(Insert Bitter Cackle)

I don't know what it is, perhaps the non-contribution of my newly-disable ankle, but I've found many a news-item of the type that trip my bitterly evil sense of humour. O, how many times I have cackled at the pathetic irony of all the do-gooders out there! If there's one thing we can learn from the "Limp Bizkits" that the kids seems so fond of, it's that life consists of an insufferable series of tragedies, even in the most affable conditions! Here follow a few examples of humorous irony involving human suffering.
First, I'm certain that all of my readers are familiar with the silly wristbands sold for a variety of charitable purposes. Doubly so for my university friends, as certain parties that shall not be named were hocking those odious oversized rubber bands constantly. The theme seems to be that if one buys these devices, you get to save the world by giving everyone a puppy and, more importantly, gain recognition from your peers as a busily charitable soul! After all, there's no point in contributing if you get no recognition. Charity isn't being nice, nor is it a necessary act.
Any-way, my erstwhile colleague Dr. Fujiyama has been keeping busy on the subject of the Tsunami Bracelets and the Aid Programme in general. As he's found and posted on the subject in his posts on 23 and 31 May. He's found that nothing is being done with the money thanks to the bureaucracy in the afflicted areas. It seems the efforts of overly-optimistic western do-gooders are on the ropes again.
And I've found the knockout punch. It seems that these same wrist-bands are made using slave labour in China! Making the irony too much to bear, the number one seller is "Make Poverty History!" Ho-ho! Chalk one up for the "irascible human nature" crowd.
Another delicious irony is that the progressive nation of Sweden has shut down its last nuclear reactor in typical welfare-state style- two years late and twenty-five years after it was banned. The delicious irony here is that, in the same article, we learn that 80% of Swedes want to keep nuclear power, as it has enabled them to keep their virtually spotless emissions record. Their only other recourse are fossil fuels and the token wind-farms that destroy even more pristine Swedish country-side.
It seems that the decision to ban nuclear energy was taken in 1980, during the height of anti-nuclear hysteria, brought on by the over-blown Three Mile Island incident and an awful Jane Fonda movie that's as scientifically accurate as "The Core" (the title comes from the fear characters have of the reactor melting through the Earth's crust and dropping all the way to China). Has that bawdy wench done anything positive for humanity?
The more didactic amongst my reader(s) might ask what the lesson of this post is. The answer would go along the lines of "don't trust popular causes supported by actors and other assorted half-witted elites because in the end they do more harm than good." The trite campaign to end poverty ends up excaberating it, and the scientifically illiterate fear of nuclear power ends up guaranteeing a future of pollution and ravaged country-side.

C'est non pour l'europe, et les etres etrangeres!

Taking a break from the theme of Modernity, I'm writing to-day in regards to France's thoughtful gift in honour of my birth-day. Though their reasons for doing so certainly weren't correct, they have nonetheless rejected the odious EU Constitution. As of this writing, it was not quite 55% "non" to 45% "oui".
Of course, Jacques "L'escroc" Chirac's government is happily backstabbing one another as French governments are wont to. It seems Jacques is going to re-shuffle his cabinet.
Of course, despite the fact that the Constitutional Treaty must be ratified by all twenty EU members to become law, Eurocrats have decided to proceed as if nothing has happened. Mark Steyn quoted in his latest column that EU Council President Juncker has decided that the failure of the French to adopt the treaty won't put an end to the process. He said that "If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said No, would have to ask themselves the question again"
Certainly it's not precisely legal, but who cares? When you are the law (and reject any silly notions of natural law) you do as you please.
I also see that the Anti-Syrian Opposition has won the latest election in Lebanon. It's a good sign for democratic politics in the region.
To end on a less earthly note, a man calling himself Prophet Yahweh claims to possess the singularly unique ability to summon UFOs at will. Where does he live? Las Vegas, of course!
Anyway, our intrepid prophet was asked by a local Vegas TV station to demonstrate his special ability on film. He agreed. After saying his special incantation ("...please send a sighting so that they know that I am not mentally ill..."), a strange orange sphere appeared over Lake Mead and moved around in the sky. It maneuvered for a bit, and then disappeared. He's promised that next week, this will occur with increasing regularity. One manned ship will eventually hover directly over Vegas sometime before July. This marks a first in the annals of UFOlogy- someone who delivered on a prediction. Only Criswell himself has achieved this feat with his famous 87% accuracy rating.
Will Prophet Yahweh deliver on his fantastic promises? Stay tuned and find out!
Here's the original news footage from the Vegas TV station in Windows MediaPlayer format.

Modernity, Chapter I

My erstwhile colleagues and I have happened upon the idea of hosting a symposium of sorts, concerning the subject of subjects in contemporary society- modernity. As I suspected, it's coming together beautifully. My colleagues have posted topics that reflect their respective interests and fields as is their wont.
First out of the gate was the Grand Inquisitor, who (appropriately enough) posted on the philosophical roots of modernity. Professor Massa also posted a brief on the historical progression of modernity. These gentlemen to-day continued the trend, with Professor Massa's commentary on how modern perceptions skew our understanding of the Holocaust, a subject he has been researching much as of late. The Grand Inquisitor continues along this line with his views on the wrong-headed idea of tolerance as a virtue in and of itself, and its implications, along with a Latin title.
Coming up into the pack (much like the proverbial tortoise) is your humble scribe. I've finally been shamed into posting. However, I shall make up for it with a lengthy post on exactly what constitutes "modernity".
As the Grand Inquisitor has noted, modernity is given to nominalism. As definitions are paramount in such a system, I shall endeavour to provide a working framework that our gentle readers might more precisely understand our complaints.
Modernity is a mind-set. As the Grand Inquisitor noted, modernity is obsessed with the mind. By denying that universals (i.e. meanings that are external of the mind that are universally shared) exist, moderns have no basis on which experience might be shared. Hence, moderns can only operate from inflexible mental constructs that they construct. They expect everything to apply to these constructs, and they tend to disregard anything that doesn't fit within these. Hence, we find the root of modern ideological dogmatism.
Of course, one could regard a dogmatic defence of old knowledge and a refusal to examine new learning that is contrary to the pre-established perfect doctrine to be a symptom of a dark age. Those who think so have only to travel a short way to discover my feelings about modernism as an intellectual philosophy.
The only real key they have in interaction with the world is the doctrine of progressivism and the sanctity of trends. This suffices for their faith and moral philosophy. They have faith that, as a significant number of people do something, their growing multitude serves to justify the act and make it presentable to the great multitude of others. This then sets a precedent, and it becomes a trend. Sexual behaviour becomes more permissive, the voting age decreases, and the pernicious influence of centralised government continues its advance across all sectors of life unabated.
The justification for a trend is just that- it's a trend. Arguments in favour of the abolition of the death penalty focus not on whether it is just, or whether it is morally permissible for the state to put criminals to death (it is, by the way), but the "historical trend" towards abolition. My mother once remarked that having all of one's friends jump off a bridge constitutes a trend. The fact that many others do something is in no wise a justification. Sadly, in modern thought it is.
Why is this so? Well, that's enough material for another post, but I'll say democratic egalitarianism and the patent inability of moderns to agree on any reality is the culprit.
So we see two hall-marks of modernity. Sadly, the definition is not complete. Though it's nearly impossible to compile an exhaustive list of the hall-marks of modernity, I will hint that listening to any political wonk will betray the rest of them. I shall continue my labours in a later post, but for now, good-night.

Augustine and Modernity

To dovetail into the upcoming discussion of John Paul II's last book Memory and Identity, I shall delve into yet another one of the interminable examples of the totalitarian nature of modern thought. It's becoming a regular feature, but one must be responsive to the times.
Anyway, I had the distinct displeasure of reading the 23 May 2005 issue of US News and World Report. Though the headline story is the sensational revelation that casinos have a winning edge(!), buried on page 64 of the magazine is a review of a new biography of St. Augustine. The new book is called Augustine:A New Biography by Georgetown University "classicist" James O'Donnell.
Despite the fact that O'Donnell was born more than 1,500 years after Augustine's death, the intrepid author has figured out Augustine better than anyone else in the last millennium or so. His contention is that Augustine wrote his Confessions to "convince the world" of his theological points.
Of course, many people wonder how Mr. O'Donnell figured out Augustine's secret purpose. The answer is (aside from rejecting anything that Augustine wrote that O'Donnell does not agree with as some sort of propaganda) that a "handful" of accounts are construed to characterise him as a "nerdy, calculating do-gooder."
Naturally, we're not told whether these accounts come from true friends of Augustine, or perhaps his old Manichean friends displeased at his conversion. In addition, O'Donnell characterises Augustine as a "scheming, self-promoting hammer of Donatists".
This leads to another bit of silly argument. He claims that Augustine's criticism of the Donatists was an eeeevil and intolerant act that "weakened grass-roots Christianity (so)that Islam easily prevailed in North Africa a few centuries later." Donatism, of course, was a heretical doctrine. It held that priests who had handed over materials in the great persecutions before Constantine could no longer deliver the sacraments. It emphasised the purity of the clergy as a necessary precondition for the religious service.
Naturally, the article doesn't cover that. Instead, Donatists are Christians who "accepted the practice of re-baptism for those believers who they felt had relapsed into sin." Sounds nice and tolerant, eh? It again exercises the modern dynamic of "intolerant religious fundamentalist (Augustine) vs. tolerant branch of religion (Donatism)." People respond to it because it fits with their understanding based on modern ideas.
In reality, the Donatists were not tolerant- they were extremely ascetic and they did not forgive clergy who erred during the Roman persecutions. They also considered lay people who took sacraments given by an impure cleric to be damned with said cleric. None of this is mentioned in the article, naturally. If you're really interested in Donatism, see the short-but-sweet Wikipedia Article and the longer article in the Popish Encyploaedia.
Anyway, Augustine argued against the Donatists at the great debate between Donatist and Orthodox Bishops in Carthage in 411 AD. His testimony turned the momentum against the Donatists, and they began shrinking thereafter, with the help of state suppression of their doctrine. Augustine, interestingly enough, protested against their harsh suppression by the Roman state. In any case, though "a few historians" believe that Islam took over thanks to the suppression of Donatism, it's far from established, and foolish to blame Augustine.
Finally, O'Donnell criticises Augustine's idea of Original Sin as something that "defies logic on various points." From what O'Donnell says, it seems Augustine pulled the concept of Original Sin out of his mitre. This isn't the case- Original Sin is the curse for the primal disobedience of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 3, God commands Adam and Eve not to eat of the Tree of Life. "Ye shall not eat of it...lest ye die. (Genesis 3:1)" They do, and they are expelled from Earthly Paradise (Eden) for their offense, in addition to having numerous curses laid upon them. They feel shame ("And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked (Genesis 3:7)"), and they become self-aware as a result of this primal disobedience. Humans to-day are self-aware, and as this awareness is connected to the primal sin of the Original Parents, the blight of their sin continues.
Of course, that's not good news for the likes of O'Donnell, so he derides it as "illogical" that the curse is extended to Adam and Eve's descendants. Are we not still self-aware? Does the ground not still resist us, or women not feel sorrow in their childbirth (Genesis 3:16-17)? The curse is a multi-generational affair.
In any case, the second paragraph in brings us to the author's purpose. "Benedict XVI...has long claimed St. Augustine as his theological lodestar. Observers might reasonably wonder whether that debt can explain the central mystery of...Joseph Ratzinger: how a reform-minded adviser to Vatican II became a rigid defender of the church doctrine while through it all claiming a core consistency to his beliefs and teachings."
In answer to this "central mystery," one might quip the proposition that Ratzinger began enforcing church doctrine when it became his job to do so as head of the former Inquisition. One might also put forth the idea that a commitment to "reform" is not a permanent engagement. Perhaps young Ratzinger was satisfied with the reforms of Vatican II, and decided to keep it at that. In any case, this is another modern blunder- the idea of "reform" as a permanent (and universally good) entity. The idea of "reform" is to "re-form" something until it works properly, rather than a permanent state of affairs.
But regardless, we see the quintessential modern criticism of Benedict XVI's platform as told through the distorted tale of Augustine: if you don't commit to "reform" and get into line with our perfect understanding of things, you're deeply flawed and will destroy your organisation forever, as Augustine supposedly did. What actually happened is not relevant to their purpose.

Tranzi Watch and Irresponsible Journalism

I find it endlessly fascinating how, despite the diverse batch of independent nations all around the world, comparatively minor decisions taken in western nations have such a disproportionate effect world-wide.
This is especially true with the information industry, known to everyone as the MediaWhores. Though the MediaWhores no longer have a complete monopoly over public debate as they did in the nineties (a truly nightmarish decade- remember the OJ Simpson trial?), they still wield a great deal of influence, especially amongst the chattering and lower classes. Most people still get their ideas from the MSM.
One would think that those who wield this sort of power would be more responsible in its use. Sadly, they are not, and it seems that only the most clueless and the least scrupulous take part of this endeavour. Only bureaucracy can claim a higher idiot quotient, but even the odious EU Bureaucracy has yet to produce anything akin to the Evil One.
It seems that our distinguished journalists indulged (yet again) their continuing bad habit of making up stories. This time around, Newsweek put forth a story about US interrogators desecrating the Koran. Of course, under Islamic law desecration of this sort is punishable by death. As a result of this story, there has been a great deal of violence directed against the US. At least 15 have died and many, many more have been wounded. I'd imagine this will represent an opportunity for fresh recruiting for the Iraqi Insurgency, leading to more dead Iraqis and Coalition forces.
The most irksome thing about this is that it turns out that the allegations were just a load of garbage. Newsweek has issued a retraction of the story, and it turns out that the "checks and balances" that the MediaWhores claim to exclusively possess amount to nothing- there was no verification of this sensational story, nor was there any investigation. They got a tip and printed it straightaway.
Of course, this being revelation of such grave import, it might occur to thinking people that what is being published is absolute truth, so that any consequences of the article are at least reflections of a truth. Not our dear MediaWhores, of course. They are blameless, holy creatures who cannot be held to account for irresponsible actions.
Of course, those who were more studious in University and therefore worked to receive a real degree (in contrast to our beloved journalism majors) and then became bloggers apparently cannot receive the same protection. Recently, the vapid trendies at the despicable Apple Corporation took a break from their journey into stylish mediocrity so that they might prosecute two bloggers who revealed SOOPER SEEKRIT(TM) details on Apple's next useless chunk of multi-coloured plastic. Apple won, and bloggers have been denied the status of Journalists. Once again, the special status of Journalists as the Fourth Estate has been confirmed at the expense of everyone else.
Of course, this sort of nonsense is to be expected from the ruling classes. Tranzis do not much care for alternate viewpoints, and they consider control of information vital to achieving their political ends. The tranzis world-wide have decided US intervention in Islamist nations is the Worst Possible Thing, and that any other system of government is preferable. Of course, no one consulted the peoples who would have to endure either another lifetime of Ba'athist thuggery or Islamist nuttery, but as we all know Tranzis work for the betterment of us all.
Even if the story isn't strictly true, it causes trouble, and once something is said it cannot be un-said, despite any contractions the magazine might present. It's stirred up a hornet's nest for the hopes of Democracy in the Middle East, which means they can go back to being a harmless "ethnic people" whilst the Tranzis can get back to complaining about American cultural domination by using American actors and media and other things that Tranzis consider important, such as regulating the temperature of people's bath-water.
Though I'm a bit confuzzled as to why the Tranzis hate Dubya when he should be their best friend, but one thing I've learned about Tranzis is that, in their minds, logic is bad, and form is everything.
Consider the disparate cases of the US and our erstwhile neighbour to the North, Canada. As mentioned above, the entire world is shrieking about problems in the US. People think Dubya a tyrant who shreds the constitution. Though I agree with them to a certain extent, Canada has a far worse problem. Readers might recall the Canadian Parliament passed a no-confidence motion in the government of Prime Minister Paul Martin. Under a parliamentary system, the government is obliged to dissolve and call elections. However, Mssr. Martin has decided that this vote of no confidence was not a real vote of no confidence, and has refused to step down or call elections. This is clearly a constitutional crisis, as the entire point of a no-confidence motion is to hold a government to account. If it becomes useless, parliament's chief check on a government between elections is lost. Where are the complaints about this newly minted el Presidente? I haven't found many outside of this timely editorial cartoon.
Then there's the Tsunami relief effort. The US was famously criticised as "stingy" by UN Luvvie Jan Engelund, despite heroic contributions by an ersatz coalition of India, Japan, Australia, and the United States, and the timely use of warships to deliver aid. North of the Border, Canadian PM Martin paid a a personal visit to the disaster area and famously pledged that Canada would donate at least $350 million US Dollars to the relief effort.
Well, it's been about six months and the columnist Mark Steyn has taken an account of Canada's expenditure on Tsunami Aid. Guess how much they've spent?
The answer is $40,000 US Dollars. To be fair, the expenditure is to be over a period of five years. However, at the rate of $40,000 every six months, it'll take (by my calculations) over 4,000 years to pay out the rest.
Why does Canada get tons of praise whilst the US gets slammed at every opportunity? Read Steyn's Column and see.
In short, Tranzis are very shallow. They are only concerned with the outward form of the thing. What matters to them is that you've signed the Kyoto protocol, even if ten of your fifteen members do not reach their emissions targets. All that matters is that you submit to the regime by acknowledging their competence to rule. Enforcement comes later.
That's all for this rambling up-date. Soon I shall post my review of John Paul II's last book Memory and Identity, which is a supremely thoughtful and timely work. In addition, I shall post regarding my peculiar admiration of St. Thomas More. Who needs a personal life when you have political philosophy?

Spacecraft and Margot's Holocaust

I will be off visiting "Campustown" for the week-end, so expect no posts. I know that this is positively crushing news, but personal obligations come first.
Any-way, the first order of business to-day is not related to the usual Orwellian or Apocalyptic content of this blog. Instead, it's actually an interesting bit of news regarding the space programme.
NASA has put forth specifications for the shuttle replacement, known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle. It's designed to be little more than a space-taxi, which will ferry six crewmen into orbit. This will be part of a modular system designed to fulfill the President's plan for manned space exploration of the moon and Mars.
Boeing's proposal was submitted first. This is extremely modular, and (as the kids say) very "retro". Images from the excellent Projectconstellation.us site.
Here's their Crew Module:



Being a modular design, parts can be put together to form a platform capable of greater mission. Here's the crew module coupled with a trans-lunar insertion stage for a moon mission slated in the 2015 time frame:



And here's the design for the Mars Mission, with (moving from top to bottom) two resource modules, the crew command module, systems module (cooling, power &c.), inflatable habitation module, fuel tanks, and motor.

There are other configurations envisioned for launch and space stations (in lunar orbit!). Take a gander at the aforementioned Projectconstellation.us site to see them all.
The other proposal is Lockheed-Martin's. It's pretty similar to the military's 1960s-era X-20 Dyna-Soar. It's a small, multipurpose lifting body, not quite like the capsule concept of Boeing's. Here's an image from the fine Popular Mechanics article.




I am in favour of a combination of both. I don't like the idea of a return to capsules, as it obviates the need for space infrastructure. One-shot missions might be neat and they might accomplish goals quickly and cheaply, but it doesn't build an infrastructure in space for continued exploration.
The Lockheed concept would make a fine shuttle vehicle to and from future space stations. The modular Boeing concept would work well for the various missions that man is bound to try.
One thing I would like to see studied more is nuclear propulsion. There's been too much paranoia about it, and meaningful debate has been stifled. The fact is, spacecraft are an ideal medium for nuclear power, especially on long-duration missions. It also eliminates the need for an oxidiser, because the heat of the fission process is sufficient for combustion needs. More stable fuels might be used , since combustion is not essential with nuclear power. Lithium is easier to store and is safer than hydrogen, but is only marginally less effective as a propellant in a nuclear craft.
Another great development I might have covered before but will drag up again is the recent discovery that Hydrogen Sulfide gas induces a state of hibernation in mammals that normally don't. This would be of tremendous import on extreme duration missions, because food, air, and other supplies could be dispensed with for the journey to and from the target.
This opens up the possibility of extreme-range nuclear-powered missions guided by certain hyper-intelligent yet malicious computers. Score!
And, if my regular postings didn't provide reason enough for humanity to leave Earth, this might help. Vice-President of the European Commission Margot Wallstrom, who is my least favourite Swede, is continuing to exemplify the clumsy progression of the modern totalitarian state. In order to counter accusations of the EU's aloof nature, Margot didn't set about reforming the system, but instead set up her wondrous blog, setting new records for trite posting that are rarely exceeded outside of old-fashioned E/N sites.
Anyway, Margot had a major faux pas recently when she declared that, if the EU constitution was not approved, Europe would risk a new holocaust. She also had the good taste to say this in an old Jewish Ghetto to a crowd full of survivors on V-E day.
She claimed that "nationalism" was the cause of World War II, and that only a "pooling of national sovereignty" could stop it from happening again. Of course, Fascism was a multi-national ideology that embraced nationalism as a matter of course, but that doesn't matter to Margot, who has the tough job of selling the hard-to-swallow EU constitution. As one British MP pointed out, this was a "monstrous re-writing of history". Indeed. The EU has been big on this as a of late. Recently, Margot and her fellow commissioners released a statement that claimed the best way to honour the fallen of World War II was to vote "Yes!" on the new EU Constitution. The EU Parliament has also called for a single, authoritative interpretation of history, moderated (of course) by themselves.
Anyone who has a plan for humanity that involves most everyone else sacrificing things that might be dear to them must convince everyone else that any alternative is worse. There are few worse scenarios than the Second World War. This war killed off a significant percentage of the world's population and profoundly changed the world. If you want an ultimate scare tactic, there are few that are more effective than a sequel to World War II. Plus, it allows the intrepid few to denigrate their opposition by comparing them to Nazis. As we've all learned from internet message boards, comparisons with Nazis are the most effective forms of argumentation.
Going to lose your business under the new EU constitution? Not particularly enthused about the harmonisation of your taxes with places like Sweden and France? Well, you've got to suck it up, because if you don't, Hitler will pop his head out of the earth and start rampaging through Europe again! It's either-or, there is no in between. The slightest defence of national sovereignty is actually crypto-fascism. The Euro-Sceptics are just waiting for a chance to dust off their armbands. Vote for us, or else!
We need to start expanding off of this planet before the stupidity of people like Margot Wallstrom makes our lives so miserable that they aren't worth living. Mars promises a good start, as to the many moons of Saturn (many of them are covered in ice). It'd be nice to get away from this rat race, and perhaps the enormity of the project will induce some humility to our shameless human race.

Tyranny of Information

Again, I have been remiss in my duties. However, I've allowed some (disjointed) thoughts to brew over the past several days.
As we are all tired of hearing, we live in the "information age". What distinguishes this age from previous ages is the easy flow of information. Early on, minarchists like myself were excited about this prospect, as this meant that there was a method of exchanging information that could not be moderated by the state. This was a heady feeling, as man could finally be liberated from oppressive regimes. Information would, like a strong current, flow with great force into the dams built by the state across our ability to know, and break them down, flooding the world with truth.
Nowadays, I'm reconsidering this thesis for a number of reason. First is the continuing trend against privacy. Personal liberty is seen in the modern world not as a gift from the Almighty, but rather a nice little fluff, a mere privilege that might be revoked for greater expediency. Indeed, the over-riding factor has become expediency.
Another over-riding factor is security. People in the modern world fear death more than any other thing. As a result, they trade everything else in order to buy a little more time. Like the proverbial appeasers trying to escape the crocodile, they toss everything and everyone else at the beast they fear in order to ensure that it consumes them last. Then, with nothing between them and the beast, it comes straight for them.
When you combine expediency with fear of death, you have the chief neurosis of the modern world. It's expressed in two ways- the security fears, which are openly manifested. You read about this every day, with such famous affronts to liberties as the infamous USA-PATRIOT act, and the recently passed de facto national ID cards in the REAL ID act. There's a good article reviewing this odious legislation here.
Aside from the obvious security clampdown on liberties, there's the more subtle and more insidious health angle. I've already crafted a rant concerning the manifold dangers of socialised medicine. One of the points I made was my fear that the government would turn into the ultimate HMO, mandating exercise, diet, and other sundry requirements for citizens.
Of course, after the disaster of HillaryCare in the mid nineties, one might be tempted to say such a programme is doomed from the get-go. Indeed, one might be correct, but that doesn't mean the problems of a socialised health care system will go away. Indeed, the bureaucrats might be more clever than I previously figured, and might take the REAL-ID approach. Here's a hypothetical situation.
After a prolonged media scare about companies not providing health insurance, the federal government passes laws mandating corporate health insurance policies for all employees. Such laws are not big programmes, and can be inserted into omnibus spending bills (as the REAL-ID act was). By doing this, congress has created a de facto national health care system, and by setting uniform standards they've become a the big, bad HMO without spending a nickel.
Companies, anxious to preserve their money, mandate minimum health standards for employees. Smokers, overweight people, and people with congenital diseases that represent a health risk become effectively unemployable, because companies will not want to take a risk for these groups.
At this point, you must be thinking "you crazy white devil! This is another one of your paranoid fever-dreams. No company would fire people for their behaviour on personal time!" You'd be wrong in this case - things like this are already happening.
I read in to-day's edition of USA Today an article which set me upon this course- many companies ban employees from smoking at all in order to save on the cost of health insurance! Sadly, the print article was not on the USA Today website, but here's a case that is very much like it.
Now, with businesses being competitive, corporations that do not partake in this will be beaten in competition by those that do. Their health-care costs will hamstring them. Furthermore, insurance providers might refuse to give insurance at all to companies that employ the new generation of lepers.
Of course, it is conceivable that genetic engineering and eugenics of some sort will be used to weed out undesirable workers. What sort of parents, after all, want to be saddled with unemployable children?
But that's another future-nightmare scenario. The fact is that we can easily be indirectly deprived of our rights without democratic debate or direct legislation. It's really quite clever, if insidious.
Normally, people like me view capital as an agent of liberation- a means by which man can be freed from purely physical toil and instead use his mind to make money to exchange for goods. Free flow of capital allows man to spend on anything he wants, giving the impression of a free society.
However, when it gets out of control, expediency determines the best choice, and things that reduce expediency, such as privacy and rights, become mere luxuries rather than essential things, with a premium price.
It's rather like how insurance has reduced our freedom. For example, many of the most odious an restrictive measures levied against my ability to do what I will are not passed by government, but rather by insurance agents. Plus, they aren't limited in the type of information they take because the contract with the insured is a private one, not in the domain of protected rights.
Information-gathering companies such as Equifax gather incredible amounts of information about everyone, and every aspect of our behaviour.
It seems that this unprecedented ability to gather information is eroding our rights, and there's not much to be done about it. The lack of virtue and love of expediency in modern society combine to harm man yet again.

A Triumphant Return!

Greetings again, dear reader(s). After a considerable time of remission, I've returned to the world of blogging.
The past several days have been particularly active. First, I had to complete my last full-time semester at university. Once completed, I moved back from my forward-deployed headquarters to the homestead. I've been unpacking and fretting about grades the last several days. I also was emcee for mother's day celebrations here.
Grade-wise, I'm still on track to graduate Summa Cum Laude, so I celebrated with some range time. I took the Enfield (recently certified to be in firing condition), the Winchester, and a simple Marlin .22LR with my brother. An enjoyable time was had by all, and I found my accuracy has considerably improved, especially from the standing position.
I also read this morning that scientists, for the first time, the birth of a black hole 2.2 billion light-years away. Two super-dense neutron stars collided and disappeared, accompanied by a gamma-ray burst. Interesting stuff.
Meanwhile at the BBC, the government of our northern neighbours is beginning to crack. The vote of no-confidence is being ignored by the Liberal Government. It's set to go off to-day at 6:15 PM, and just might succeed. If the motion passes, and the government does not resign, it's a constitutional crisis for the Canucks.
A final note comes from the formidable Strategy Page. It seems that Coalition forces in Iraq have found out exactly why the Taliban has been mellowing out as of late.

O, Canada! and birth-days.

It seems that the AdScam scandal and the associated Gomery Inquiry have cut into the popularity of the ruling Liberal party in Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin was Finance Minister at the time of the scandal, which funneled billions of dollars to the Liberal party. Despite a publication ban which has halted the presses up there, American and Canadian Bloggers (most notably Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters) have revealed much of the scope of the scandal. Canadians have been reading these blogs, and are incensed. The Liberal party, already weakened by a recent electoral defeat which left them a minority government, is more deeply unpopular than ever. Conservative opposition leader Steven Harper has pushed for a motion of no confidence which, if passed, would dissolve the current government and require new elections.
The motion requires a majority of Parliament's approval. The Liberals are counting on their partnership with the socialist NDP to forestall it. However, the potent Bloc Québécois (the Quebec nationalist party), furious that the aid money that was intended to go to their province, seems to be allying with the conservatives on this one. One Independent vote will bring success to the motion.
If the motion succeeds and new elections are called, it seems likely to me that the Liberal party will have big losses. There might even be a conservative government again. Even if the Liberals do win, they'll be very ineffective.
Of course, this scandal is merely a catalyst for a massive change in Canadian politics. Like the US, Canada is fracturing. The former "consensus" which existed has given way to partisan and regional interests. The western part of Canada, rich with oil, desires a more Laissez-faire policy, where the east is more content with a socialist economic system (funded, coincidentally, by the western parts of the nation). The conservatives have been gaining in the west, but the socialist NDP has been gaining in the east at the expense of the Liberals.
This is similar to the US- the consensus is collapsing due to, I'd argue, greater freedom of expression. People who didn't fit the consensus aren't succumbing to it because they feel that nothing can be done. Political consensus, after all, is a construct that is assembled by those in power to suppress opposition. Politics is about dissent. This is a good thing, especially for those of us in Jesusland who are tired of people prattling on about the perfection of our northern neighbours.
I did another quiz, which claims to be able to tell me my personality based on my birthdate. Here it is, along with fisking.

Your birth on the 27th day of the month (9 energy) adds a tone of selflessness and humanitarianism to your life path.

Wow, wrong right out of the gate.

Certainly, you are one who can work very well with people, but at the same time you need a good bit of time to be by yourself to rest and meditate.

Did some idiot at the hospital mix things up?

There is a very humanistic and philanthropic approach in most of things that you do.

This birthday helps you be broadminded, tolerant, generous and very cooperative.
Perhaps mother has been lying to me all this time.

You are the type of person who uses persuasion rather than force to achieve your ends.

That's why I carry an ACLU card. It has nothing to do with me constantly threatening to sue people or anything.

You tend to be very sensitive to others' needs and feelings, and you able to give much in the way of friendship without expecting a lot in return.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Here's a bit of AIM dialogue:

Female Friend:hey, i have a problem
Female Friend:i know its cliche, but there's this guy i like and i don't know what to do about it
Me:Hmmm.
Me:Looks like you'll have to kill yourself to get the attention you desire.
Female Friend:that's pretty drastic
Me:Sorry hon, but it's the only way.
Sound familiar?

That's all for to-night.

Sunday After-school Special- The Padre

Sunday's usual New Religious Movements feature will not be posted to-day, due to special request.
One J. Bowman, who has already extended his influence elsewhere, has requested that I do a special post in regards to one of my teachers who is leaving the profession this year. I readily agreed with this sensible proposition, but it's been difficult to figure out exactly what to do about it.
So, at the risk of sounding cliche, I'll post things I've learned from this professor, and invite others to share their stories in the comments section. I only ask that, for the sake of his future career, people not use the Padre's name or make a direct reference to his occupation. This will serve as a sort of living testament to his teaching career.
I've had the padre for three classes now, and I must say that they were all quite enjoyable. Though it proved difficult to stick to the subject matter at times, even digressions proved to be a valuable experience in my continuing education. His smart-alecky manner helped humanise what could potentially be a very dry subject. Furthermore, it generated a near-cult following. This was excaberated by the obvious tendency of people in the same major to take the same classes, until the classes were comprised mostly of "regulars." Even though the subject changed, the crowd didn't, and soon a comfortable pattern emerged. Friendships were forged, and everyone moved to occupy a certain niche of classroom conversation.
All of this was thanks to the padre's excellent approach to class-room discussion. I never thought I'd see so many people from all walks of life debating whether something was natural law or merely divine positive law. Thanks to the padre, it became a reality. He will be greatly missed.