It seems to me that some of our admired Objectivist friends do not sufficiently appreciate how widespread and insidious the Islamic threat actually is. This is a war, and not simply of ideas.
Lies, Damn Lies, & Muslim Lies: The Muslim, and especially Islamic, ethics fully endorses the use of dishonesty to non-Muslims. An article at the Middle East Forum site, makes this point very clear, explaining how the same Imam speaking in English says very benign things and then, in purportedly the same context in Arabic, is jihadist. When the former explanation ends, The Mainstream Media end thinking. See, The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque.
Particularly notable about this mosque is that
few Muslims live in reasonable traveling distance of it, yet it is being constructed to hold thousands;
it is an Islamic tradition to build mosques over the most significant icons of vanquished enemies;
it is just another building to us, but to them it is proof of Allah’s will, & of Islam’s supremacy; finally
its imam lied when denying non-American (Arabic) funding for this mosque.
Were certain American communists, during the 1940s, given a pass when it became known they being funded and guided by Russia? (more…)
By Embedded I · April 29th, 2010 9:35 am · 5 Comments
When moral issues are at stake, it is important to evoke powerful facts of reality showing why a particular moral stand is valid. This is because most environmentalists believe &/or argue that the facts are with them, however poorly they understand those facts.
It is counter-productive to proselytize for a large carbon footprint, except perhaps as a humorous opening.
No matter how much one insists on his moral right to a large carbon footprint, he will only appear to be an irrationally selfish, moral, curmudgeon, blind to the ‘science’ of Global Warming, & to the long term future of humanity.
“….wicked plants consumed CO2, polluting the Earth’s atmosphere
with a deadly oxidizing compound,
today known as oxygen.”
I am sure that many readers of The New Clarion understand that mankind has a moral and political Right to exploit the Earth, but those Rights, and the positive values they engender are quite abstract.
Should one seek to convince others, one must begin with compelling concretes before going to the abstract; it is those facts that prepare an audience to be inclined to listen to abstractions. Thus from fact, moral value can be invoked.
Here are four facts that I find serve two terrific purposes.
First, these facts are clearly significant, and contradict environmentalists claims. Second, because these facts are not well known, they surprise one’s audience, perhaps challenging their belief that they had enough information to support the AGWers :
“Did you know that plants are so starved for CO2 that two plant groups have evolved new ways of capturing it? (My favorite)
“Did you know that CO2 levels were 100x higher when the dinosaurs lived?
“Did you know that if CO2 levels were just doubled, most plants would double their growth, producing twice as much fruit, vegetables and grains? Food would be half as expensive.”
“Did you know that the rocks of the World’s mountain ranges contain billions of tonnes of CO2, all captured from the atmosphere eons ago?”
Never begin by *saying* you want to produce CO2 to “warm the planet.” Do that, and you immediately surrender to the environmentalist position that human activity affects global climate. It doesn’t.
By Embedded I · November 12th, 2009 2:27 pm · 10 Comments
<This is a significantly updated version of my original post, under the above title, which dealt with the ideas presented in Ghost Town, by Mike N. I also agree with the comments posted thus far, some of which add a great deal of understanding to the issue.>
I was severely alarmed by the idea that Mike N’s post raised. So much so, in fact, that I chose to respond in a post, rather than a mere comment. I post on the impropriety of advocating legislation that would require ‘idle property’ be put to ‘better’ use.
My first concern was, “by whose standards”?
Whilst the principles I advocate have not changed, I misconstrued at least the view of one or two commenters. My weak explanation for doing so, which does not excuse me, is that I had literally skipped certain commenters’ lines —phone calls & children can really mess one up— and I thereby missed what was their ultimate point.
Fortunately, in his comment to my original version of this post, Shea Levy asked why I thought commenters to Mike N’s post were supporting the idea that “idle property” should, by law, not be permitted (my paraphrasing). Shea was right to ask! (more…)
By Embedded I · October 21st, 2009 1:14 pm · 5 Comments
Two points, to start.
1. My father’s heart arrhythmias have settled, and his sodium levels have been managed through intravenous fluids and fluid intake restriction. Though he could barely walk, he was deemed strong enough, to no longer be eligible for a hospital bed. Indeed, if he chose to stay, three doors from my mother, he would be charged $750 per day!
2. Now, my mother’s TSH (Thyroid Stimulating Hormone) levels are unusually high, due to a benign pituitary tumor, causing her thyroid to be dysfunctional. As a result, she has sudden blackouts due to rapid blood pressure drops (syncope), and must stay in bed. Her dramatic collapses to the floor —unconscious, eyes open & staring— are terribly distressing. So far, her falls have been caught every time but one, which fortunately only caused minor bruising. According to her condition, she can still stay in a hospital bed, for ‘free‘.
Notice how the above bolded portions indicate the rules of socialized medicine that determine the care of the patient. Sure, Dad could stay in hospital, but the cost is obscene, and the price is clearly set so as to drive patients out. Only under altruism would such ‘logic’, such treatment, be seen as appropriate, because it serves others in the system. In a private system the same choice would not be so starkly enforced, Patients in a free market would have a multitude of choices that are not available in the government system.
By Embedded I · October 19th, 2009 12:26 pm · 15 Comments
In response to my post, My Father and Socialized Medicine, comments made by Greg Paulhus deserve a full post in response. They are typical of arguments for socialized medicine, that in final analysis do not stand.
My Dad’s situation may not be entirely ‘routine’, as Paulhus suggests, but his inappropriate care, is no less disgusting for being so readily accepted, and is no less a function of ‘the system’. There are many other such occurrences. Paulhus’s uncle’s experience may be a ‘majority’ example, but that kind of success can be found in any large scale operation.
That is, “Lemon” cars exist, but smart shoppers still look for the vehicle make and model that is least likely to result in their buying a lemon. By his ‘majority’ argument Paulhus (unthinkingly) presumes it is okay to sacrifice My father to the system, since His uncle is doing fine. Would he care to have them switch places, and give his uncle the ‘lemon’… it is, after all, the same “fantastic” system?
By Embedded I · October 9th, 2009 7:47 pm · 3 Comments
Obama’s response to his Nobel Prize was the best thing I’ve heard from him. He recognizes that it was awarded too soon & reflects no serious achievement. Though his speech changes nothing, & is surely politic, he has, at least, put his award in a relatively sensible context (excluding his absurd mention of climate change). Obama sees that he has not earned the prize by the principles Alfred Nobel defined.
In fact Obama sees that his prize only means that he stands for the hope of peace.
This view, of the Far Left Nobel Committee, is as appalling as it is unsurprising. Does the Nobel Committee see Obama’s wishes as sufficient reason for his award? Sure, Obama wants peace, but even he knows he has not succeeded in achieving what peace requires. His wish for that achievement means nothing.
As the expression goes, “if wishes were horses, beggars would ride“. Does the Nobel Committee hope to give Obama a horse, (more…)
By Embedded I · September 13th, 2009 7:58 pm · 7 Comments
Many people, at least among those over 35, have noticed that the Obama: ”Progress”, ‘Hope’ & ‘Change’ posters, by ‘street artist’ Shepard Fairey, strongly resemble the artwork of communist revolutionary propaganda. Democrat-types dismiss the observation, saying there is no connection, that the Obama art is just more of Fairey’s usual work.
Are they that superficial, or are they just lying? The resemblance is no accident of graphic options, or of RGB-‘Posterizing’ in Photoshop. It derives directly from the artistic and philosophical leanings Fairey has adopted.
By Embedded I · August 25th, 2009 8:43 am · 31 Comments
Yes, he is in the twilight of life, but he is my father. More importantly, for 61 years he has been my mother’s lifelong love. They went through WW2, they immigrated to a Canadian farm from S. England. Dad pursued several means of employment to provide a comfortable living while raising three boys.
On Monday, Aug 17th, he stumbled, fell, and broke his elbow. An ambulance took him to the local hospital. There the emergency doctor told Dad they could NOT set his arm. He would have to be taken to a larger hospital (a half-hour’s drive), when there was an opening in the Orthopaedic Surgeon’s schedule.
Dad was to wait, in the local hospital’s bed, numb with morphine. Imagine —uncertain days of pain, medicated fog and dysfunction, imposed upon you because Universal Health Care could not ‘fit you in’? My mother lay awake, alone, for two nights, sharing his discomfort, and fearing his death, until that opening appeared on Wed Aug 19th.
An ambulance van drove Dad to the scheduled appointment with the Orthopod. “We’re sorry, an emergency came up”. The window of opportunity had closed. At least Dad was now at the hospital where the Orthopod worked.