Birth Rights

Today, I am taking issue with the often-assumed 'right' to have kids. I'll go into detail for any of the issues if requested, but here is a quick summary as to why we should have very limited rights when it comes to having kids.

1: Over population.
Ahh, this one is most likely the bane of modern society, yet no one ever talks about it. It will doom us, we simply lack the backbone to talk about this. C'est la vie eh? Too many people are having too many kids, the Earth and its ecosystems simply cannot handle it. I'm of the opinion we already past our carrying capacity (with a high lag time). Look at animals/plants. Amphibians are down to 2% TWO PERCENT of their populations only years ago. This is not natural, humans are the cause. When joe has 10 kids, and all ten of them have 10 more, he just raised his problem 100 times, and he was probably worthless anyway.

2. Mental 'Illness'
Why on Earth should someone who is 'mentally ill' be able to have children? Let me state up front that I believe first that a large percentage of these cases are fakes anyway. But sifting that useless rabble to the side, we are left with the people who have brains wired differently, unbalanced chemicals etc. This next line will be considered cold,crash, 'racist' (most people have no idea when they use this word) :
Why do we even tolerate these people, and esp. give them the 'right' to have kids? If you gun someone down, and are 'insane' Fine. *BOOM* -dead, 'next criminal will you please take the stand?'

What kind of defense is being 'insane'? It should not be one, and if you are convicted of it, you should just be eliminated, much to society's benefit. For Earth's sake, do not let them have more kids!

"Death Race" criminals should provide entertainment if nothing else

I saw the previews for Death Race, and I have not seen the movie yet, but this post will be based on its assumptions the movie makes.

The movie starts with criminals being given a chance to redeem themselves by participating in a race, a race that people apparently kill each other at.

This begs the question, why do we only use criminals for nothing, except using tax money? They are given food, air conditioning, exercise all for nothing. Normal people work for these things, why should criminals be spared?

So, if you are opposed to 'manual labor' for criminals, first ask yourself why, then secondly, ask yourself why don't we get something useful out of them? Namely: entertainment.

Consider the merits if we did have a 'death race' in effect today. Criminals would be killing each other, which has obvious benefits. Secondly, it would be one of the highest rated shows on tv. Imagine nascar, now imagine it with guns, fast cars, explosions, etc. I hate nascar, but with guns and explosions, it would suddenly be a lot sicker. Plus we have the nice human element of redemption. These wayward souls are just trying to redeem themselves, if you are Christian, isn't that what jesus would want you to do?

The kind of 'change' McCain can believe in

Well, the post today is going to focus on McCain, and his 'flip-flopping' (yes i hate that term, but an appropriate irony)

First, here are the links if you want to actually check my facts:

Anyway, McCain used to be opposed to off-shore drilling. He used to be environmental. He voted to stop off shore drilling. He said it was best to leave it in the state's hands. This was all back in the 90's.

http://www.ncdp.org/content/john-mccain-cheerleading-off-shore-drilling

Corruption of course rears it head. Flash forward to election year. The oil companies have drastically increased their funding to a sympathetic cause.
http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0014

Long story short, McCain has switched his priority from what he (probably) believed to now what the oil companies want him to believe.

The Federal Deficit, ahh the joys of Replubican presidents...

Here is the image I am going to talk briefly about:
http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008125.html

It basically is a graph that was printed tues/mon about the Federal Deficit. Let me explain the trends:

Bush senior: A steady, slightly increasing federal deficit.
Clinton: A marked rise every year of the Clinton presidency. Every year for all 8 years, the deficit shrank, and we actually had a 230+ billion dollar surplus.
Bush: A constant decline from the first year. This graph only goes to 2004, in 2005, i believe it actually went 'up' but by 2008, we are at a record federal deficit.

I have a simple question, why do people still believe and praise republicans for ‘small government’ and ‘fiscal responsibility’. It is clear that has not happened. The government grew huge under Bush. In fact the deficit grew under him as well. Why is it that people will continue to praise these ideals, yet still vote republican when the fact’s are contrary to what you want?

Dead Firefighter

So i just heard a news story that is rather sad. A man had call fire fighters saying there was a fire at his house. When they showed up, he started shooting at them. He ended up killing a 22-year old man who just finished paramedic school etc.

Not only is this sad, but likely, the murder will get put in jail for about 10 years or so, at the will be it. How pitiful. Not only did this man kill, he killed a useful member of society. As i've stated before, jail does nothing, esp. the longer sentences.

Look, if you are going to ambush public servants, you simply shouldn't get a second chance, you blew it big. Just save the time and kill this man. So him no mercy like he showed the firefighters.

Political Correctness and 'equality' - a bane of progress

As I sit here, a news report comes on saying that Doug Bruce, a local politician, 'is in trouble again.' Now, he is a fiscal conservative which is something I cannot agree with, but I can still respect that it is his opinion, and that fact he speaks what he actually believes. For this he is constantly lambasted. All the other politicos 'tow the line', tow the line, thats what everyone seems to be doing huh?

Why have we gotten to this part in society where we cannot say anything 'politically incorrect'? Why? Put some serious thought into this. If something was so foolish, wouldn't it fail on it own merit?

For example: "All white people cannot think" Such a statement is not considered for long, because it clearly lacks any logical bearing.
Now consider "All black people cannot think", suddenly we pause in fear, woah, did he just say that? Why do we not value this statement for its obvious logical failings, and discard it? Instead, we cringe painfully around that this statement is politically incorrect 'you cant be saying that stuff'.

What the truthfully does it limit, in some cases drastically, how much an issue can actually be talked about. For example, it is wrong to hate someone for their race, for their sexual orientation, all of which NOTHING can be said without being labeled as politically incorrect. But here are some cases where this PC can actually be inhibiting progress.

We have this extremely dangerous mindset perpetuated upon us that we need to accept everyone as they are, be understanding, be compassionate etc. This is simply foolish, and dangerous.
'Oh, he isn't that smart, that's just the way he is'
'Oh, he is mean, he must of had bad parents, thats just the way he ended up'
'Oh, well, he actually thinks the earth in the center of the universe, we can't do anything to him because that is his religion'' You can come up with these ad nauseum.

I don't ever want to be misunderstood, so I will state my point clearly: Viewing everyone as equal, socially, has no bearing in reality, and makes us a lot worse off.

Here are some things that realistically should be ok, but again, its 'woah, he is kind of extreme' forget the bias you have been instilled with and think about these things logically.

Hating people for the intelligence (their lack thereof): Why should we not discriminate based on intelligence? Do we not essentially do this already when it comes to jobs? Do we let imbeciles work on nuclear submarines? Do they work at particle accelerators? The answer is clearly no. Yet why do we give them the other benefits of society, when the don't deserve them. Why should someone who has no idea that the earth actually rotates around the sun (btw, it is something ridiculous that over 40% of Americans don't know this) be given the opportunity to drive a deadly missile at over 60mph every day?
'Oh, but why would someone's lack of knowledge stop them from driving?"
Hahah, i have also heard the argument 'well someone needs to clean the toilets, make your burger etc'
Why should 'rights' be given to you just because you have hit a certain age? I know I would much rather have a 17 year old who actually knows what is going on voting, driving etc, then some idiot with an IQ of sub 90 who happens to hit the magic age of 21. Is it that extreme to require intelligence tests to pass and claim some 'rights'? Oh, and please, spare me the argument that we already have to pass 'tests' to drive. Does anyone know what immigrants have to go through to become a citizen? That is something we ourselves should be forced to do. Rights are not given, they should be earned.


People that have nothing to contribute to the race, yet out-breed those that are actually useful: Ahh, a favorite of mine. I'm sure we have all seen that trailer-trash, beer swilling pig who probably beats his wife, an IQ easily under 90, yet has in tow about 6 kids, all seemingly under the age of 7. I'll state this one bluntly: He is a waste of resources, a waste of everything, and now he has compounded his societal toll by a 6 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the likely useless wife).
All these kids will learn the value of nascar, how to 'treat' women, that school is for losers, that the earth is only a couple thousand of years old... I could continue this little insulting diatribe on them, but the sad reality is that in about 16-20 years they will then further compound their problem even further.

Point Source Pollution

I am posting today to bring some to your attention regarding environmental law. It has to do with pollution and 'point sources'.

Within Environmental Law, (as many parts of the government) corruption runs high. Individuals and companies are regulated by the EPA regarding pollution using the term 'point source pollution'. The EPA and gov. are rather diligent in not letting corporations get away with arguments about it not being a 'point'.

However, not all is well in paradise. There is something called 'non point source' pollution.
It is here that the obvious corruption and sell outs are going on. NPS can be things like oil dripping from your car, gas leaking from your lawn mower etc. Truthfully though, these are all far and away drops in the bucket compared to the biggest NPS polluter: agriculture.

It does not matter if you can see the stream of fertilizer out the barn down to the river, it doesn't matter if all of the farms pollution goes through a single ditch, NONE of it is considered 'point' source. What does this mean? I mean it is not regulated. Yes, you read that right, the biggest polluter of our waterways in not the coal companies (they are rather low in comparison), it is the mega-corporate farms with their surplus nitrogen and other 'desirable' chemicals dumping into our water.

Ecotopia lesson: Everyone is treated the same. You pollute you pay the price. No group gets special treatment, and you will not find a cute little loophole of of your crimes.