“It Doesn’t Affect You.”

This was the refrain I constantly heard during the lead-up to the SCOTUS’s decision to undermine the bedrock of human civilization (marriage) for the convenience of sexual deviants (“deviant” is not a moral condemnation; it’s a statistical, biological and psychological fact). “Why do you care? It doesn’t affect you!” (The assumption by everyone who disagreed with my opinion that I was not a homosexual, tends to demonstrate my point about deviation).

First, I would point out that it does affect me. Because it gives legal standing to those who would sue Churches out of existence–or even sue private citizens–for not participating in a lie. This affects me.

Second, I would ask: when did this become the standard of action? I can only object to things which affect me personally? If I see a woman being attacked, you don’t think I should step in? I will and have. But let’s turn the tables: what about the money I earn, which is confiscated by the govenment and thrown away on social programs? Unlike the SCOTUS ruling, other people’s poverty really doesn’t affect me–it’s the government social programs which affect me. If I should not object to the redifinition of marriage because “it does not affect me”, then I should also not pay for social programs.

First Amendment Issue?

So, I’ve seen several protests on Twitter on Facebook recently, that CVS/Pharmacy’s decision not to carry the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine due to the cover story of Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev constitutes a “First Amendment problem,” because CVS is “limiting free speech.” Let me begin by posting the text of the First Amendment:

1A: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice in particular the first phrase: Congress shall make no law. Compare this to two other Amendments:

9A: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10A: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

CVS/Pharmacy, you see, is not the U. S. Congress; it is a private-sector business. If Congress had made a law banning the sale of this particular issue of Rolling Stone, this would be a First Amendment issue. As it is, this is simply Americans refusing to support something to which they object. Both in terms of common sense and Constitutional law, there is no reason that anyone should imagine that CVS/Pharmacy should be required to sell a magazine which the owners find offensive. Unfortunately, there is a legal precedent for this: Obamacare, the most anti-Constitutional (and anti-common sense) law that the psuedo-liberals have managed to foist on America, gives a legal precedent for the U. S. government force private citizens to engage in economic activities against their wishes. In fact, by Obamacare precedent, the Federal government could not only require CVS/Pharmacy to sell the magazine, it could require every private citizen of the United States to purchase one.

Setting aside that particular debacle, the repeal of which I hope every day is imminent, the First Amendment declares freedom of speech, not freedom of venue. That is why the SCOTUS decision in support of the Westboro Baptist Church was in error: while that “congregation” has the right under the first Amendment to believe as it chooses, to speak as it chooses, and to peaceably assemble, it does NOT have the right harrass private citizens. If the WBC wishes to picket and protest, do so at a State capitol. Doing so at the funerals of a certain category of people (notably servicemen) constitutes harrassment, and should be fully subject to civil suit.

On another aside, note that the First Amendment begins with the words “Congress shall make no law…” Compare that to the text of the Second Amendment: there is no specificity to Congress. 2A proclaims that the right of the People “shall not be infringed.”

Movie Review: Pacific Rim

Okay, first the previews:

The new trailer confirms that “Elysium” will be this year’s “Avatar“. Because it will be a jaw-dropping special effects extravanza of science-fictiony goodness? No. Because it will be another piece of ridiculous Leftist tripe that I won’t watch.

Ever.

Now, for the feature:

I won’t do any spoilers for Pacific Rim (I’m not really sure I could spoil anything). It’s a fairly predictable, big-budget science-fiction summer movie. That being said, it was not as bad as I feared it might be; it was even occassionally (but not often) clever. The real reason to see it is to watch giant robots fight giant monsters, and that it does extremely well. Some people (presumably bigger otaku than me) enjoyed it much more than I did; the Monday-night showing I attended actually received a standing ovation (I’m guessing from an anime/rpg club from one of the local colleges).

The natural comparison I find for this movie is Cloverfield. I think that the two form an interesting balance–yin and yang, if you will. Cloverfield is a thoughtful movie (an artistic homage to the original kaiju, Gojira, nestled in a framing-tale and done without needless exposition) which relies on a bit of spectacle (a giant monster caught with cutting-edge cinematography). Pacific Rim, on the other hand, is a spectacular movie (meaning that it relies on spectacle) which does only a little thinking (it’s more a tribute to Gigantor, and… well, there is some exposition. It’s bad. Also, at least two direct contradictions in the plot).

If you are looking for a fun action movie, Pacific Rim is probably worth the ticket price. If you are a fan of Japanimation, kaiju, mecha, etc., you will definitely want to see this movie.

The Power of Myth-Negation: A Tale of Four Movies

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.”–Attributed to Josef Stalin

Sometime around 1991, my freshman year in college, I came across Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail; the first cinematic effort of the brilliant British comedy troupe, having just finished the last season of their immensely popular Flying Circus series on BBC. At one point during this movie, King Arthur and his knights try to explain the concept of Divine Right to an anachronistic Communist named Dennis:

An incomplete transcript of the conversation from wikiquote:

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays… ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine [sic] providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!

It is difficult to describe just how deep this bit is—while it may seem like nearly slap-stick level comedy while being performed, it is really a very intelligently-drafted examination of the conflicts between traditional European monarchy and the Communist reactionism, and some of the deficiencies of each system.

In 1993, Kaige Chen released his classic Farewell My Concubine, which also highlights the conflict between Communism and traditional culture—but in this case, traditional culture is destroyed, and it is most definitely not a comedy. I saw it soon thereafter, probably in 1994–I was a member of the Chinese Cultural Club at Northeast Missouri State University (now Truman State University), and dating a Taiwanese girl, so I had lots of access to Chinese cinema. Concubine depicts a love triangle between two actors in the Chinese Opera, one of whom is homosexual and the other of whom eventually starts seeing a woman on the side. The backdrop of this is the Communist Revolution; the discipline and rigor of the old opera replaced by entitlement and bullying in the new “opera”; the stories of gods, monsters and heroes replaced with stories of contented Communist laborers going about everyday activities.
Why did the Communists do this? Don’t grand stories of ancient legends seem more entertaining than the banal day-in-the-life-of-everybody stories that replaced them? Certainly—but the goal of the Communist government was not to entertain its subjects. The goal was to program them. Take away the inspiration to achieve, to be something greater, and your serfs become much easier to pacify. If they see themselves as the heroes of the stories they are told, why would they aspire to something else?

I was reminded of this movie ten years later, with the 2004 release of the movie Dodgeball. This ‘comedy’ portrays the build-up to, and execution of, a dodgeball tournament between two gyms for the right to exist. One gym is frequented exclusively by people who work hard to remake themselves into what they want to be; the other gym is frequented exclusively by incompetent losers who accomplish absolutely nothing. In the fashion of true Communist indoctrination, the hard-working achievers are portrayed as mean, petty and narcissistic; this forces the audience to identify with the lazy and uninspired ‘underdogs’. See, you have already achieved—perhaps even exceeded—what the heroes of this movie have. You don’t really want to improve yourself, like the villains, do you?

When I saw Dodgeball, I thought to myself, “We are living in Farewell, My Concubine”.

Then, a few nights ago at a Redbox, I came across the 2013 release The Employer. The Hollywood Communists are now so firmly entrenched, so confident in their ability to program, that they are actually making employers the villains in movies now. This, as the American economy continues to collapse under the burden of the Administration’s march into Progressivist socialism, with the Federal sequestration and programs like Obamacare forcing business to continually cut employees or reduce full-time positions to part-time. Hollywood is working very hard to play up class warfare and entitlement, to encourage people to associate evil and greed with gainful productivity—rather than with the socialist oligarchs who are destroying the American economy to keep themselves in power.

Not so long ago, the American people modeled themselves after George Washington: strong, educated, independent, pious warriors. Today, Americans model themselves after Dennis from The Quest for the Holy Grail: trying to sound important and intelligent by ridiculing traditional values, then screaming “Help! Help! I’m being repressed” when those values are defended. But it is those values which enable us to be great, and inspire us to be greater. Ridiculing them does not demonstrate your cleverness; it makes you a ‘useful idiot’. You are better than that.
You can be more.

Post-Modernism Infects Science

Yesterday, I was trying to work up an article expressing my dissatisfaction with the Science Daily posting about a University of North Carolina study on the invasion of Caribbean reefs by lionfish. I didn’t get very far, however, because I kept going off on tangents (A brand-new species has entered competition in an abundant ecosystem. Isn’t this the ideal opportunity to observe Darwinian evolution in action?). Talking about it with a co-worker, she offered, “They’re calling for government intervention, and we want less government intervention, correct?”

In this case, that is actually a secondary concern.

In this case, my concern is not that a call for government intervention has been made, so much as who made this call. Scientists should not be in the business–and it has become a business, fueled by grant money–of calling for government intervention. Or any kind of action. If you wish to write policy papers, become a politician. The job of the scientist is to analyze: observe a phenomenon, develop an hypothesis, test the hypothesis, record the results, get peer review. It’s called “science.” Too often today, papers are written not to present a new finding, but to support whatever position for which the government is paying grants. That’s one of the reasons we keep finding so many papers and articles being published “calling for action” against Anthropogenic Global Warming (which by now is debunked by even a cursory examination): because governments will happily keep paying grant money to those who provide them with justification to take more money and more control of their constituents. This does not lead only to a corruption of politics, however; it corrupts science. People who should be attempting to disprove their hypotheses are instead trying to find evidence to prop them up.

What does this have to do with post-modernism? Post-modernism rejects logic and reason, and embraces “feeling“. “I WANT this to be true, so I will make it the conclusion of my paper.” It is the mother of socialism and the antithesis of science, reason and freedom.

It is what our children are being taught throughout grade school and college.

The Director of Greenpeace Asks a Legitimate Question

“Why can’t we tell the truth about climate change?”

Of course, the intent of John Sauven’s question is that there is a vast, shadowy network of government and corporate entities conspiring to prevent honest scientists from revealing a necessary truth about scientific consensus to the unwashed masses. I’ll examine on how many levels that is a ridiculous assertion in just a moment. What I want to point out is that it is a legitimate question, because the groups proposing Anthropogenic Global Warming–and its scientifically-invalid neologism, “climate change”–seem to be utterly incapable of uttering a truthful statement on the subject.

The first reason that Sauven’s conspiracy theory is ridiculous is de natura: it’s a conspiracy theory. Benjamin Franklin has a famous quote on this subject, “Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” Sauven claims a conspiracy spanning multiple administrations of the entire governments of the U.S., U.K., and India are acting to block the AGW alarmists from spreading their message. Apparently, Mr. Sauven forgets the huge waste of money and man-hours by the Democratic-led Congress of the Bush administration–or does he really think that Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t have cackled her way all the way to Bush’s impeachment over that, even if she later turned around and did the exact same thing herself later?

The second reason is that the alleged conspiracy is to prevent the dissemination of the pro-AGW opinion. Not only does virtually every government in the world have panels and departments set up for no reason other than to use climate alarmism to push for wealth confiscation, but look at the reporting by the U.S. media. Virtually any discussion which questions the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming–and it is a failed hypothesis, not a theory–is ignored. The worst cases of professional malfeasance by AGW proponents are ignored or glossed over, while long-standing professionals who engage in the virtue of skepticism find their credentials questioned and their character attacked (but rarely their questions answered). Skepticism should be the cardinal virtue of both scientists and journalists–the fact that journalists are disparaging skeptical scientists should be what people are really alarmed about.

The third reason that this position is ridiculous is that it claims that the pro-AGW crowd is the honest one. I won’t even bother spending time re-presenting cases like Climategate or the leak of the Fifth IPCC Report–you need look no further than the arguments that they make. Anyone who talks about a “consensus of scientists” or says that “the science is settled” has no credibility on the topic of science. Anyone who keeps a hypothesis based on computer modelling which directly conflicts with real-world data, has no credibility on the topic of science.

And finally, as for spreading that vital news to all those little people out there… Really? Who hasn’t heard about anthropogenic global warming? It’s in every TV show, commercials, movies, news reports in every medium. It’s going to be mandatory in American public school education. Who does he think isn’t hearing about it? Where is there ANY resistance to this message. Moreover, the very idea that there are members of the general population of sound mind, who cannot have a valid on this topic because they lack professional credentials in the field, is ridiculous. You do not need to be a professional climatologist to exercise simple rational thought. Having a specific degree does not magically change nonsense and lies into to truth.

Of course, this from the director of GREENPEACE, who constantly refers to “peaceful environmental groups”. Ahem. Of course, that speaks to his character, not his arguments–but I think I’ve covered those in detail already. A cursory reading of the article will reveal a lot of allegations of unethical behavior against anyone who disagrees with him, but nothing in the way of corroboration (or even specifics). One specific allegation is that opponents of the AGW hypothesis “produce doubt” “like the tobacco companies”. So be it. I am happy to sow doubt about junk science; comparing me to lobbyists for a legal business doesn’t bother me a bit. Bring a real argument, and we’ll talk.

These arguments are an assault not only free speech, but free thought. The very fabric upon which the United States was constructed. Do not let yourself be hypnotized or bullied by these people. They prey on your fears for the environment, but they don’t care anything about it. Their only care is establishing themselves as dictators over your life. Take responsibility for your life, because they are fighting tooth-and-nail to take it from you.

US Media finally doing some honest reporting on the border

US News has a story today about what’s really happening on the border. While CNN and other sources like to make it sound as though this is an issue of racist local afraid of “those people” moving into their neighborhoods, the truth is that this is an issue of hyper-violent international criminal gangs taking advantage of the Progressivist’s refusal to enforce the U.S. border to engage in a campaign of terror–against both the locals, and those trying to enter the country illegally.

“Climate Change Reconsidered” translated into Chinese

The global trend toward rational skepticism and away from socialist-driven alarmism is now undeniable. Not only have the major scientific academies of Russia and the Czech Republic issued strong statements of dissent against the alarmist opinion, but “Climate Change Reconsidered”, the premier rebuttal to the various IPCC *ahem* “reports”, has now even been translated into Chinese for consideration in Beijing.

The Communists are waking up to and abandoning the Communist Trojan horse before we are… I wonder how many nations will have to fully reject the failed AGW hypothesis before a single American news network starts talking about it?

My Abysmal Rating on Amazon.com

Currently, I have a rating of 53% as an Amazon.com reviewer. To be clear, most of my reviews are very well-received; however, I have written two negative reviews which have completely skewed my performance. The first is for the Gracie Jiu-Jitsu Basics DVD set. I’m sure Gracie Jiu-Jitsu is a great sport; however, as a method of self-defense/combatives, it violates the “Shoot, Move and Communicate” principle which keeps you alive. Since they present their information as a self-defense method rather than as a sport, I rate it poorly. 2 of 27 people find this helpful.

Even worse is my review of the BattleStar Galactica not-really-re-make. I think it was poorly done, both as a remake and as a story in general. A whopping ZERO of THIRTY-FIVE people agree with me.

So be it. I’m not going to pretend that I find value in these things to improve my rating as a reviewer. If you read this blog, however, you might pop by and see if you agree with what “Little Known Blogger” has to say…

The Heritage Foundation on Marriage

I wish that I had found this sooner, but it remains relevant. Here is a brief pamphlet by the Heritage Foundation on what a marriage actually is, and why it is important:

Click to access Marriage_E-Book_Download.pdf