Mailvox: On drugs

Katherine comments: Vox, you do nothing for improving the public opinion of the libertarian party, which is that it is a group of people who seek mostly to curb societal disapproval of the few vices they have left. After your little rant accusing “paranoid drug warriors” of being prudes because they don’t support random individuals having the freedom to use every kind of hard drug they can get their hands on, I’m not so sure they were wrong. Want to bring more people to the libertarian party? Stop telling people who disagree with you that they are prudes.

I never said anything about prudes. Nothing personal, truly, but I don’t think anti-drug conservatives are prudes. With regards to this specific matter, I think they’re uninformed, illogical, short-sighted and, quite frequently, downright stupid. I also know from personal experience that if you repeatedly smash a person in the face with their total failure of logic on a specific matter, they will eventually wake up. I have been very successful in convincing rock-hard conservative Republicans who have never dreamed of touching an illegal chemical that the Drug War is evil, dangerous and a total contradiction of their core beliefs. As for paranoid, what else would you call someone who is more afraid of an imaginary threat than of something that is indisputably real and uniquely lethal?

I was an elite NCAA Division 1 athlete and very seldom used the drugs in which most of my friends habitually engaged. I’ve been 100 percent clean for over a decade, even when living in a country where marijuana is openly sold by a chain of stores. But I never said drugs are safe. They’re not. And yet, 100,000 people die every year on the highways but we don’t ban cars because 75 percent of those trips are unnecessary expeditions in pursuit of a shopping buzz. Conservatives wet their pants because a few people more people might OD here and there or drop out of the job market if drugs are legalized, and because of this irrational fear, they happily embrace expanding central government power, the only thing that has killed more humans this century than every drug, every car accident, every war, and every murderous criminal combined – and this despite the fact that 20 years of trampling all over civil liberties and the Constitution has only increased drug availability and potency exactly as the Prohibition experiment indicated. You can’t even withdraw a measly $3,000 from your bank now without it being reported to the FBI, thanks to this “conservative” policy.

The upshot is that the Drug War is yet another example of short-sighted conservatives being snookered by statists. The centralizers burn to increase central power by any means necessary, and this has been one of their most successful tactics. Remember, back when the country actually was conservative, opium, cocaine and marijuana were all legal. There’s nothing inherently conservative about the Drug War, and there’s nothing inherently libertine about opposing it. I don’t want drugs to be legal so that I can use them, I want them to be legal so government agents don’t have an excuse to trample on the Constitution, steal private property and shoot people in the head.

My angel is a centerfold

Okay, the analogy is not quite precise, but Big Chilly and the White Buffalo will no doubt be amused to know that it has been confirmed that Jamaica Girl*, my college girlfriend from junior year, is indeed collectible. Apparently it’s kind of like baseball cards, only strippers. The ironic thing is that she’s not even close to the most staggeringly questionable girl I ever dated. It’s always fun to have to warn your mother: “uh, Mom, you know that USA Today thing you were reading last week….”

And here Space Bunny’s college boyfriends were an NBA player and a surgeon. Let’s just say we count on her to provide the class in the relationship.

*”Why are there poor people here? If I were poor, I’d go live in Jamaica!”

A new fave

As most of you know, I have no fear of the Left, being more steeped in its foundations than most of its advocates and devotees. Thus, I often find Eponymous to be rather humorous, and to be honest, he deserved a link just for the Ann Coulter as vampire countess alone. I even tend to agree with him on the nightmarish Meghan Gurdon columns on NRO, which make my eyeballs feel as if they’re bleeding on the few occasions I’ve troubled to read them.

He’s generally not inclined to take me on, unfortunately, and his readers are about as intellectually sophisticated as you’d imagine, but he is the one funny left-wing blogger that I’ve encountered. Sure, the obsession with who Ben Shapiro and Kyle Williams are not sleeping with gets old, but one must give credit where credit is due and I happen to find it amusing. Maybe you won’t, but hey, it’s my blog.

UPDATE – Apparently he is a she. I was under the mistaken impression that Eponymous was a homosexual he.

Watch out for falling giants

The Atlanta Journal/Constitution reports on an evolution-in-school dispute: David Bechler, a biology professor and head of the department of biology at Valdosta State University, said the statements suggest a basic misunderstanding of science. “I don’t think they understand the definition of a theory,” Bechler said. “You’re talking about a statement that describes a body of data that has gone through testing and proving. The theory of creation, intelligent design, or whatever you might want to call it, has not been tested and should not be discussed in science classes. It’s not the same thing.”

I enjoy it when scientists are just blatantly dishonest. As Joe Carter has pointed out, most people don’t realize that the leading evolutionists themselves have completely rejected Darwin’s notion of phyletic gradualism as an explanation for the origin of the species. As it turns out, his micro-evolution only serves to explain the origin of the breeds. Macro evolution, on the other hand, is completely untested and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for it, let alone proof of it. Apparently even Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost anti-religious champions of evolution, seeks to avoid the question of information being naturally added to DNA. In short, actual science has done in the quasi-scientific theory of Darwinian evolution. And so the secular giants of the 19th century continue to fall….

I was interested to see if my understanding of macro and micro was correct, interestingly enough, the situation is precisely the same in economics, where micro is based on observation and supported by evidence and macro is abstract theory maquerading as science, which turns out to be totally nonoperative in practice. Below is a decent start on understanding the difference between the two:

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science…. a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. [Macro-evolution] This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the [macro] theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection that removes DNA information but does not add new information.

If you don’t understand what those three things are, best not to even think about claiming that science “proves” evolution. I don’t see why it’s so shocking to think that a scientific theory developed 144 years ago would get blown out of the water as science advances. Darwinism had a pretty respectable run compared to Marxism. Even Newton and Einstein turned out to be less than flawless, after all, to say nothing of Freud. And look at how many people are still Marxists despite its obviously absurd foundation on the labory theory of value and the concept of social class, when a little observation and logic are enough to explode it entirely.

This is not a battle between ignorant religionists and truth-seeking scientists, it is a battle waged on purely scientific grounds. And as such, iIt’s fascinating to see how in diverse scientific fields, it is the believers who are eager to wage the intellectual war using scientific methods, while the devotees of scientism are increasingly resorting to science fiction and inaccurate, juvenile name-calling.

Anti-legalization illogic

I find it tremendously amusing and a little bit disheartening that some conservatives are so short-sighted as to be more concerned about libertarian advocacy of drug legalization than about the Republican leadership following the Democratic lead in increasing central state power and abandoning national sovereignty to supranational organizations. As Britain has discovered, local politics don’t matter one way or the other once Brussels makes its decision.

Let me grant the most paranoid conservative fear and state that even if I knew that every school child in America would immediately begin smoking pot every single day that I would still support ending the drug war. Even if I knew that every single adult in America would be riding the electric high wire on cocaine every night, I would still support ending the drug war. Because neither of those things will kill America dead beyond any hope of recovery the way that increasing the power of the central state always kills a society in the end. This has been clear since the days of Rome; it is true now.

Look, paranoid drug warrior, fire up a joint and see what it does to you. Don’t forget to inhale! Are you still a freedom-loving responsible individual? Now take all your money and ask a government bureaucrat to act as your pursor, alternatively, just shoot yourself in the back of the head for belonging to a government-disapproved group. Are you still a freedom-loving responsible individual? No, you’re either a dependent serf or you’re dead. This is not rocket science!

Libertine hedonism is a predictable late-stage phenomenon. To focus on it is to concentrate on the symptom, not the disease. Sometimes the symptoms will grow worse as the disease is treated. But the disease must be treated or the patient will die. To make the disease worse in the name of fighting – unsuccessfully, in the case of the Drug War – the symptom is not only illogical, it is doomed to failure.

Banning abortion in South Dakota

The Evangelical Outpost rightly takes to task those of us who found the time to mention Miss Jackson, but not the fact that the South Dakota legislature and governor are taking on the US Supreme Court by banning and criminalizing abortion. This is definitely something that needs to be supported; judicial tyranny must be faced down and I’d very much like to see a state dare the Federal Government to do something about what both sides know was an illegitimate power grab by the Court and its Federal allies.

Section 1. The Legislature finds that the State of South Dakota has a compelling and paramount interest in the preservation and protection of all human life within and subject to its jurisdiction and that the preservation and protection of human life applies to all human life, born or unborn.

Section 2. The Legislature finds that since neither constitutional law nor Supreme Court decision has resolved the question of the beginning of life, it is within the proper sphere of state legislative enactment to determine the question in light of the best scientific and medical evidence. The Legislature therefore finds that unborn human life begins when the ovum is fertilized by male sperm.

You said you wanted a cause, conservatives. You said you wanted something to support. There you go. Let the legislators of South Dakota know that you support them in this.

Sure there is

Pat Buchanan writes: Let it be said: George Bush is beatable. He has no explanation and no cure for the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs at Depression rates, no plan to stop the outsourcing of white-collar jobs to Asia, no desire or will to stop the invasion from Mexico. Yet, he remains a favorite against Kerry, because Kerry has no answers, either. Both are globalists. Both are free-traders. Both favor open borders. Again, it needs to be said: There is no conservative party in America.

There is the Constitution Party, which I fully support despite being a member of the Libertarian Party. I’d very much like to see a tactical alliance between the two parties to pose right-wing challenge to the two major parties.