Discuss amongst yourselves

The ignorance of the elephants

A Republican comments on libertarian issues over at the Gargler’s:

We oppose the involuntary treatment for mental health by health officials or law enforcement.

Homeless person bothering you? Tough, he’s got just as much a right to free speech as you.

It will, of course, be interesting to see how Republicans will defend the involuntary mental health treatment of millions of children thanks to George Delano’s Leaving No Child Behind. Furthermore, would anyone seriously wish to argue that a lack of home ownership negates First Amendment rights?

We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality and welcome all refugees to our country.

We don’t need no steenkin borders!

I disagree with the Libertarian party on this issue. Of course, so does President Bush and the entire Republican establishment. So, there’s just not any points to be scored here for either party.

Government control over money and banking is the primary cause of inflation and depression.

Let’s trade seashells instead!

Seashells have more inherent value and retain it better than the valueless paper and digital bits currently used. Bll’s statement demonstrates what should be an embarrasing level of ignorance with regards to economics and monetary reality.

Activities which do not affect anyone but the actor have been criminalized by government on the basis of encoding a particular morality into law.

Woo-Hoo! Kiddy porn for everybody!

So the production of kiddy porn doesn’t affect anyone? That’s an interesting assertion that would appear to border on pedophilia. And then there is the rights violations inherent in using photographic representation of an individual without his consent, especially if the individual concerned cannot legally give such consent.

The repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances;

And you think there’s a problem with anti-biotic resistant stuff now? And how exactly will you determine if what you’re taking is what you think it is?

The problem with antibiotic-resistant bacteria is that people DON’T take drugs when they should, not the other way around. As for the second point, how do you determine if your Cheerios or your Sam Adams is what you think it is?

End all “no-fault” insurance laws, which deprive the victim of the right to recover damages from those responsible in the case of injury.

Far better to tie things up in court for years.

Considering what judges do when you leave them time to legislate from the bench, yeah, I would say that’s a win-win situation.

We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.

M’Kay. And you’ll stop election fraud… how?

The same way it isn’t stopped today. Not that it really matters which side of the bi-factional ruling party is in power at the moment, as it’s only a matter of time before those illegal alien votes is worried about will count for seats in the American Parliament.

Children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood.

So no more child labor laws, etc. Oh, and forget grounding your teenager, that’s infringing on their rights.

So much for reading comprehension. That right only exists if your teenager has emancipated himself – as he can already do – and is no longer dependent upon you. Why would you even think of trying to ground someone who has already moved out and successfully established his own household?

I guess because you’re a neosocialist Republican who believes that control over other individuals is justified as long as you’re exerting it for their own good, that might make sense.

Darwinian scientologism

From WND:

According to the theory of evolutionism, Chittick said dinosaurs died out about 70M years ago, long before the first appearance of man on Earth. However, Chittick said he believes there is compelling evidence that dinosaurs existed during the same period as man.

He explained the word “dinosaur” is included in a dictionary for the first time around the year 1841, and before that date, the word dragon referred to dinosaur-like creatures.

In addtion, he said, in approximately 1930, archeologists found human footprints included in stone next to fossilized dinosaur tracks in Glenrose, TX. Though he explained scientists have not determined the origin of the tracks, or whether the human prints occurred at the same time as the dinosaur fossil tracks, archeologists have identified tracks of men and dinosaurs found together in Arizona, Russia and all over the world. Chittick said drawings of dinosaur shapes found in the caves of Europe, and in drawings by the Supi Indians, of the Grand Canyon region, lend credibility to dinosaurs existing during the same period as man.

Chittick said dinosaurs started life by hatching from an egg and continued growing as long as they were alive. Therefore, some were huge giants, though most were the size of a sheep or a German Shepard dog. Scientists describe dinosaurs as cold blooded, he said, though the triceratops was a mammal.

He also said references in historical literature often include dragons and there is scientific evidence that a sudden global event decimated the dinosaurs’ large population, which had ranged all over the world, including the Antarctic, prior to that event.

Chittick said, according to an article in Science News Week, dated March 26, 2005, scientists recently discovered dinosaur bones with soft tissue still attached, including blood vessels, and Chittick explained this modernizes the existence of dinosaurs to less than 10,000 years, because blood cells cannot exist longer than that.

I’m curious about this. What is true? Is this guy a sham scientist or does the evolutionist faith have a basis in genuine experimental science on par with Scientology? According to contemporary science, do blood cells live longer than 10,000 years? If not, and if it is true that blood vessels from dinosaurs have been discovered, then how can anyone possibly claim that dinosaurs died out billions and billions of years ago?

Wait a minute, that’s Carl Sagan. Anyhow, I became skeptical about the conventional story of our origins long before I became a Christian, so if we can spare the usual “science is too complex to be required to provide reasonable answers to religious nuts” sideshow, I’d appreciate it.

I sort of hope this guy is wrong, though. I find the Darwinian faith rather more palatable than the notion of thirty-inch spiders with six-foot long legs.

Madder than the Hatter

From HCS and Gen’s Pad:

“I have to admit, it wasn’t something I had planned on,” Alderman Joe Baldi said of his competition. Mr. Baldi was one of three board members who voted in January to reduce the residency requirement to one year. Ms. Dougherty vetoed the motion.

The matter found its way to court when Mr. Young sued the city in an attempt to overturn the three-year requirement. He said the requirement, which would have barred him from a spot on this year’s ballot, was unconstitutional.

The courts agreed.

“The Judge said “no residency requirement” is most appropriate despite the wishes of the residents,” Ms. Dougherty wrote in an e-mail. “It will be up to the people to decide who is best able to manage the City’s issues, if the Judge allows that.”

Mr. Baldi said he hadn’t expected the matter to go this far. “Reducing the residency requirement was what I had in mind,” he said. “It never occurred to me that you’d have somebody who is not a resident applying (to run for mayor). I don’t even know what to call that.”

If it’s “inappropriate” to insist on a three-year residency requirement, why would a one-year requirement be any more acceptable? This is a small scale example of what we are seeing on a national level. Naturally, this concept of using the Constitution against the concept of citizenship and sovereignty begs the question of how there can even be such a thing as a constitution if the entity for which the constitution supposedly provides a foundation is deemed, on a fundamental level, to not exist.

The mental gyrations which the constitutional revisionists in the judiciary are willing to engage in order to justify their movement seldom cease to astound me.