Mandatory guinea pigs

The AMA contemplates “compulsory involvement in vaccine studies“.  From a paper entitled “Should Participation in Vaccine Clinical Trials be Mandated?”

“If progression of promising vaccines from the lab to the clinic is to remain unaffected and financial inducement is an ethically unacceptable solution to the recruitment shortage, other strategies need to be considered. Compulsory involvement in vaccine studies is one alternative solution that is not as outlandish as it might seem on first consideration. Many societies already mandate that citizens undertake activities for the good of society; in several European countries registration for organ-donation has switched from “opt-in” (the current U.S. system) to “opt out” systems (in which those who do not specifically register as non-donors are presumed to consent to donation, and most societies expect citizens to undertake jury service when called upon.”

It goes without saying that this is monstrous.  But the fascinating thing here should be the response of those vaccine advocates who have repeatedly argued that the only reason there are no serious double-blind studies of any approved vaccine series is that it would be unethical to use people in such scientific experiments because they would not know if they had received placebos or the actual vaccines.  I’m curious to see if they will suddenly pivot and start arguing that while giving placebos – which are by definition harmless in themselves – is unethical, forcibly giving test vaccines to unwitting human lab rats is perfectly acceptable.

We already know they’re morally and logically bankrupt, I’m mostly interested in learning how far down into the abyss they are willing to plunge.

He just wouldn’t stay down

As the Alabama sheriff said, “he was reaching for something….”  I’m not quite sure what amuses me more, the idea that I am the slightest bit concerned about being fair, the idea that I have any concern whatsoever for what Ackroyd thinks, or that he appears to believe he can dig his way out of looking like an ignoramus with a double-digit IQ if he only tries a little harder.

On second thought, I do have a question.  There are four “demotivational” posters featuring individual atheists.  The Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins posters feature words none of them actually said.  Given
that, was it fair of Vox to savage me as an “ignorant atheist” for not
realizing the Dennett poster features words he did say–paraphrased? I
think not.

Of course it was not only fair, but just, that I castigated poor little Ackroyd, accurately or not.  In the immortal words of Obadiah Hakeswill, “says so in the Scriptures”.  If you are going to come in here arrogantly asserting your opinion about the stupidity of this and the idiocy of that and generally acting like a big dog, don’t be surprised when you find yourself unexpectedly sad, wet, and stinking of urine.  I am the bigger dog.  I am an Award Winning Cruelty Artist.   I will cut a bitch with a smile on my face.  A minor character flaw, no doubt, but one concerning which everyone who comments here has been duly notified.

Furthermore, I was undeniably correct about the “ignorant” part.  Ackroyd was, by his own admission, completely ignorant of Dennett’s writings.  And now, thanks to his unwise attempt at ex post facto self-defense, we can safely conclude that he is stupid as well, because after drawing attention to the abject stupidity of the phrase on the poster, tried to defend Dennett’s incompetent argument advocating the intrinsic trustworthiness of science:

“In light of this, do the words on the poster convey Dennett’s point
accurately? Or would it be more fair to paraphrase him as saying
“Science can be trusted, because it yields amazingly accurate results”?
And isn’t this in fact true–as far as it goes?”

Yes, they most certainly do.  No.  And no, because it demonstrably isn’t true at all.  It repeats the very mistake Dennett made, which is the very reason the Dennett demotivator is both accurate and amusing.  Ackroyd still hasn’t understood that Dennett’s syllogism is faulty.  Not all sciences are created equal.  For example, physics yields amazingly accurate results.  Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, unquestionably does not and evolutionary biologists don’t claim that it does.  In his book, Dennett tries a classic New Atheist bait-and-switch, asserting that since both physics and not-physics are called science, if physics yields amazingly accurate results, then not-physics should be trusted… even though not-physics doesn’t produce any of the trust-inspiring results.  I could argue, every bit as reasonably as Dennett, that because theology is a science, “the queen of the sciences”, in fact, it should also be trusted on the basis of the amazingly accurate results of physics.

Petraeus starts talking

Two interesting bits of news to surface today:

1.  “Representative Peter King stated that former CIA Director David Petraeus
stated that he knew the Benghazi attack was terrorism and that the
talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice were different from the
ones prepared by the CIA. Petraeus stated Rice’s talking points were
edited to demphasized the possibility of terrorism.”

2.  “Reports from those who listened to recordings of the pleas
for help coming from the Benghazi Consulate on September 11 that caused Marine
Ty Woods to disobey orders and fight to defend the consulate suggest that the
tapes are “damning” proof of the Obama Administration’s mishandling of the
attacks.”

I’d provide the links, but that’s all there was.  It looks like Obama could be a lame duck a lot sooner than his two-term predecessors were.   There are going to be a lot of people interested in discovering who edited the CIA notes and why.

No, don’t move

Karl Denninger inadvertantly recommends spreading the Blue virus:

[T]he people of California passed a ballot measure to tax themselves
and give the money not to a state program but rather to a bunch of
banksters.  There’s no solution to stupidity that is lawful; your only lawful option if you live in that craphole called California
where people vote to steal your money using the guns of the government
as a means to compel you to to turn it over and then give it to a bunch
of thieves on Wall Street — not even spending it on a program to
benefit you and your children — is to move.

While it is moderately amusing to think of the devout goodthinkers of California patting themselves on the bank as they  piously vote to raise taxes that use the California schools as a funnel to the banksters, it is a mistake to permit Californians to go anywhere but another proud blue state.  Because it’s only a matter of time before the ex-Californians start looking around and wondering if life wouldn’t be better for everyone if things were done the wonderful way they were back in California.

And aside from New Yorkers, I’ve never known any group of people more dedicated to informing you of their origins than Californians.  It was bad enough at my university that the one girl from Minnesota used to roll her eyes and sarcastically mutter “hey, Minnesota buddy!” in my direction if we both happened to be in the vicinity of two Californians congratulating each other on their mutual state of residence.  Granted, they’re not quite as obnoxious as Parisians, but it’s still ridiculous.

Locusts don’t vote ant party

The Right Wing News surveys the right wing blogs concerning the presidential election:

1) If you had to pick one reason why Mitt Romney lost, which of the following would it be?
D) He wasn’t aggressive enough in attacking Obama and/or his campaign
was too passive in defending against attacks. 48.5% (32 votes)
E) He didn’t inspire voters to turn out for him and/or his get-out-the-vote operation was poor 43.9% (29 votes)
B) He was too moderate overall. 7.6% (5 votes)
A) He was too conservative overall. 0.0% (0 votes)
C) His campaign was too socially conservative. 0.0% (0 votes)

2) Was Mitt Romney your first choice in the Republican primaries or was there another candidate you preferred?
B) There was another candidate that I preferred. 81.8% (54 votes)
A) He was my first choice. 18.2% (12 votes)

Even in the post-election analysis, the illusion remains strong within Republicans.  This is why they are in the process of rapidly going the way of the Whig Party.  Republicans still think that pandering to the Left will pull people to the Right rather than moving the party to the Left.  And they still fail to understand that people who prefer big government in their native lands are always going to prefer big government in the lands they’ve invaded.  This is as true of Californians moving to Texas and Massachusetts residents moving to New Hampshire as it is of Malaysians and Mexicans moving to the USA.  Very few people are abstract or long-term thinkers.  Most people want the wealth produced by a society with limited  government distributed to them more generously by bigger government.

The fact that this happens to be a contradiction when viewed from a long term perspective is totally irrelevant.  The locust doesn’t stop to think about the consequences of stripping the field bare, especially when all the other locusts are busily devouring everything in sight.  He’ll worry about next year when it arrives.  America always had its share of native locusts, but they were always outnumbered by the ants and they were not capable of rendering the fields barren.  Now, their numbers have been significantly boosted by immigration, but the Republican Party cannot hope to retain its viability by reaching out to the new locusts and attempting to convincing them that they are ants.

Romney lost for two reasons.  He was too moderate for his white traditional base and there are too many new big government voters in the electorate.  Republicans might complain that libertarians and conservatives staying home cost them a number of elections in 2012, including the presidential one, but then, that’s exactly what increasing numbers of libertarians and conservatives have warned they would do ever since George W. Bush revealed himself to be a fake conservative.

I, Ibrahimovic

This is a sweet goal.  No question about it.  But I would have been much more impressed by it were it not for the one I scored two weeks ago:

There were three differences.  First, I was farther away and in between the right side of the box and the sideline, so the angle was sharper.  Second, I didn’t do a bicycle in which I ended on my back, but more of a leap-and-twist, followed by a 540-degree spin.  Third, the goalie was in position and the ball went in the upper left corner of the goal.

Actually, there were four differences,  It’s a pity, but no one got mine on video.  Still, it’s fun to see this sort of thing and be able to say, “yeah, I can do that.”

Ron Paul on secession

This weekend I got a couple of calls from
the media asking me questions about Rick Perry, our governor here in
Texas and the statements he made about possible secession. Now, he
didn’t call for secession, but he was restating a principle that was
long held and at least in the original time of our country, and that is
that there was a right to secession.

Actually, after the Civil War, nobody believes there is a so-called
right to secession, but it is a very legitimate issue to debate because
all of the states that came into the Union before the Civil War
believed they have a right to secede and New England in the early part
of the 19th century actually considered it, and nobody questioned them
about whether they had the right to do it or not.  Since the Civil War, it’s been sort of a dead issue, but he brought
it up. It stirred the media and believe me, it really stirred some of
the liberal media where they started really screaming about what is
going on here. “This is un-American”, I heard one individual say, “This
is treasonous to even talk about it.”

Well, they don’t know their history very well because if they think
about it, it’s an American tradition. It’s very American to talk about
secession. That’s how we came into being. Thirteen colonies seceded from
the British and established a new country, so secession is very much
an American principle.

What about all the strong endorsements we have given over the past
decade or two of those republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We
were delighted with this. We never said, “Oh no. Secession is
treasonous”.

No. Secession is a good principle. Just think of the benefits that
would have come over these last 230-some years if the principle of
secession had existed. That means the federal government would always
have been restrained, not to overburden the states with too much
federalism, too many federal rules and regulations.

But since that was all wiped out with the Civil War, the federal
government has grown by leaps and bounds and we have suffered the
consequences, and we need to reconsider this. It’s not un-American to
think about the possibility of secession. This is something that’s
voluntary. We came together voluntarily. A free society means you can
dissolve it voluntarily. That was the whole issue was about.
Just remember one of the reasons that Wilson drove us in
unnecessarily into World War I. He talked about what we have to give,
have every country in the world the benefit of self-determination, a
good principle. Of course, I don’t think he really believed that. But
self-determination is a good principle. It’s a very American principle,
so to me it’s a shame that we can’t discuss this.

You know, it’s interesting that so many of us have been taught for so
many years, and as long as I can remember from the first grade on up
taking the pledge of allegiance that we have a republic that’s
“indivisible” and we have been preached that and preached it. So
therefore, there is no contest, no question since the Civil War that we
have even the thought that this could happen.

But you know what a lot of people don’t talk about and they really don’t even know about is who wrote the pledge to the flag.
The pledge to the flag came from, for instance, Bellamy, an avowed
Socialist who wanted to put into concrete in the pledge this principle
of being indivisible, and he did it, you know, for the celebration
ironically 400 years of the celebration of the landing of Christopher
Columbus, so it was in 1892.

I mean, the pledge of allegiance has not been here, you know, all our
history. So I think it’s worth of discussion. I think people should
discuss this because right now, the American people are sick and tired
of it all and I think the time will come when people will consider it
much more seriously is when the federal government can no longer
deliver. That time will come when the dollar collapses.

No matter what they do and how many promises they have and how many
bailouts they have, they can’t do it if the money doesn’t work. So then,
the independence of the states will come back and it doesn’t mean that
you’ll be un-American to even contemplate what might have to be done
once the dollar crashes.

It’s really not a question of a right of secession so much as a question of the American right to self-determination.  Are those who live in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” truly less free than Libyans, Iraqis, and Croatians?  Moreoever, if America is a conceptual nation, then obviously it cannot be a geographic location, nor can it be concepts that are intrinsically opposed to the original concepts.  It should be readily apparent that secular big government forced union “America” cannot properly be considered American, regardless of whether one considers the matter in terms of conventional nationalism or the conceptual nationalism so beloved of the melting pot mythmakers.

We already know the union of the forcibly United States will be divided.  The younger union of the Soviet Socialist Republics broke apart 23 years ago.  The European Union is visibly fracturing already.  The much older union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England will be voting on its dissolution soon.  The only thing we don’t know is when the division will take place.  As I have stated before, my expectation is that it will take place by 2033.

Mailvox: an ignorant atheist

I find it interesting to witness mediocre minds at work.  It is always fascinating when one is able to discern the exact point at which they are no longer able to follow the logic to its obvious conclusion:

I just clicked on the links at right, “atheist demotivators”. God, are they stupid. And I’m not talking about the atheists, either. Seriously, “You can trust biologists. Because Physicists get amazingly accurate results” is the dumbest thing I’ve see lately, Is this Vox’s idea of a devastating putdown of atheism?

It would appear that someone hasn’t read Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell….  Or even recognized his picture.

675,000 secessionists

That’s a lot more Americans than fought the original Revolutionary War.  Of course, it’s easy to sign a digital petition and rather less easy to spend a hungry winter at Valley Forge, but the size and speed of the response does indicate how Americans feel about Obama’s “America”:

Less than a week after a New Orleans suburbanite petitioned the White House to allow Louisiana to secede from the United States, petitions from seven states have collected enough signatures to trigger a promised review from the Obama administration.

By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system.

Nothing will come of these PR-stunt petitions.  But they are an early sign of the secessionist struggles to come over the next two decades until the final dissolution in the 2033 timeframe.  Americans don’t want to live in Mexico, Asia, or the Middle East, nor do they want to live in a post-America under Mexican, Asian, and Middle Eastern government.  Nor should they, as evidenced by the millions of immigrants who are, ironically but predictably, attempting to turn their new country into the same sort of place they left in the first place.

This is just what immigrants do if they are allowed to invade in sufficient numbers.  One Muslim immigrates, he eventually integrates, converts, and joins a church.  One hundred Muslims immigrate, they build a mosque and their own Muslim community that grows over time.  The Melting Pot isn’t merely a myth, it is a idealistic fantasy about as relevant to historic human behavioral patterns as Star Trek.

I am a little surprised, however, as I expected the first serious secession talk to come out of the Aztecs of Aztlan.  The reaction to the election is remarkable because, as we all know, Romney wasn’t going to govern much differently than Obama.  But it appears the symbolism of white Americans being deprived of their choice of president by an alliance of aliens has finally forced millions of Americans to realize that if things don’t change drastically, they will eventually find themselves living in Detroit writ large.

I wonder if the United Nations will be as interested in helping those seeking the right to self-determination in Texas and Louisiana as they are in so many other countries around the world?  It will also be interesting to see if the Obama administration will continue to argue that Libyan and Syrian separatists need to be armed even as it wonders if it dares try to disarm American separatists.