About Me

Name: Arturick
Location: Alsip, IL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Breaking News From Crook County

Posted by Arturick on Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:24:50 AM
Glad to see that Crook County, recently home to President Barack Obama, has it's head on straight...
 
Jun 24, 2009.  South Chicago Suburbs, IL.
 
The State's Attorney's office in Cook County has decided to drop charges against a woman arrested several days ago at the Kohls department store in a south suburban mall.  The woman used several teenage children to assist her as she stole $2700 worth of merchandise from the store, qualifying her for a felony charge.  In the course of being arrested, she struck a uniformed security guard in the face and lied about the age of one accomplice, qualifying for an obstruction of justice charge as well.
 
The reasoning offered for dropping the charge of theft was that Kohls failed to ring up the woman for the $2700 in merchandise that she had concealed in purses and shopping bags, so it was not her fault when she left the store with the merchandise.  Since no theft was committed by her accomplices, the obstruction of justice charge was also dropped.
 
The battery to a uniformed security guard, which is a felony, is considered a misdemeanor as a matter of Cook County internal policy.  You read that right.  As a purely bureaucratic matter, Cook County chooses not to protect uniformed security guards, ignoring laws put into place for their safety.
 
If you leave a store with $2700 worth of merchandise that you have not paid for, you have committed a felony.  If you punch a uniformed security guard in Illinois, you have committed a felony.  If you do these things in Crook County, you are safe as long as the bureaucracy is currently too busy fishing for bribes or taking paid vacations to seek justice.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Arturick vs. International Socialists.

Posted by Arturick on Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:56:10 AM
 
One of the reasons I like NationStates is it's built in message board.  It's got people from around the world, mostly socialists, ALL politics hounds.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Play With Me!

Posted by Arturick on Friday, June 05, 2009 3:15:46 AM
 
This is my "Nation State."  Nation States is a fun little game where you get to rule a country according to your political whims.  If a few THers want to start countries, I could create a region for us to cluster in (TownHalla?).
 
The game is kinda tongue in cheek, so your decisions as ruler will often have unintended and extreme consequences.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Recommended Blog: The Black Sphere

Posted by Arturick on Thursday, June 04, 2009 9:37:46 PM
I recommend checking out... 
http://theblacksphere.blogtownhall.com/
 
The blogger, Kevin Jackson, puts together a well-written and downright pretty blog.  I am humbled by his use of images and formatting.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Ride With Carl

Posted by Arturick on Thursday, June 04, 2009 2:59:36 AM
I was asked in my last post about what turned me to conservatism.  Well, the answer would probably require a sizeable memoire, but I'll share one particular turning point that set me on the road to fiscal conservatism, at least.
 
Carl represented everything an intellectual disdains about the white working man.  Crude, dirty-handed, and occasionally violent, he had a sense of humor that relied heavily on racism and people getting hit in the testes.  I hung around him for a while in my college days when we discovered a shared interest in a collectible card game.  Not content with sitting around and making stupid jokes while the rest of us played, he asked me to teach him the game.  I was impressed by his quick grasp of strategy, getting a glimpse into the tech-savvy, calculating intelligence that hid under the crude idiocy.
 
So, alternately revolted and endeared by the lummox, I found myself riding in his car, if such a term can fully describe the conveyance that he had extensively modified and loved with a passion normally reserved for a first born child.  I joked that, in his will, he would not leave his car to anyone.  Rather, he would leave things to his car.
 
It was a hot day, and Carl turned on the AC.  Grinning, he looked over at me and said, "You like that?  That's freon.  It's safe for us, cools down fast, and f__ks the environment."  He took a puff off his cigarette and settled back with a look of utter joy he only got from carcinogens, excessively modified cars, and environmentally unfriendly air conditioning.  "The government wants to replace it with something that's more environmentally friendly.  Only problem is, the new stuff leaks out faster and causes cancer.  Save the whales, killing the f___king humans."
 
"Probably more expensive," I replied.  While liberal, I was also cynical.
 
"Of course," Carl said.  "But you don't know why things cost what they do."  I raised an eyebrow.  "You see, people complain about their taxes, but they don't have any idea what they're really paying."  He tapped the AC vent.  "This freon got manufactured somewhere.  So, some guy had to get a government permit to make it.  He pays taxes for his employees.  He pays sales taxes when he buys his raw materials.  He pays property taxes on the plant.  He pays to have someone certify his 'environmental compliance' and buys more stuff, which is taxed, to maintain that compliance.  And that's just for the state.  Then he's got to pay the feds."
 
"So then he's got freon, right?  But he's got to store it.  He stores it in a container, made by someone else, who has to pay all those taxes to make containers.  And once it's int the container, he's got to store it.  Oh, you need another permit to store it, and that'll cost you.  So, someone wants to buy it.  Well, he's got to ship it, so the shipping company needs a permit to carry the stuff, and pays all those other taxes, then loads it onto a truck.  The truck costs them vehicle permit taxes, gas taxes, and tolls.  It goes on and on, and who pays those taxes?"
 
"The rich a$$ dudes who own the companies?" I said, like a good little liberal.  Carl rolled his eyes.
 
"We do!" he exclaimed.  "You think they sell this s___t at a loss?  They have to sell it for enough to cover the taxes, pay the workers, and then make a profit.  Rich people don't pay taxes!  We pay their taxes when they sell us what we want.  And you have no idea how many taxes you're paying.  The tax code of Illinois alone takes up a phone book of tiny little print.  And it's all written in legalese, so unless you hire a lawyer, you don't even know what it means."
 
I was stunned.  All through elementary school, high school, and some college, it had never been plainly expressed to me that producers necessarily hand their tax burdens down to consumers.  My curiosity piqued, I began to pick up books by conservative authors and found myself exposed to thought processes that finally made sense to me.  When I offered to share my growing library with Carl, he gave me a slightly embarassed look.
 
"I really don't read much," he said,  "I listen to Rush Limbaugh."
 
Having been informed by all manner of intelligentsia that Limbaugh was a moronic blowhard, I wasn't quite ready to take that step for a few years.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dr. Who's Abortion Clinic. "Open 25-8!"

Posted by Arturick on Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:34:46 AM
Is the future set, no more capable of variance than a straight line extended to infinity?  Or is the future an amorphous blob of possibilities, an infinite array of outcomes yet to be determined by a billion potential choices?  Liberal adherents of the amorphous blob theory doubtlessly wish to nuke human life out of existence, aborting the future to prevent possible negative outcomes.
 
I have no desire to argue the case one way or the other, as intellectual heavy-hittters in philosophy and physics have both already weighed in on the issue.  Rather, I propose an intellectual exercise with regards to time.
 
Suppose technology is acquired that allows you to view the future.  This technology is then given to doctors who perform abortions.  Women coming in for an abortion are then shown their future son/daughter around age 30 or so.  The doctor then informs the woman, "Here is the person you are killing."  Does this negate the "it's a clump of cells" or "it's part of a woman's body" arguments put forth by the pro-abortion crowd?  If it does, then is the argument then negated in the absence of such technology, considering that the future exists whether we can see it or not?
 
Now, the argument could be made that, if your future child is a person of virtue and a respected member of the community, then surely it is wrong to have the abortion, but what if your future child is a monster?  If one could go back in time and kill Hitler as a child, are you to be lauded for killing a tyrant or condemned for killing a child who had yet done no wrong?  If the crimes of adult Hitler warrant the death of the child Hitler, then various social justifications for abortion (i.e. a poor parent might raise a child who turns to crime) are equally arguments for the death penalty, which is opposed by many who advocate abortion.
 
To take away the character issues that come up with the "time window" technology, suppose that an advanced DNA scanner is developed which, upon scanning a fetus, can produce images of what that person will look like as an infant, a child, and an adult.  Does the firm knowledge of what the fetus will become defy the pro-abortion arguments as well?
 
Would abortion remain legal in a world possessing either of these technologies?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative Philosophy Polite Discussion

Posted by Arturick on Friday, May 15, 2009 3:25:29 AM
I've seen quite a few liberals on the boards claiming they wished to seriously discuss things with a "polite" conservative.  I am, in general, not terribly polite around here.  Townhall is a venue for conservatives, as such we feel quite comfortable kicking back and discussing in a style better compared to a cranky, familial gripe-fest than a moderated debate.  Liberal visitors, knowing the overwhelming ideological bias, are generally here to tweak noses, rather than have a serious discussion.  So, I've reserved this space on my blog for polite, serious discussion of conservative ideology with any liberal who actually wants such a thing.
 
First, though, a few basics to keep in mind...
 
The old political spectrum of left to right is a largely unhelpful construct which fails to fully describe most governments in a meaningful fashion.  Adolph Hitler is arguably the most famous case of how unhelpful a flat scale is, having held positions that are far to the right and left in standard terms.  A vegetarian animal rights activist who promotes national cultural purity through force is not, I suppose, best described as a moderate.  The old spectrum also traditionally places communism and fascism at opposite ends, but how can two totalitarian systems be opposite?  Where would anarchists fit?
 
A better system is an x/y grid, with the x axis representing cultural ideology (abortion, modern art, sex on trampolines in front of mixed company) from liberal to conservative, and the y axis representing governmental ideology (controlling every aspect of life to utter anarchy) from libertarian to authoritarian.  Let's look at Hitler from this perspective.
 
Holding a wide array of views from the liberal side (vegetarian, animal rights, hanging out with the Thule Society, workers rights) and conservative side (anti-modern art, pro-traditional culture, pro-family), Hitler seems to fall in the middle ground between socially liberal and socially conservative.  Hitler, however, buries the needle on the authoritarian side of things.  His government was brutally socialist, but nationalistic, which brought him into conflict with internationalist socialists backing Stalin.  Mussolini summed up the ideological difference between fascists and traditional Marxists, saying that Italian workers do not empathize with all the workers of the world, they empathize with Italian workers.  Stalinists began to deride fascism (Mussolini's term for his own strict, socialistic government) as "right wing" to sway the sympathies of avowed Marxists.
 
But what of racism?  Hitler's racism/anti-semitism was his defining characteristic for most people, so where does sheer racism fit in on the scale?  It doesn't.  Racism is not a creature of the left or right, authoriarian or libertarian.  The so-called "redneck" is a conservative racist.  Nazis are authoritarian racists.  Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Minister Louis Farrakhan are liberal racists.  I know a woman who is radically leftist/authoritarian who supported John Edwards.  I pointed out to her that Edwards was ideologically identical to the more charismatic Barak Obama.  Her resonse:  "I don't trust Obama.  He's a *n-word*."  Racism is simply a negative personal quality which does not reflect anything intrinsic about political ideology outside of race.
 
So here's what the extremes of the scale look like:
 
Authoritarian Conservative - Theocratic.  Iran, Saudi Arabia
 
Authoritarian Liberal - USSR under Lenin, various failed experiments like "millenarianism"
 
Libertarian Liberal - No particular real world allegory on a national level.  Anarchy.
 
Libertarian Conservative - Idealized vision of America as a "moral," yet free, capitalist society.  Essentially, maximum freedom with peace maintained by strong shared values.
 
Assuming both axis went from -10 to 10, I'd be around 6, -5, a morally conservative, somewhat limited government kinda guy.  I believe the government has to take on various authoritarian roles, sometimes on moral issues, but support vigorous debate before any action is taken.
 
Now, modern American conservatives/Republicans run the gamut of the moderate to extreme from Authoritarian Conservative (Mega Bible Thumpers) to Libertarian Liberal (Libertarians/Ron Paul supporters).  This causes tremendous internal debate in the GOP about the direction of the party.  Amercan liberals/Democrats seem very tightly clustered in the Liberal Authoritarian to Moderate Authoritarian sector, disagreeing to some extent on social issues (gay marriage, or civil union?), but sharing a firm consensus that granting more power to the Federal government is always the answer.
 
Ultimately, the uniting force behind the "big tent" of the GOP is not firmly shared ideas, but the fact that Democrats embody the single ideological mix we all find reprehensible.  Our agitation is increased by the fact that this is also the most historically discredited type of government.
 
Now, the dirty secret of many conservatives (myself included)...
 
Communism will hopefully be the ultimate one world government.  I dub this the "Star Trek scenario."
 
In the Star Trek scenario, unlimited clean energy is found (dilithium crystals in Star Trek), allowing for effectively unlimitied resource gathering, space colonization, and the elimination of need.  One day humans will hit a button and a steak will appear.  Hit another button, and Cindy Crawford will jump in your lap.  An unlimited supply of resources and room to expand would completely shatter many of humanity's natural instincts, allowing for social engineering that would be cruel and stupid if attempted today. 
 
The rub, though is that I believe vigorous competition in a capitalist setting will bring about the technological innovations needed to reach such a point.
 
So, with that foundation in mind, if any liberal honestly wants to talk philosophical differences, here's the place to do it.  I'm a non-denominationl Christian, so I believe miracles can happen.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Grim Future of Conservatism

Posted by Arturick on Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:51:55 AM
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn made the pessimistic prediction that conservatism was largely a doomed philosophy in the post monarchic world, since conservatism appeals only to people of high intellect and great moral courage.  Since a king could be groomed and educated in the ways of conservatism, a constitutional monarchy could be reliably conservative.  The working masses, however, inclined to spend their precious hours of leisure at some form of play, rather than aggressive self-education, would only appreciate conservative principles late in life, if at all.  In a democratic society, then, voters will inevitably make a massively leftist impact on the government before coming to their senses, at which point the leftist next generation will outvote them.
 
A quote of uncertain origin goes, "Democracy can only last until the electorate realizes it can vote itself largesse from the public treasury."
 
Leftists have installed a cult of youth in America, lionizing the shortsighted thrillseeking of youth to the point that sociologists now hesitate to qualify an American under 26 as an "adult."  Leftists have also handed out the treasury like candy, and thrown open the gates of our nation to millions of uneducated (even illiterate) immigrants with no cultural roots in American conservatism.  The media, once the voice of a culture, has become the megaphone of the counter-culture.
 
If conservatives continue to respect democracy and the rule of law, it would seem their philosophy is doomed.  The Republican party is not the last bastion of conservatism.  Conservatism has no stronghold.  The conservative political movement didn't die with Reagan, it died with Goldwater, if not before.  I am not a Reagan conservative, but a Coolidge conservative.  Reagan's foreign policy was laudable, and his tax plans usually just, but he destroyed a billion oranges to drive up the price of produce.  Why?  Because even with our most charismatic leader in power, the soul of the party had already been sold.  The Repubs sold their votes to farmers and military contractors;  noble enough groups, but the votes were still for sale.  The GOP now exists to buy the votes of "moderates," and John McCain was the landlord who informed the right that it wasn't paying it's rent.  The right is a scattered clan, being steadily swallowed up into the heathen masses.  Even now, we watch ourselves being slowly outlawed by the current regime.
 
Yes, I said regime, not administration.  I have taken the first step towards rejecting the rule of law, and declare this government illegitimate.  It is not a democratic republic, but a moronic demarchy.  The "tyranny of the masses" that every drooling faggot with a wedding band and bouquet of vibrators warns against has arrived, with high class marketing and flaming interior decorators.  It is driven by the votes of the illiterate and the mad.  No government based on the deception of fools can be considered legitimate, or even anything less than tyrannical.
 
But surely, some staunch conservative superstar will crest the rise and bring about "morning in America," yes?  And what party will such a man run with?  The GOP would saddle such a man with room full of "moderate" Bushes, and we would simply follow the same leftist path in half-steps rather than long strides, patting ourselves on the back the whole way.  We want another uber-charismatic Reagan not to persuade, but to spellbind.  We idolize Reagan because he tricked us into feeling good.
 
We have no voice, for the media and academia are against us.  We have no hands because the labor unions villify us.  We have no feet, because there is nowhere left to go.
 
We are the "stateless terrorists" of tomorrow.  Napolitano is prescient.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If Collectivism Works... Do It!

Posted by Arturick on Monday, May 11, 2009 4:57:38 AM
Ultimately, the most infuriating thing about communists is the simple fact that a free, capitalist society provides them with the ideal setting in which to practice what they preach.
 
There is nothing stopping any group of staunch collectivists from forming a commune.  In fact, the trappings of capitalism encourage anyone who feels the need to assemble a Fourian phalanstere with clear economic incentives.  Buying food and other perishables in bulk results in a reduced cost per unit.  A commune could easily incorporate itself, gaining bargaining power with insurance agencies to set up group payment plans at a discounted rate per individual.  Ten people living together consume less gas, oil, and electricity than ten people living separately.
 
America should, in fact, be filled with happy communists, living high on the hog in comparison to their struggling, individualistic neighbors.
 
So why, when facing the clear opportunity to live their ideals, are all these bastards trying to seize control of the government and radically alter the way that the rest of us live?  Let's see...
 
1.  Responsibility:  When you live in a voluntary commune, you are responsible for your choices.  Buying a candy bar is now a sin against the commune instead of a personal choice.  You are expected to show an iron-spined self-control that you clearly lack if you chose to live in a commune instead of making your own way in the world.  Now, when your life is governed by edicts from on high, you are freed from the horrible notion of personal accountability.  You cannot mis-spend money the commandant has not issued you.  When you have no choices, you cannot bear the burden of failure.  Slavery is liberating, is it not?
 
2.  Luxury:  What does every moron on the internet shouting the praises of Al Gore have in common?  A computer with internet access!  This computer is probably located in an air-conditioned room to which they have free access.  Libtards want to choose how they live, with how many children, and with what sort of accomodation.  Work hard enough to provide these amenities for yourself and...  the fruits of your labor get thrown into the collective fund.  In a collectivist tyranny, however, you get the opportunity to become a powerful member of the ruling party and earn yourself all kinds of extra benefits.  All you have to do is show the proper willingness and talent for finding traitors and crushing them.
 
3.  Association:  Read the libtard posts found all over TH.  Would you want to live with any of these people?  Do you want the guy who sees evil oil company execs hiding in the closet to do your grocery shopping?  Do you want a member of NAMBLA to watch your kids while you're at work?  There are not a lot of obvious benefits to surrounding yourself with people who repeatedly show themselves to be incapable of anything besides pettiness and hatred.
 
And that's really what it boils down to, folks.  Liberals could be living la vida Lenin in apartment complexes around the nation, but they'll never actually do that because they're lazy, worthless, despicable, irredeemable, vile, hateful, constantly cryingly miserable pieces of human excrement who need to be shut the hell up with an oral application of aluminum baseball bat.  I'm not normally this vitriolic, but I've had enough of the vermin.  Any shred of mercy I've felt for these mewling bastards has been squashed under their constant, hateful assaults on conservatives.  Their repeated, spineless squeals hoping for the death and suffering of conservatives has made me crave their death and suffering.  I want them fed to the muslim scum to die under torture (REAL torture).
 
Vile, bloody hypocrites...  They scream their hatred for us to conceal their hatred of themselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Utopian

Posted by Arturick on Friday, March 13, 2009 3:27:57 AM
The Utopian 
a poem
 
It is soldiers,
And generals,
Who stand upon the bloody fields of dawn,
Basking in the red light of a new era.
 
Behind them,
The Utopian,
Screams at the reddish yellow sun,
That burns his skin,
Parches his throat,
And stings his eyes.
 
For all that this bright sun brings light,
Brings nourishment,
Brings comfort,
It blots out the perfection that the Utopian found,
In the darkness.
The star.
 
The Utopian remembers that star,
Visible only in the darkest night.
It's light was piercing, white...
Pure.
 
It is noon of the new era and life blooms,
Children have born and grown,
Never knowing the darkness.
 
The Utopian goes to the children.
Tells them of the perfect star.
Tells them of the darkness needed to see.
 
They rise in fervor,
Marching to the night,
As the red of dusk bleeds across the sky,
Until all is dark.
They stand beneath the star.
 
They revel in the beauty of the star.
They pat their backs for what they've done.
 
But the star brings no warmth,
No life,
Not a thing for empty bellies.
Not even enough light to see the man next to you.
But enough to fear what you cannot see.
 
Fear, hunger, chaos, death,
Fill the darkness with war.
From war comes soldiers,
And generals,
Who march to the edge of night,
Ignite the darkness,
And stand upon the bloody fields of dawn.
The dawn of a new era.
 
And behind them,
The Utopian screams.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Trillion Ounces of Prevention

Posted by Arturick on Friday, March 06, 2009 1:24:20 AM
For the longest time, my liberal acquaintances have assured me that Universal Health Care will be cheaper (in the non-pejorative sense) than our current system.  Why?  Because, you see, we'll spend less money on treating crisis level situations once all Americans have easier access to "preventative" care.
 
Well shucky darn!  Y'all mean I had teh opshun teh not get sickified in teh first place?
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't 99% of "prevention" consist of things we already know we should do, can already do, but don't do?  We already know how to not get sick.  We just don't particularly find it worthwhile to do so until we've had the grim reaper stare us in the face once or twice.
 
Quit smoking.
Quit drinking.
Quit eating anything with a flavor.
Quit television and replace it with jogging.
 
Ta da!  Dr. Arturick will now be sending a $1000 bill to Medicaid for my consulting services.
 
Once you get past the obvious, prevention really consists of some basic check ups that we still know we're supposed to get and can probably afford.  I'm sorry, folks, but we're all going to die.  UHC will not turn us into immortal, jogging sprout-eaters.  Personally, I don't want to live in the society that could make me an immortal, jogging sprout-eater.  I'd ruin the health benefits of the lifestyle by being unable to maintain a positive mental attitude.  I'd probably die in a gunfight between the FBI and a ring of chocolate chip cookie smugglers.
 
Give me peanut butter, or give me death!  Actually, I'll take both, so just make with the PB NOW!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Blog

Posted by Arturick on Friday, February 27, 2009 3:23:37 AM
Hey, I'm alive again after a year off the blogosphere.  I'll be dividing my attention between the good ole' Hate Machine and a side blog, Conservative Gamer. Conservative Gamer will be my spot to discuss games of all varieties, movies, and non-political books from a decidedly political, but still gamer, point of view.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Climate War?

Posted by Arturick on Monday, March 10, 2008 4:09:13 AM
One of the common liberal lies about conservatives is that we are somehow pro-pollution.  Yeah, we're all ready to get behind some corporation that wants to dump mercury into the local water supply.  We LOVE mercury.  In fact, the companies that have all that extra mercury could not even use mercury in their processes, but they use it anyway to please we conservatives who just adore mercury.
 
I'm drinking a thermometer as I write this.
 
Actually, we conservatives generally hope that the continued advance of technology will result in increasingly efficient ways to do stuff, and the forces of the free market will make those clean, efficient measures the economically preferable ones.  You see, we have a great deal of faith in science and human progress, the things that "progressives," who want us burning candles and taking rickshaws to work, think we somehow oppose.
 
But, let's say that capitalist scientists, who thrive on concrete progress that they can sell for huge amounts of money, are wrong.  Let's also say the apocalyptic cultists following the Goracle around are right.  We can radically affect the global climate by lowering carbon dioxide emissions in ways that would not greatly affect our lives, and these changes are just being resisted by hidebound Republicans.
 
So what, exactly, are the ethics and implications of being able to control the weather?
 
Now, the internationalist Marxists, who seem to make up most of the Goreacle's followers, believe that we need to halt global warming "for the good of the whole planet."  But, is it actually good for the whole planet?
 
Let's say, for example, that a climate alteration leaves much of the USA arid and swamps cities like Manhattan, but gives Canada a longer growing season and thaws out soil over rich oil deposits.  Will Canada readily allow these positive changes to be halted for the benefit of the USA?  What concessions could it demand from us in exchange for it's future national prosperity?
 
Alternately, let's say we achieve more than climactic detente.  We begin reversing the trend of global warming.  Now, as the Earth gets colder, China sees that the Gobi desert has stopped expanding, and could shrink with aggressive terraforming.  However, continuing this trend means glaciers will begin sweeping over Moscow.  Or perhaps China allows Russia to warm as it's population continues to shrink from low birth rates, and tens of millions of Chinese sweep illegally across the border.
 
Meanwhile, poor countries, which can't produce or reduce emissions enough to make a difference, are left at the mercy of the larger, industrialized nations to grant them famine or plenty.
 
If, in fact, palpable control of the weather is now in our hands, then only two results can come about:  War or Global Tyranny
 
In the first instance, independent nations suddenly find themselves embroiled in a global war over a weapon potentially more devastating than nuclear weapons.  Indeed, nukes become a viable option as nations tamper with forces that could inflict droughts that last centuries, devastating storms, or even an ice age.
 
In the second instance, unable to realistically deal with independent powers holding the climate hostage, a world government must be formed.  The new global dictatorship then hands out climactic favors at a whim, and destroys nations that refuse to join the collective emissions program.
 
Attempting to cool the globe could ignite a firestorm beyond our imagionation.  Now that's an inconvenient truth.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Missing White Woman!

Posted by Arturick on Friday, March 07, 2008 5:02:44 PM
You've probably all heard or read some indignant person complaining that minority women go missing or get murdered ALL THE TIME, yet we don't hear about it.  Likewise, when some white kids shoot up a high school, we get the same voices yelling that minority schools get shot up ALL THE TIME, but we don't hear about it.
 
Well, gee, thanks for letting us know that minorities turn every neighborhood they live in into a Darfur-esque war zone.  I guess I'll ask the old man down the street with a conspicuous German accent and a hunted look in his eyes where I can get a deal on ovens.  Final Solution, anyone?
 
Fortunately, I am not so quick to adopt a policy that would treat Clarence Thomas and Stan "Tookie" Williams the same.  But, let's take a look at why the media does not focus on the plight of missing black women and shot up black children more than the five minutes set aside every night to let us know that 2-3 more Honor Roll students have been shot.
 
1.  Domestic Tranquility...  SHATTERED! - The media love the missing white woman stories, but they don't cover EVERY missing white woman.  You don't hear about a prostitute who was last seen at the doctor's office getting treated for her hepatitis-C.  You hear about young, upper-middle to upper class women with idyllic lives that have been tragically shattered.  Loving parents and/or spouses plead for their return.  Police question people in quiet, cozy neighborhoods that are "forever changed" by these events.  Now, does this mean that black women don't have loving families?  Of course not.  However, the media subscribes to the theory that every black neighborhood is a Darfur-esque war zone, because that is what "black leaders" tell them.  After all, women and children get killed ALL THE TIME there, so it isn't exactly news, is it?  Reporters love the "creepy husband is probably the killer" angle, but they figure their audience doesn't have the attention span to follow multiple suspects.  "Well, Darquisha's two brothers are hooked on crack, several of her 'baby daddies' were just released from prison, and her oldest boy just joined a gang where shooting your mom is sometimes used as an initiation right."
 
2.  A Community Comes Together - Reporters love to show neighbors, friends, and volunteers from around the area gathering together with the police to canvas the local forest preserve.  It's like a big, cheery scavenger hunt with the hidden prize being a dead body.  A quick study of available statistics show that the average American black does not donate time or money to charity, and holds a dim view of the police.  The mass media, being sensitive to racial issues, does not want to report on a missing person story only to show police being repeatedly yelled at, turned away from homes unless "dey gots a warrant", or shot at by the local ruffians.  Not to mention the reporters themselves, usually attractive women, don't want to go to a neighborhood where women go missing ALL THE TIME.
 
3.  Only White People Are Actually Guilty - You can demonize a white man from sunrise to sunset, unless he's a Kennedy.  Nancy Grace can sit behind her desk and talk about what an awful person Drew Peterson (or insert any other white guy named Peterson who kills his wife) is for the entirety of her show with a chorus of floating heads echoing her every sentiment.  She can criticize a black man, but only if he's accused of hurting animals, she has a black floating head indignantly proclaiming a lack of evidence, and/or he's OJ.  Black people are only incarcerated because some racist police officer held up the DNA evidence, which will surface in a few years and vindicate him.  If you repeatedly slam Drew Peterson, you're a hard hitting reporter.  If you treat a guy with dreadlocks named Tetris Jones like that, you're a hysterical bigot.
 
4.  Strong Dignified Grief - An elderly white couple, tears coming down their faces, quietly asks the reporters to leave as they hear the news that their daughter's body has been found.  Or, angry/hysterical black woman showcases a whole bunch of racial stereotypes.  Which clip are they going to run?  Now, I'm not saying that's a racial difference, just a cultural divide over expression versus restraint.  I'm sure white women in our younger generations flip out pretty hard, too, but you don't see that on the news either.  You do, however, see it on Jerry Springer.
 
Nancy Grace:  "So...  the body has been found.  I can't imagine what's going through your mind right now..."
 
Woman:  *SHRIEEEEEEEEEEEK* BLEEP BLEEP *SHRIEEEEEEEEEK*
 
Nancy Grace:  "Umm... go to commercial!"
 
Sheesh, I can't even deal with the pornography of grief we already see.
 
Anyhow, I'll bet you any money that, if an upper-middle class black woman from a two parent home in a notoriously cop-friendly, clean neighborhood disappears and the only suspect is a scummy white guy who isn't a Kennedy, then it'll be all over the news.  Nancy Grace and her heads will talk about it endlessly as she stares into the camera with her gigantic, soulless eyes.  Geraldo Rivera will break into the guy's house in the middle of the night and search his basement.  The whole country will be on the lookout for a blue, plastic barrel.  And no caucasian will dare suggest that this happens ALL THE TIME.
Tags: Media   race  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCainiacs: Making Ronulans Look Good

Posted by Arturick on Friday, February 15, 2008 6:03:21 PM
Wow, McCainiacs have blown Ronulans out of the water on my annoyance list.  At least a Ronulan would just pipe in with "Constitution good, Jews Bad!" once in a while.  McCainiacs are downright insufferable.  Let's look at the tactics of the McCain and those with the mark of McCain...
 
1.  Insult Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh.  Great strategy, guys.  As a fairly new convert to conservatism, nothing draws me into your camp like echoing the liberal diatribes against the sort of people who brought me into the Republican party.  Considering the article about McCain I reprinted below, it seems that he intends to unite the Republicans under his banner by leading a massive assault against freedom of speech at the side of the Dems!  Fairness doctrine, anyone?
 
2.  Insult our intelligence.  Oh, I'm sorry!  I didn't know I was a moron until all the McCainiacs started telling me so.  I mean, having all the liberals tell me I'm stupid didn't get through to me, but when someone with strong conservative cred like McCain tells me I'd better vote for him because I'm too moronic to make my own choices...  well, shucks!  I better vote for McCain!
 
3.  Assert that Barack Obama will end the world.  Look, guys, part of the problem with Democrats is that they will never be as bad as we want them to be.  They follow the trends in popular culture, and slip in exactly as much socialism as they can get away with.  Neo-Cons like Bush and McCain slip in half that amount of socialism, then claim a great victory for conservatism and small government.  So, if we have to deal with one term of Obama in which he embarasses himself, it will basically be equal to suffering through two terms of McCain.
 
And what if McCain gets elected?  The result will be nothing short of the complete death of the conservative wing of the Republican party.  We will never have a voice in the process again, and we'll find ourselves scrabbling through the dust for the makings of a third party.  We'll be sitting next to the political dumpster next to some Ronulan who keeps trying to give us a copy of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  In the mean time, the media will continue to shove the country into an economic downward spiral, assisted by McCainiac socialism-lite, and people like me at the bottom of the economic food chain will suffer the most.  "Hey, all the economic stagnation of socialism, but with none of the initially sweet welfare benefits!  At least I'll have McCain's tepid class-warfare rhetoric to keep me warm at night."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »