Archive for March, 2010

Demented morality

Demented morality means making a moral claim that has absolutely no link to God’s truth. Examples would include suggesting that society owes all sick people free medicine, or that insurance companies must provide health “insurance” to people who are already sick. I know some rather illogical people with proclivities to defend ObamaCare. Generally, they take their positions based on a healthy dose of emotions combined with a side of demented morality.

I shall touch only briefly on the inherent absurdity of leftist morals. That is, if humans have a moral right to free medicine — as Nancy Pelosi seemed to argue in her speech endorsing the ObamaCare bill — then how can we withhold this right from the rest of the world? The leftists pretend that their new system will exclude illegal immigrants, but how can we exclude illegal immigrants if they have a human (God-given?) right to free medicine? Under the leftist paradigm, we should be paradropping free stuff out to the third world to make sure our wealth does not exceed the wealth of the third world. Most leftists do not actually advocate this practice, however. I think they fail do advocate these positions because, secretly, they realize the inherent absurdity of their demented morality.

More blatant than the self-contradictions are the raw numbers. Right now, the United States GDP is approximately $14,260,000,000,000. Unfortunately, the national debt is $12,700,000,000,000. Simply dividing that latter number by the first number yields a quotient of 89%. That means however much you earn each year (assuming you still have a job), you as an American citizen owe 89% of it to America’s creditors. If you make $100,000 each year, then please congratulate yourself on your $89,000 debt.

Sadly, these numbers are probably a bit too optimistic. That is, we could multiply the 89% quotient with our incomes in a reasonably just universe. But this is America in the Twenty-First Century! In reality, most of the people with lower incomes barely pay any taxes, anyway. They certainly will not be responsible for paying off the debt. The people responsible will be the productive, high-earning individuals whom the government has already targeted for robbery. Thus, it would probably make sense to increase that quotient a good bit when calculating the productive citizens’ average debt — maybe increasing the quotient to, say, 120% or more. So actually, if you make $100,000, you owe $120,000 to America’s creditors. Of course, make sure to add on your student loans, mortgages, and all other personal debt onto that figure!

Once a person owes more in debt than he actually makes in a year, it is generally accepted that his situation is a bad one.

This brings us to a more important point than the inherent contradiction in leftist philosophy:  That is, we simply cannot afford to let the plunder continue. The demented moralists can play toward our sympathetic instincts all day long with pictures of the poor sick people who desperately need medicine. But even if we assumed that this sympathy were always warranted, and that we should never hold people responsible people for their own laziness or foolish financial decisions — even then, the demented morality still fails. It fails because with or without emotion, it simply CANNOT WORK. In tort law, courts will generally recognize varying degrees of responsibility based on age, education, and other factors. As a matter of common sense, we do not hold a small child to the same standard of care to which we would hold an adult, or to which we would hold a doctor when he treats a patient. We hold people accountable to morals they can feasibly fulfill. Only a fool would judge someone for something he was incapable of performing. We, as a society, are incapable of implementing socialist goals. Stop judging us with your demented morality!

Advertisements

Hot tips to increase attractiveness

So I was watching the House floor debate last night as Democrats passed their socialist medicine bill. One thing I noticed right when I turned on C-SPAN was that it was quite easy to identify Democrats from Republicans. Some of the parliamentary procedure got a little confusing so aside from this distinguishing measure, it would have been a bit difficult to distinguish the congressmen. What I learned was that most of the Democrats looked like undead trolls, whereas most of the Republicans looked like noble men and women.

This observation is not to say that the Republicans were all overly handsome individuals. But even the less beautiful ones nonetheless stood tall and respectable, whereas the Democrats just seemed slouched over and slimy.

Nancy Pelosi’s uncontrollable, bizarre-sounding giggling at various pauses during her speech reminded me of a cross between a a hyena, a fairy tale witch, and a tyrannical, warped public school English teacher who cannot contain her glee while she flunks a student she dislikes. When I listened to Republican John Boehner’s brilliant “Hell no” floor speech, the Democrat jeers and laughter almost reminded me of a dark scene from some fantasy movie. It was sort of like in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe when all the monsters surrounded the lion, licking their lips and insulting him while he was at their mercy. 

Rep. Boehner:  And look at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly?

Democrats:  Yes!

Boehner:  With transparency and accountability?

[Mix of Republican “No”s with Democrat “Yes”es]

Boehner:  Without backroom deals and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the People? [Uproar from both sides] Hell no you can’t! Have you read the bill?

Democrats:  Yes!

Boehner:  Have you read the reconciliation bill?

Democrats:  Yes!

Boehner:  Have you read the manager’s amendment?

Democrats:  Yes!

Boehner:  Hell no you haven’t!

[Chatter and laughter]

Acting Speaker:  Both sides would do well to remember the dignity of the house…

Mostly what I am saying is that leftists tend to act like children, whereas conservatives are more likely to act like real men and women. And that character frequently shines through to the visible spectrum, in mysterious ways.

Rosa DeLauro (D)

When I was younger, I used to think it was cliche that the bad guys in movies were portrayed as dark and forboding, often with warped facial features and such. Think of the characters in Lord of the Rings, or of Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars. Obviously this stereotype does not lend itself to every wicked person, as some evil men do use charisma to mask their wickedness. (After all, even the devil himself masquerades as an angel of light.) But quite often, the stereotype does indeed seem to ring true. Wickedness corrupts and destroys, and frequently that destruction involves the body itself. People who have visited long-term criminals in prison can attest to my point.

Overall, I do not intend this post to insult ugly people or to suggest that they are necessarily wicked. Rather, I seek only to offer analysis and ADVICE. The advice is this:  Righteousness exalts a man. However good-looking or bad-looking a person may be, he will look even better if he embraces righteousness — because he will be better. And as political righteousness, the ideology of conservatism nourishes and amplifies the soul.

Handguns for all!

In yet another brilliant move toward freedom, the University of Tennessee is planning to prohibit its athletes from owning guns. It doesn’t just want to prohibit carrying them on campus (which it already does, even though it’s a bogus rule). Rather, UT wants to prohibit simply possessing title to them or using them at allperiod.

Apparently, athletics director Mike Hamilton came to this decision as a result of the recent arrest of one athlete for carrying a handgun unlicensed. I guess he decided to build on his other well-considered decisions of the past, such as jacking up ticket prices from $0 to $15 right before a losing season and hiring coach Lane Kiffin.

Someone needs to run this jackass Mike Hamilton out of town.

Plenty of people have already poitned out the obvious constitutional violations of this stupid proposal, but I think it’s time to re-examine the very premises behind the move. I’m not gonna bother defending those stupid kids for carrying around marijuana or all that other contraband they had, but I would like to know what business the government has registering guns at all. As far as I’m concerned, what the student did possessing a gun was NOT A CRIME. What authority in the universe gives Tennessee the right to force people to pay $200-300 and wait three months before carrying a gun around? It’s certainly not the God of the universe:  God hates those who shed innocent blood, and Jesus specifically told his followers to carry swords — probably in violation of Roman law. It’s certainly not natural law giving Tennessee this power — because natural law teaches that we have the rights to life and liberty. We have the right to defend ourselves and to depose illegitimate governments. It’s certainly not the Constitution giving this power, because the Constitution prohibits prohibits the federal (and arguably state) governments from infringing on our right to bear arms.

The one place the statists can really point to is the Tennessee constitution, which states the following:

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Tenn. Const., Art. 1 Section 26 (emphasis added).

As suggested above, this clause should arguably be superceded by the more recent Fourteenth Amendment anyway (which restricts state governments),  but for the moment let us assume this Tennessee constitutional clause is legitimate. What is it about registering handguns that serves the constitutional purpose of aiming to reduce crime? We can attempt to answer this question by looking at the law’s requirements for obtaining a handgun permit.

First, the permit requirement makes you pay about $100 to take an eight-hour class. This class is basically a waste of time and money.

Second, the law makes you wait around while your application goes to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation — after you have paid another $100. This background check looks to see how “law-abiding” you are. If you have committed “felonies” (a zillion things count as a “felony” nowadays), or if you “abuse” alcohol, or if you have ever been convicted of intimidating or slapping a spouse or commiting certain other misdemeanors, the background check will disqualify you.

Therefore, does this regulation reduce crime? Only if you presume the legitimacy of restricting entire sections of the population from owning guns! I, for one, reject the legitimacy of these restrictions. The fact that someone has committed a “felony” (or even certain misdemeanors) does not mean that he loses his God-given right to self-defense. Either you execute the person to finish him off right away, or you punish him and then set him totally free. No one gives us the right to criminalize huge sections of the population and then force them to walk around the rest of their lives like sitting ducks living in shackles.

The requirement for handgun permits is unconstitutional because the Tennessee government lacks the authority to regulate the bearing of arms. The State may only regulate the wearing of arms, and then only for the purpose of preventing crime. Preventing crime cannot be equated with restricting entire segments of the population from bearing arms — because the constitution specifically states that these people have the right to bear arms (just not necessarily the right to wear them everywhere). This argument cannot be much plainer or clearer.

So, what am I getting at? Everyone who registers his handgun with the government is a panzy. I’m talking to YOU. Yes, mine is registered too, and yes I’m a panzy. You know how much money I had to pay and how much time I had to waste on taxes to the Tennessee government just for the right to defend myself? We’re all freakin’ panzies for putting up with this tyranny. Why do we tolerate this garbage at all? I am so sick of this absolute crap.

That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. Tenn. Const., Art. 1 Section 2

When I tell people I want to focus on criminal defense, they often ask me something along the lines of, “Drew, how can you stand to deal with all those criminals??” But a lot of the people I’ll be defending aren’t even real criminals! Or if they are “criminals” at all, half the time it’s for violating some stupid and unimportant law — like laws against carrying guns. We’ve made laws against everything nowadays. The Tennessee legislature — THEY’RE the real criminals.

A warped woman

Far Above Rubies has recently questioned the wholesomeness of Lady Gaga’s latest music video, “Telephone.”

When my brother Joe told me he was freaked out by the Lady Gaga and Beyonce collabo “Telephone”, I knew it was be strange, disturbing, even. I didn’t think I’d spend the entire time watching it with my mouth stuck in a “O” position.

I have a conflicted opinion about Gaga. Her music is catchy, but after watching every video she’s put out after “Poker Face” I’ve become increasingly leery. Her costumes make Tim Burton movie wardrobes’ seem like something you could pull off the rack at Target. She murders boyfriends with abandon. She plays with guns and nudity. . . . My opinion is now set. As talented as she is, she’s freakin’ scary. After watching the “Telephone” video, I quickly said a prayer (really). So, be forewarned. THIS VIDEO IS RATED R. IT FEATURES CURSING, PARTIAL NUDITY, AND DEPICTIONS OF MURDER.

I did watch the video, and I agree that the nudity in particular seemed completely over-the-top. But it was hardly surprising. That is, although several of Lady Gaga’s songs have been high-quality, she throws at least one vulgar word into pretty much every one, and she dances like a stripper in each and every music video. (My objection to vulgarity is not moral but aesthetic, whereas my objection to risque performances is both moral and aesthetic.)

Of course, I already hated the “Telephone” song anyway due to its lyrics. It glorifies the personality of a girl who is too full of herself to answer a phone call. As far as I am concerned, anyone so self-absorbed and too “busy” to answer a phone call should jump off a cliff. I hate those people. Granted, if they’re at work or something that would probably be a legitimate excuse.

But since we’re on the topic of Lady Gaga, I have been saying for a little while now that I think she is creepy. For one thing, she basically never smiles. And when she does smile, it looks like this:

There’s something absolutely demented about the “lady.” It’s like she lacks the capability actually to be happy. She kinda reminds me of the Joker from The Dark Knight.

This woman is an attention whore, a regular whore, and overall a sad waste of decent musical talent. She wears bizarre costumes, for example, not because they’re pretty or practical or even because she simply likes them — but solely because they get her picture taken. (Some of her clothes actually are cool, but probably the majority are just…not really clothes at all.) I’m guessing that she dances around naked for basically the same reason. And although she does have musical talent, I never can understand why some members of the pop media refer to Lady Gaga as though she can obtain any guy she wants due to her amazing hotness. She is relatively good-looking, admittedly, but I don’t generally consider prostitution very “hot.”

But unfortunately, lots of girls these days think the same way as these Lady Gaga sycophants. Society worships the whorish, the hollow, and the idiotically self-destructive.

The Volcano Story

When my younger brother was in elementary school, for class he wrote this really awesome story, below. Since today is his (twenty-second) birthday, I decided to put it up on the internet for everyone to read. Someone ought to make it into a movie or something. It would clearly be a blockbuster.

_____________________________________________________________________

The Volcano Story
by David Justice

A long time ago there was a scientist. His name was Daniel. He and his wife were volcano explorers. One day on the Fourth of July, some people went up on the volcano to set off some of the fireworks. It was nighttime, so the fireworks really showed up well. But the fireworks weren’t just small fireworks like blossoms and bottle rockets. They were like the ones you get at the gas station. They were big fireworks. Daniel liked the artillery shells the most.

Suddenly, the ground began to shake. The people ran down the mountain as fast as they could. Then the lava started coming down the mountain. The volcano was erupting. The lava was coming about thirty miles per hour.

Finally, they got to safe ground, but only a few made it. Daniel glanced around to see where his wife was, but he only saw his partner and two other friends. He looked at the mountain. He saw a lady running from the lava. It was his wife! But when he got closer, he realized it was his wife’s partner, Donna. Daniel didn’t like Donna very much because she always tried to make his wife laugh.

When Daniel got home, he went straight to bed. He cried for about five minutes and then went to sleep. That night Daniel had a dream. It was about ten o’clock a.m., and he and his wife were exploring the volcano. Suddenly, it erupted. To Daniel’s horror, a flaming monster came out of the volcano followed by two more. Daniel’s wife was in shock so she couldn’t move. Daniel tried to grab her, but the two monsters got her first and threw her into the volcano. Daniel tried to run but the other one grabbed him. He burst into flames and screamed. Suddenly, he woke up and saw his dog, Spot, on the bed, licking him.

“Get off of me, Spot.” He got out of bed, put on his clothes, and went to the kitchen. He poured himself a bowl of raisin bran and then poured milk on it. After that, he looked closely at it. “Ahhhh! There’re ants in my cereal!” He opened the window and poured the cereal on the ground. He looked in the box and saw black ants everywhere. “I’ve learned not to buy cereal at little stands on the side of the road,” he thought. “They just want my money. No wonder they have a sign up that says ‘No Refunds.’ Well, I’m not even hungry anyway,” he said aloud.

Spot, Daniel’s Dalmation dog, came into the kitchen with his tongue hanging out, expecting to be fed. Daniel picked up the dog food from the pantry, poured it into Spot’s bowl, and went to his room to find his shoes. One was missing. He found the other one beside Spot’s bowl. It was all chewed up.

“Oh, Spot! Why did you chew up my shoe? Now I’m going to have to buy a new pair. I’m taking you outside for this,” he said sternly. “What a terrible day this is.”

After he got his new shoes, he went outside and put them on. Then when he started to walk, he felt something pushing up on his toe. He took off his shoe. He reached into his shoe and pulled out a hundred dollar bill.

“Well, this isn’t turning out to be such a bad day after all,” he said gratefully.

When the person who was selling shoes looked in his shoe to get his hundred dollars, it was gone. “That guy took the wrong shoes!” he shouted. He ran out the door after him. “Hey, guy.” He pulled his gun out of his pocket and shot at Daniel.

“Are you crazy?” Daniel shouted. The guy shot again, but he missed. “What is wrong with you?”

“You stole my money,” the man shouted back.

Daniel, as most people would do, ran for his life. The guy chased after him. Daniel ran down the street as fast as he could, looking for a place to hide. “It’s good that loser back there has bad aim.”

After a few minutes, Daniel was all out of breath. He couldn’t run any more. Just then he saw a weapon store. “Oh, great, just at the right time, too,” he said sarcastically. Forgetting the cramp in his hip, he ran towards the store. When he got there, he realized it was locked. He glanced up at a sign that said:  Closed. He glanced back around and saw the man running towards him. He wasn’t very far behind. Quickly, he jumped off the stairs, kicked open the door, and ran inside.

The guy saw Daniel go into the store, so he ran towards it. Daniel looked out the window and then looked down at his watch. It was past nine o’clock. Suddenly, Daniel saw a phone. He ran over to it and picked it up. The guy was at the door when he heard Daniel pick up the phone. When Daniel had picked up the phone and dialed 911, it rang twice before someone answered it.

The guy aimed at the powerline and shot. All Daniel heard was the person saying, “Hello.” After the man shot the powerline, a spark flew out and went into his eye.

“Owww!” the man screamed. “That’s it,” he said. The man kicked open the door and yelled, “Alright, whoever you are, why don’t you come out and fight like a man?”

“What do you want?” Daniel said.

“You stole a hundred dollars from me.”

“No, I didn’t.”

“Yes, you did.”

“No, I…”

“Oh, shut up or I’ll kill you.”

Daniel pulled the hundred dollar bill out of his pocket and gave it to the man. After that, the guy said, “And for stealing it…” The man pulled a gun and pointed it at Daniel.

Just then a person yelled, “Drop the gun and put your hands in the air.” It was the police. The guy shot the policeman in the chest. That gave Daniel a chance to run. And the salesman ran out with a grenade launcher in his arms.

“He is insane,” thought Daniel. He ran inside, closed the door, and started filling his pockets with guns. There were two cars in the lot. There were two people in each car.

“He has a grenade launcher!” The shoe salesman shot a grenade at the car. One of the policemen was clumsy; he didn’t know how to unlock the door.

BOOM! went the police car. Then he saw the other policeman running away, so he pulled out an oozi and shot the policeman about ten times.

Daniel looked out the window to see what was going on. He saw smoke and fire everywhere. After that, he looked back and saw a door made of glass. He picked up a shotgun and went to the door. He tried to open it, but it was locked. Daniel was so mad that he picked up the shotgun and hit the door with it. Glass flew everywhere. He ran out of the door towards the mountain. The guy went to the other police car, punched the window, and got in. He started the car and drove towards Daniel. He pulled out his pistol and shot Daniel in the arm. Daniel yelled in pain. For the first time, Daniel outran the car. Suddenly, he felt something grab him and pull him into a cave. He turned around and saw his wife.

“I thought you were dead,” he said gladly. “Why didn’t you come home?”

“I don’t take chances like you, Daniel,” she said. “But what happened to your arm?”

“It got shot.”

“Oh. What time is it dear?”

“It’s eleven o’clock,” said the shoe salesman.

“How did you find us?” asked Daniel.

“What, do you think I’m deaf?”

Suddenly the ground began to shake and then stopped.

“Well, it’s not going to matter now.” He aimed the gun at Daniel. Just then lava poured down on him. He screamed as he died.

“Well, that’s what I mean by taking chances,” she said. Then the ground began to shake again. But this time, it didn’t stop. They kept on wondering what was going on.

Suddenly, lava burst out the back of the cave. They ran but then they saw lava pouring down over the entrance. There was no way to go. The lava was coming toward them so quickly. When it reached them, they screamed as they got covered in lava.

THE END

Rollback by reconciliation

Lately, Republicans have whined about Democratic plans to use the “Reconciliation” process to pass their socialized medicine bill. From what I gather, Reconciliation is some exception in the Senate rules which prohibits filibusters, but which is supposed to be used only on budget bills to resolve minor differences. Therefore, the Republicans are whining that Reconciliation should not apply to the socialized medicine bill because this bill constitutes a major leap of legislation — and isn’t even a budget bill. But in my opinion, overall, this whining is shortsighted and hypocritical.

I have written previously that the filibuster significantly harms American democracy. Over time, the statists win with the fillibuster because it means they just have to muster enough support to pass new bureaucracy and regulation, whereas clear-thinking people later have to muster 60% of the Senate to repeal the programs. Yes, the filibuster can theoretically slow the path toward statism, but it also completely eliminates our capability to overturn the statism. In Europe, they sometimes have elections where conservatives come to power and completely overturn communist regimes. In America, we could get 58% liberty-loving representatives in Congress, but they could do essentially nothing to push back Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, most of the other idiotic “departments” of our government, the corrupt income tax, etc.

Conservatives are generally foolish to rely on these authoritarian, minority-rule measures to protect freedom. These “checks and balances” are no such thing. It’s the leftists who benefit from the “balance” of the “strong” activist judiciary, for example, which gives out the rights to kill unborn children and such. It’s the leftists who mostly utilize the filibuster to block everything productive — from Bush’s federal judicial nominees to his attempts to regulate Fannie Mae to prevent the housing crisis. The leftists thrive on minority-rule. Every time the Republicans try these “checks and balances,” however, some new Gang of 14 appears and the conservative filibuster attempt collapses.

But forgetting the relative partisan benefits of this rule, let’s examine the inevitable effects of the rule itself. What we have in the filibuster is a defect in American politics. Most of the voters are too uninformed to keep up with who specifically is filibustering what, and on what basis. All they know (at best) is what party is in charge of Congress. If they see a Republican majority for several years and fail to witness any rollback of government spending, they blame the Republicans. They do not think, “Oh, gee, the Republicans only have fifty-eight votes, which is too few to stop a filibuster, and so therefore I should send them a couple more members of their own party.” Unfortunately, that type of thinking is too logical for most people. So to help people understand the process better, we need to simplify. We do not need these obscure, extra-constitutional rules that arbitrarily give the minority party extra power. Let the ruling party actually RULE. If  judges or the President or the voters want to veto a bill, let them use their own constitutional powers to restrain the congress.

As I heard Mark Levin correctly mention lately, any bill passed by Reconciliation can be repealled by Reconciliation! If the Democrats want to, let them embrace this nuclear option so we can restore true majority rule to the country. Then we can start using the same or similar strategies to repeal all their garbage programs. We can finally begin to peal back the layers of tyranny while we gradually purify the hearts of American citizens.

The six million dollar computer

So I was walking to class last Thursday — after the jackals at my school failed to cancel classes despite all the snow (yes, I am thinking about suing!) — when I slipped on a patch of ice. I initially didn’t think I hit the ground that hard, but that may have been because my computer case broke my fall. I was already annoyed just by having to come to class, and then when I opened up my laptop I saw that the monitor was broken! So then I was even more annoyed.

By this point in time, I feared that my computer was gone for good. Numerous parts had already ceased functioning. But I had a plan:  I would rebuild him. I had the technology. I would rebuild my computer better, stronger, faster. Okay, maybe not faster.

But now my Sony Vaio computer continues to function after almost three years. It’s, like, totally a good deal. All it has taken is a new battery, an external mouse, an external keyboard, an external CD drive, an external USB hub, and now an external monitor. And for good measure I’ve also been using external speakers, because the Sony Vaio speakers were pretty soft and weak anyway. But NOW, my computer will live on. My computer is kinda like the Six Million Dollar Man, or Darth Vader.

These things will just keep goin’ forever if you keep replacing parts…I think.


ANALYSIS
YOU WON'T
FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

Author