually is, the EPA and Congress would be powerless to alter it for several reasons:

1. Human activity (according to NASA data) accounts for less than 4 percent of global CO2 emissions.

2. CO2 itself accounts for only 10 or 20 percent of the greenhouse effect. (This discloses the capricious nature of EPA’s decision to classify CO2 as a pollutant, for if CO2 is a pollutant because it is a greenhouse gas, then the most common greenhouse gas of all—water vapor, which accounts for almost 3/4 of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect—should be regulated, too. The EPA isn’t going after water vapor, of course, because then everyone would realize how absurd climate-control regulation really is.)

3. Even if Americans were to eliminate their CO2 emissions completely, total human emissions of CO2 would still increase as billions of people around the world continue to develop economically.

The actual motivation behind the global warming scare is power, pure and simple. If one can demand that energy production be reduced, one can, in essence, demand that those of us who are not poor become so, and that the poor die earlier and more frequently.

In other words, it is the culture of death, all over again.

George Tiller

May God, the Infinitely Merciful, have mercy on his soul, and grant him salvation, if he was not too prideful to accept it.

The Western Confucian has the very finest analysis of what is important about Tiller's death I have seen yet:

Pro-life leaders are already falling over themselves to exclaim, “We are peaceful! We deplore this violence!”

Of course we are peaceful; that is why this horrific shooting in a church has immediately garnered national attention. It is precisely because we are peaceful that Dr. Tiller’s killing sticks out like a huge wart on an otherwise flawless complexion. If abortionists were gunned down every week, it would gather no more attention than crack dealers who are gunned down every week by fellow drug dealers.