Blogs

An infectious diseases expert says:

1. having swine flu is preferable to having “regular” flu
2. wouldn’t give the “dangerous” swine flu shot to his kids

More confirmation of my own suspicion that, while potentially dangerous, H1N1 is as much about power grabbing and hysteria as it is about genuine public safety. (Although claims are that some 3500 have died worldwide, the majority have been folks who had serious underlying conditions. Seems to me if that’s a “pandemic,” there are a lot of pandemics around.)

Make sure you click more and view the video.

(more…)

If the fourth century were the twenty-first century….

This would be highly amusing were it not so sad. A fossil is discovered which has certain shared characteristics with humans, and this proves “direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.” Why we must imagine that we are descendants of a creature simply because it has nails rather than claws, and opposeable big toes, will perhaps be lost on some of us.

Just for the record: It is impossible for a fossil to demonstrate that humans descend from another form of animal life. Just because it would be impossible for evolution to be true unless there were transitional moments does not at all imply the roughly converse – viz, that an animal appearing to be somewhere between humans and other animals is a transitional creature proving the evolution of humans.

But evolution is every bit as much a faith as Christianity is. In this case, apparently quite a lot less logical.

The Rainbow Health Coalition knows that the homosexual lifestyle is self-destructive. We know that it knows because it keys upon the evidence.

But the solution to the problem is to demand more funding to deal with health issues which “disproportionately affect” the homosexual community. It is due to homophobia that Canada is not spending untold additional dollars to defuse the effects, not of heredity or environment, but of a lifestyle.

The path of destruction is clear, including homosexual men with a life expectancy 20 years less than heterosexual men. Suicide, drugs, alcoholism, depression, and cancer (oddly enough, including anal cancer)… these are the fault of others, sez the Coalition.

I grieve for homosexuals, but trying to deal with the symptoms rather than the root issue never works.

Really, you can’t make this stuff up.

A Muslim businessman starts a TV network to help give Islam a better image in North America. And then he beheads his wife.

Last you heard, I was reading Novak’s Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, Bahnsen’s Homosexuality, and Woods, A Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presently I’m deep into the following:

1. Thomas Sowell, Marxism. I’m about halfway through this. Sowell here bypasses 20th century Communism and expounds and summarizes the actual thought of Marx and Engels – rather interesting, as it turns out to be quite different from later “Marxism,” although certainly flawed in its own right. (Sowell does not critique throughout; he leaves that to the end.) Interestingly, the result seems to be that the Western democracies really are becoming genuinely Marxist in many respects.
2. Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics. Yes, I’m reading two books by Sowell simultaneously. I’m roughly 65% of the way through this one, I think. It’s a very substantial hardcover textbook, but it’s not nearly as tough sledding as you might think. The examples are usually real historical ones, and the thorough use of statistics nonetheless doesn’t bog the book down. An absolute must if you want to understand how interference in the market ends up destroying wealth, not just for the few at the top, but for all.
3. Patrick Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. I’m about three quarters through this fascinating (albeit sometimes repetitive) read. Without excusing Hitler whatsoever, Buchanan convincing shows how the Western nations, and Great Britain in particular stumbled into two wars devastating in effect – through bad judgment. If you regard Winston Churchill as a great upright statesman who saved the West, this book may well change your mind….

Dutch court orders Wilders to be prosecuted for inciting hatred – for reporting real events, statements and teachings of Muslims.

Desert Yahweh, and He will turn you over to blindness.

As in same old buying favours with money. Clinton’s foreign affairs record was horrible, and now the USA gets Hillary as Secretary of State?

Of course, I’m presently reading The Case Against Barack Obama, and Freddoso makes a compelling case that Obama has a long history of working hand-in-hand with the corrupt Machine of Chicagoland. So why not have more of the same nationally? He’s not a reformer (at least, not in any sense having to do with fighting corruption); that’s already been proven.

Please see today’s post at Change in the Wind, which includes a link to the online consultation form at the Canadian Department of Finance, as well as an outline of how I responded to the survey.

…scientists actually studied and approved the U.N. report on “climate change” without dissent?

Er… seven?

Apparently, the U.N. claim that 2,500 scientists were on board with their report is beyond misleading. That number simply refers to those asked to review the report.

Of which… 62 did so. Huh?

And most of those had “serious concerns”!

Granted, of those 55 with “serious concerns,” we’re sure that most are probably on board with the general notion of human-caused global warming.

Still, it’s hard to conceive of this as a “consensus,” given that overwhelming numbers are calling not only the U.N. report per se, but the whole notion, into question. The Herald notes that 68% of Canadian scientists surveyed disagree with the notion that the issue of human-caused global warming is “settled” (and that’s not based on a miniscule sampling – 51,000 scientists were surveyed). Add that to the 31,000 U.S. scientists who have signed the Petition Project… well, you get the picture.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Jesus is still King of the world.

“The proportion of Ugandans infected with HIV plunged from 21% in 1991 to 6% in 2002.
But international AIDS experts who came to Uganda said we were wrong to try to limit people’s sexual freedom. Worse, they had the financial power to force their casual-sex agendas upon us.” And now, “as fidelity and abstinence have been subverted,
Uganda’s HIV rates have begun to tick back up.”
– Rev. Sam L Ruteikara, co-chair of Uganda’s National AIDS-Prevention Committee

… to provide Obama’s invocation should pay attention to the fact that Joseph Lowery is giving the benediction. Lowery, a United Methodist “minister” is an open advocate of gay “marriage.”

One can hope and pray, of course, that Warren will use the occasion prophetically, rather than simply allow himself to be used… but that remains to be seen, does it not?

If only the majority group is expected to express shame, then only the majority group is expected to be governed by rules of morality.

Fascinating little piece from Dennis Prager (who happens to be Jewish).

…to Lisa Miller of Newsweek.

It’s beyond amazing what sort of gall both Miller and her editor displayed in this.

Vote with your pocketbook, is all I say. The media is becoming rapidly more contemptible and corrupt (and it wasn’t starting from a very high point to begin with).

Reisman opines on where the Big Three would be without the UAW. (Interestingly, this article is two years old.)

Wicked unions have thoroughly looted the capital stock of these companies, and the workers themselves are wholly focused on their own well-being rather than that of the company and the consumer. The management is deeply embedded in the regulatory structure of the state, working to effectively turn the American car industry into a public-private partnership of the sort Mussolini would applaud.

You don’t have to be a technician to know that foreign makers – whether building abroad or residing in the United States – make a superior car at a better price, no matter how much the “Big 3″ waste on hopped-up advertising campaigns. In fact, we should welcome their complete bankruptcy. Maybe they can regroup or maybe they can’t. That’s for the market to decide.

In the meantime, not cranking out these endless cars would be a welcome relief, freeing up labor and capital for more economically useful purposes.

To bail them out with tax dollars is an amazing insult to American consumers. What Americans have chosen not to buy, the government is now effectively forcing them to buy. You want a Toyota and paid for it with your money but your government is now saying that you should have bought a Pontiac, so it is tapping into your bank account to make it happen – and then not even giving you a car for your money!

I must add that I’m not a Rockwellian. He is a hyper-libertarian – or rather, an anarchist. While I believe government has grown far too big and intrusive, I am certainly no anarchist; it is God Himself who has delegated these authorities (Rom 13).

But on the particular point in question here… I have a hard time arguing with Lew. I especially love that last paragraph!

… by being offended on behalf of others.

I’m hearing a lot of talk about a “coup” and I’ve even heard the intended coalition between the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc Quebecois described as “treasonous.” As to the latter term, I think the BQ by its very nature is treasonous, but aside from the that, the term is way out to lunch, and in fact, so is “coup.”

To set things clear at the outset: I find the proposed coalition reprehensible. I find it reprehensible because by and large, I find all these parties and most of what they stand for to be reprehensible; and I’m also well aware that in a coalition, there are a lot of bones to throw, and when you get three dogs in the bone-chasing contest, policy-making will surely end up looking a lot worse than if any one of them had a majority government.

But the act of attempting to create a coalition government is not itself reprehensible. In truth, any minority government is always functioning de facto as a coalition government. Throughout its first term, the Conservative party under Harper was mostly a coalition government with the BQ, although there was not a formal statement of the fact.

And there is no rule nor precedent (nor should there be) that a governing coalition has to include the single party which elected most members to Parliament. (more…)

Of course, this sort of information is widely reported.