What a joke

It is epically stupid for conservatives to even think about lining up behind their own Magic Negro:

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

So, Cain isn’t just a former Fed official, he’s a former Fed official who isn’t bright enough to understand that unalienable rights can’t be abrogated by the state and local government any more than they can be limited by the federal government. Or that Republicans aren’t any more enthusiastic about having their guns seized by the state government than they are about having them seized by the federal government.

I’ll give Herman Cain a chance if I interview him. I don’t do debates when I interview someone, the whole point is to hear their thoughts not to critique them. But at this point, I’d be astonished if he had the balls to even appear on the podcast. He appears to be imploding his own candidacy almost as effectively as Newt Gingrich did.

Vegetarian changes his diet

But remains a complete wanker:

So I started eating meat again… Yes, this from the guy who once said that meat eaters are bad people. I guess that must make me a bad person. Well, unlike many other carnivores, I’m at least cognizant of the fact that I’m exploiting animals for my own well-being. While I have made the move to a diet that contains meat, I am not completely at peace with it. I am fully aware and respectful of the fact that the meat on my plate comes at at price, that being the life of another animal.

But I have my reasons. My decision to eat meat again was driven by health concerns. I was a vegetarian for over ten years and I did so primarily for ethical reasons. It was in the last several years of being a vegetarian, however, that I grew increasingly concerned about my health. An increasing number of studies started to point at the importance of meat protein and animal fat—not to mention the perils of soy (which was a staple for me). Moreover, my performance at the gym was stalling. My energy levels were consistently low and I was making very little gains. This was an indication to me that something wasn’t right….

Now just because I’m eating meat again doesn’t mean I have to be an asshole about it. Like I said earlier, I am still concerned about the well-being of animals. It’s for this reason that I’m striving to be the conscious carnivore. I only eat meat from grass-fed animals that have been allowed to graze in pasture and the eggs I eat come from free-range chickens. Yes, my grocery bills are two to three times as much as they used to be, but it’s a price I’m happy to pay. I feel better knowing that the meat on my plate came from an animal that actually lived a reasonably good life.

Mr. Dvorsky doesn’t have to be an asshole about eating meat because he is already an asshole. The only thing that has really changed besides his dietary decisions is that he has now become a hypocritical and self-serving one. The fact that he is hyperconscious of what he believes to be the ethical costs of his meat diet does not make him less culpable than those who eat meat without thinking twice about it, it makes him more culpable and therefore an objectively worse person than those he formerly described as “bad people”.

The moral: never trust anyone who calls himself “an ethicist”. There is a high probability you are dealing with an amoral sociopath who is only simulating normal humanity and can rationalize any behavior on his own part.

WND column

Free Trade Harms America

One of the more onerous aspects of being a superintelligence is the way in which many critics have a tendency to erroneously assume one is operating at the same level of near ignorance that they are. In response to the inaugural Voxic Shock podcast, in which I interviewed economist Ian Fletcher about his book, “Free Trade Doesn’t Work,” a number of free-trade champions actually attempted to appeal to David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, which utilizes an example of trade between two countries in two products to argue that trade is intrinsically beneficial to a national economy.

I am never sure whether to be more amused or insulted when I am met with a critical response of this kind. Possessing a B.S. in economics, having published a book on economics and the current economic depression and being one of the millions of college-educated Americans who have passed an Econ 101 class, I am, as it happens, familiar with the theory. Furthermore, I have actually read Ricardo’s 1817 book, “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,” which contains the theory and what passes for the reasoning behind it. This does not appear to be the case with most of the free-trade enthusiasts who appeal to it.

Note to the column: This column contains the promised empirical evidence that Felix was demanding. On a related note, if you have not yet heard my interview with Ian Fletcher on the subject of international trade, it is on the Voxic Shock #1 podcast. And further to the subject, a critique of Hazlitt’s chapter 11 will be posted tomorrow.