This site uses cookies for analytics and to improve your experience. By clicking Accept, you consent to our use of cookies. Learn more in our privacy policy.

CROSS: FCC Fascism – “Open Internet” and “New Neutrality” as Doublespeak for The Government Takeover of the Internet

Feb 20, 2014 | Politics

From FCC Republicans Pan New Net Neutrality Plan | Broadcasting & Cable

"Today’s announcement reminds me of the movie Groundhog Day,” wrote Pai. “In the wake of a court defeat, an FCC chairman floats a plan for rules regulating Internet service providers’ network management practices instead of seeking guidance from Congress, all while the specter of Title II reclassification hovers ominously in the background. I am skeptical that this effort will end any differently from the last."“I am deeply concerned by the announcement that the FCC will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet," said O'Rielly. "As I have said before, my view is that section 706 does not provide any affirmative regulatory authority. We should all fear that this provision ultimately may be used not just to regulate broadband providers, but eventually edge providers."The D.C. appeals court that overturned the anti-blocking and nondiscrimination portions of the FCC's 2009 Open Internet order did concede that ISP's have the ability and incentive to discriminate against edge providers in the provision of competing data or video services, and the power to regulate broadband in the interests of deployment if it concludes such discrimination would discourage that deployment."It appears that the FCC is tilting at windmills here," said O'Rielly. "Instead of fostering investment and innovation through deregulation, the FCC will be devoting its resources to adopting new rules without any evidence that consumers are unable to access the content of their choice.”

The criticial issue is to prevent the FCC from regulating internet content; which would be the next step in principle once the FCC is in control of the internet infrastructure which is presently the property of the ISPs who built and maintain it.For more on "net neutrality" see:

A Tale of Two Revolutions

Feb 20, 2014 | Politics

Interesting comparisons of the revolutions going on in Ukraine and Venezuela:Ukraine And Venezuela Uprisings: No Velvet Revolutions In Sight - Investors.com

Both Venezuelans and Ukrainians showed unusual courage against their rogue states — at least four Venezuelans were killed — but by Wednesday, the EU had declared sanctions against the Ukrainian regime and the U.S. announced it would follow suit. Venezuela got nothing. The crowds thinned and everyone went home.Why the difference?

Obama’s FCC vs Free Speech

Feb 20, 2014 | Politics

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reveals the Obama Administration’s Federal Communication Commission (FCC) draconian attempt to intimidate the media:

Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations." [Wall Street Journal]

Nutcrackers

Feb 19, 2014 | Sci-Tech

Wild crows inhabiting the city use it to their advantage - David Attenborough - BBC wildlife:
Many birds adapt to metropolitan life, in this clip you can see how crows in Japan have integrated city life into their behaviour. From the BBC. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0

Conservative Pre-emptive Surrender

Feb 14, 2014 | Politics

Another absolutely disgraceful article In Praise of the Establishment from National Review states that "McConnell and Boehner have steered us right for a few months now."Though not quite as disgraceful as last week's article promoting an alliance between social conservatives and Muslims in order to promote bans on abortion and same sex marriage.Nowhere in this article is there even a mention of the enormous damage George W. Bush did with 6 years of GOP control of Congress. No mea culpa is offered for the damage done by Bush and the Republicans between 2000-6. No mention is made of the similarities between what Obama is doing and what Bush and the Republicans did. And most importantly, not a single word offered as to how to prevent the disasters of the Bush Administration in a future GOP administration. If National Review, The Weekly Standard and Commentary Magazine want to advocate this kind of nonsense in Blue states, fine. But to advocate it as a national strategy is beyond asinine: it is pre-emptive surrender to Obama's evil. With "allies" like this, send me my enemies. Please. -- Ed Mazlish

Religious Belief Exemptions Do Not Apply To Public Servants

Feb 14, 2014 | Business, Politics

The Kansas legislature has just passed a law that protects private businesses and individuals from having to provide service to same sex couples if provision such service would violate the religious beliefs of the private business/individual. Thus, the wedding cake and wedding photography cases would not happen in Kansas.So far, so good.But Republicans also insisted that the law allow government officials to use the same religious objection to refuse to provide government ...services to same sex couples. News flash to Republicans: justice must be blind, government must not discriminate, and government workers are not entitled to their jobs if their religious beliefs are offended by any part of "equal justice under law." If your religious beliefs are opposed to same sex marriage, that's your right - but then you don't have a *right* to a job in the city clerk's office. -- Ed Mazlish 

Is Submission To Their Husbands Good for Women?

Feb 10, 2014 | Politics

by Michael J. Hurd Ph.D.Candace Cameron Bure, a former child star on the ’80s/’90s television series Full House, recently set off a firestorm when she suggested while promoting her book that the secret to her marital happiness was the fact that she let her husband take control.“I am not a passive person, but I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work,” the actress writes in her book.During a recent interview with The Huffington Post, Cameron Bure tried to explain herself.“The definition I’m using with the word ‘submissive’ is the biblical definition of that,” she said. “So, it is meekness, it is not weakness. It is strength under control, it is bridled strength.”“And, listen, I love that my man is a leader,” she said. “I want him to lead and be the head of our family. And those major decisions do fall on him. … It doesn’t mean I don’t voice my opinion. It doesn’t mean I don’t have an opinion. I absolutely do, but it is very difficult to have two heads of authority.”“In my marriage we are equal … in our importance, but we are just different in our performances within our marriage,” she said.It sounds to me like she’s confused.On the one hand, she says her husband is the leader. This suggests he has the final say. A leader is someone who knows more than you do, who is (by definition) wiser and more authoritative than you. A leader is not your equal. If we were all absolutely equal in character, development, knowledge and ability we would not need leaders.Then, in total contradiction, she says that they’re equal. She qualifies it by saying in marriage they are equal. But they’re married. What other context do they exist with each other, aside from in marriage? How can they simultaneously be equal and unequal (as the concept “leader” suggets) at the same time?She’s trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she wants to follow the notions of the Bible. On the other hand, she wants the satisfaction of having a spouse who considers her an equal partner.The solution to this conundrum is neither angry, anti-male feminism nor reversion to Biblical literalism, where women are instructed to submit to their men. The solution is individualism. I don’t mean this politically so much as (primarily) psychologically. Psychologically, if you’re an individualist, you take responsibility for knowing yourself, along with shaping yourself into the person you wish to be.Each individual woman, like any individual man, has strengths and weaknesses, and also faces choices about which strengths to develop. It’s a challenge and responsibility for every human being to become his — or her — own individual. When one lacks the confidence or certainty required to engage in such a task, the tendency is to revert to social roles. “Well, I’m a woman. This is what others say a woman should do. So I’m going to be that.”“Others” in this context can refer to one’s family, the Bible, or any people or forces you consider significant — other than yourself. Playing out roles prescribed by others can arise from traditionalism, as it does with this actress, or from neo-feminism, in which you attempt to be some kind of a contradictory mix, such as a “supermom” whereby you run a giant corporation and be a stay-at-home mother at the same time.The error in all of these scenarios is the same: Sacrificing individualism for the sake of playing out a script you have allowed another (or others) to write for you.Meekness–not weakness…and Bure claims that’s a good thing? The concept meekness clearly implies underrating yourself, minimizing or ignoring your strengths — as a matter of principle. Religions teach meekness and submission to an all-powerful supernatural being. After all, what is any low human in comparison to an omnipotent and omnipresent God or Allah?When you apply the concept meekness to your marriage, by definition you’re treating yourself as low and inferior. I find this statement of Bure’s especially revealing: “I chose to fall into a more submissive role in our relationship because I wanted to do everything in my power to make my marriage and family work.” It sounds like she’s saying, “I have to be meek in order to get along with my husband.”What kind of husband, wife, or any romantic partner wants his or her spouse to be inferior in stature? It’s not exactly something to be proud of, or write about in a book. It’s certainly nothing to parade about as an ideal.Meek submission for women is simply another example of selfless role-playing, to fill the void where a conscious individualist might — and should — have been.

Debunking Climate Scare Propaganda… With a Ruler

Feb 7, 2014 | Sci-Tech

http://www.youtube.com/embed/nwWqZ6_J2w0Yes the climate changes (the term change is implicit in the concept climate -- if there were no fluctuations in the temperature for a given region, there would be no concept of climate).No there is no climate holocaust. Sleep soundly my friends.

Deciphering The American State of the Union: An Introduction to Obamaspeak

Jan 29, 2014 | Politics

Writes Harry Binswanger at Forbes:

Statism, the concentration of power in the government at the expense of individual liberty, cannot be sold to the American people. The statists in this country have always cloaked their agenda, marching us blindfolded toward the elimination of our freedom and our rights.Statists do not dare announce: “The individual must be subordinated to the state, rights be damned.” Instead, they change the meaning of old terms and introduce new ones to disguise the nature and meaning of what they advocate.

President Obama has developed this perversion of language into an art form.

His first campaign spoke of “Change we can believe in” without once explaining change from what and to what. He couldn’t, because the change he sought was from semi-freedom to unfreedom.He spoke of “hope” without once naming what was to be hoped for. He couldn’t, because, for him, the object of that hope was government handouts funded by money taken from those who had earned it–legalized plunder, in the well-turned phrase of Frederic Bastiat.“We’re all in this together,” the President repeatedly says–without telling us what “this” is. The woozy, undefined “this” turns out to be a package-deal of the voluntary cooperation of free men and the forced regimentation of rightless serfs of an omnipotent state.As an aid to those who treasure their freedom, I offer this dictionary of Obamaspeak, so that they may know what they are actually up against.

Read the rest of A Dictionary of Obamaspeak.

Are “Progressives” the Heirs To Nazi Hatred?

Jan 27, 2014 | Politics

WritesTom Perkins founder of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com:

I would call attention to the parallels of Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."Regarding your editorial "Censors on Campus" (Jan. 18): Writing from the epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco, I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany to its war on its "one percent," namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the "rich."From the Occupy movement to the demonization of the rich embedded in virtually every word of our local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, I perceive a rising tide of hatred of the successful one percent. [Progressive Kristallnacht Coming?]

James Madison vs Obama’s Rule By Pen

Jan 25, 2014 | Politics

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”  ― James Madison, Federalist Papers“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”“Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”“Democracy is the most vile form of government.” 

‘Progressives’ on Inter-Racial Marriages

Jan 18, 2014 | Politics

The racism of today's progressives is utterly mind-boggling.Writes Michelle Malkin:

The dirty open secret is that a certain category of public figures has been routinely mocked, savaged and reviled for being partners in interracial marriages or part of loving interracial families (for a refresher, see the video clip of MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry and friends cackling at the holiday photo of Mitt Romney holding his black adopted grandson in his lap).And the dirty double standard is that selectively compassionate journalists and pundits have routinely looked the other way — or participate directly in heaping on the hate.Have you forgotten? Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was excoriated by black liberals for being married to wife Virginia, who happens to be white. The critics weren’t anonymous trolls on the Internet. They worked for major media outlets and institutions of higher learning. USA Today columnist Barbara Reynolds slammed Thomas and his wife for their colorblind union: “It may sound bigoted; well, this is a bigoted world and why can’t black people be allowed a little Archie Bunker mentality? … Here’s a man who’s going to decide crucial issues for the country and he has already said no to blacks; he has already said if he can’t paint himself white he’ll think white and marry a white woman.”

"Think white"?

Howard University’s Afro-American Studies Chair Russell Adams accused Thomas of racism against all blacks for falling in love with someone outside his race. “His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community,” Adams told The Washington Post. “Great justices have had community roots that served as a basis for understanding the Constitution. Clarence’s lack of a sense of community makes his nomination troubling.”California state Senate Democrat Diane Watson taunted former University of California regent Ward Connerly after a public hearing, spitting: “He’s married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

So much for Martin Luther King's Dream of a “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

How Obamacare Will Hurt doctors

Jan 17, 2014 | Politics, Sci-Tech

Writes Dr. Mark Siegel in the NY Daily News:

A study just published in the prestigious journal Science reveals that new Medicaid patients in Oregon were 40% more likely to use the emergency room than the uninsured were. This finding is not a surprise to me or most physicians — we have known that truth for years.But it does undermine one of the basic philosophical and practical underpinnings of Obamacare: the notion that expanding insurance will invariably unclog ERs, improve primary and preventive care, prevent diseases and lower costs.The study underlines the findings of a prior survey by the PricewaterhouseCoopers consulting firm that indicated that Medicaid patients are 35% more likely to use the ER unnecessarily than are the uninsured.The reason for ER overuse is simple: Medicaid patients (like all insured patients) feel that their insurance card entitles them to health care anytime they want it. When office doctors aren’t available to provide it, they go to the hospital to get it.

Read the rest of How Obamacare will hurt doctors.

Some thoughts on Black History Month

Jan 16, 2014 | Culture

Black History Month: Celebrating Race-Based Achievement is Racism | Capitalism Magazine

Black History month is intended to counteract the historical bias against blacks. The Tulane University Black History Month Web site reads, “Obviously, a White History Month is not needed because the contributions of whites are already acknowledged by society. Black History Month is meant to remedy this inequity of representation.” According to Jacquelyn West-Ford, Drexel’s senior associate dean of students, “Black History Month is simply a time to bring attention to the achievements that black Americans have made to education and society.”But Black History Month is not meant to remedy inequity of recognition as such — merely inequity of recognition for those who are black. The holiday discriminates against other unrecognized achievers — as if black achievers were the only ones who have been treated unfairly by history. If remedying inequity of recognition were the true purpose of the holiday, it would be called “Month of Unrecognized Achievers.” It would celebrate people like Nikola Tesla, the father of modern electricity, and not just people like Martin Luther King Jr., whose achievements are already more widely recognized than Tesla’s.

Amazon Employees Vote Against Big Labor

Jan 16, 2014 | Business, Politics

Amazon Workers Reject Union

Amazon reacted with satisfaction. Mary Osako, an Amazon spokesperson, said, “With today’s vote against third-party representation, our employees have made it clear that they prefer a direct connection with Amazon. This direct connection is the most effective way to understand and respond to the wants and needs of our employees. Amazon’s culture and business model are based on rapid innovation, flexibility, and open lines of direct communication between managers and associates.”Private sector union representation has dropped precipitously in the United States, and now stands at just 6.6 percent.

Amazon.com's Delaware union vote expected Wednesday | Reuters

Amazon has consistently argued against any sort of union representation for employees. "We respect the individual rights of our associates and have an open-door policy that allows and encourages associates to bring their comments, questions and concerns directly to their management teams," said Mary Osako, an Amazon spokeswoman, in an emailed statement. "We firmly believe this direct connection is the most effective way to understand and respond to the needs of our workforce and do not believe there is a need for third-party representation."

The Ten Commandments Rationally Examined

Jan 6, 2014 | Culture

by Edward Cline

One of the most infuriating things about conservatives who claim that the U.S. was founded on Biblical morality and the Ten Commandments is that, like Muslims, their minds are closed to any arguments to the contrary. They slam shut so hard you can feel the draft.  So, let’s examine the Ten Commandments and see if any one of them has anything to do with our vanishing freedoms. I have used the Commandments as published by the ultra religious conservative group, Politichicks, in Lydia Goodman’s December 18th column, “How Many Laws Does One Country Need? God Says Ten.”  Their exact wording is not as I remember them, my having been exposed to them in the Catholic Church in the 1950′s, but that is a minor point.The 10 Commandments1 –  And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.No problem. There are no other gods before him. Not even God. There’s no queue outside my door.So,  Moses parted the Red Sea and talked to a burning bush, and suddenly hefted a pair of very heavy stone tablets on which were chiseled the Ten Commandments and which he had to lug back down the mountain. These are apocryphal fairy tales akin to Mohammad riding a winged horse to have a personal huddle with Allah and having an angel whisper into his ear Allah’s own fifty dozen commandments.  There really isn’t any reason why any rational person should take this Commandment literally. Especially if he doesn’t subscribe to the notion of the existence of a supernatural entity that knows all and can do all, and knew what you would do billions of years before you were even born, but still imbues you with the “freedom” of choice. Which doctrine should believers believe in: Predestination, or volition? I’ve never heard an argument that made any sense, because, among their other faults, fast-talking preachers and priests all try to reconcile man the hapless pawn of God, with man the being of volitional consciousness.But, theologians and believers will retort: God is above human understanding, beyond reason, except in his heart, and in his faith. To know God, one must suspend one’s mind, because an inquiring mind is an obstacle to belief. And that retort is largely a legacy of Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant, who wrote reams and reams of paragraphs in an attempt to save religion from the Enlightenment. (Kant wasn’t the only one, just the best known.) Trying to defend religion from reason, he invented a “pure” reason that would explain and justify the unreasonableness of religion, or why it was so reason-proof and rebuffed the evidence of our senses in his Critique of Pure Reason, by which we have an a priori grasp of God that has nothing to do with mere, mundane reason. Here it is from the horse’s mouth:

HUMAN reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer.That’s just in Kant’s 1781 preface. It more or less encapsulates his theme and subject. He could be brief when he wanted to. Read the balance at your own risk, but be sure to have a bottle of Tylenol handy. His oft-interminable sentences are sure to give you a throbbing headache.2-  You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.First off, this sounds too much like the Islamic prohibition on representations of Mohammad. However, artists of the Judeo-Christian creeds have played fast and loose with representations of God. Witness Michelangelo’s rendering of God. It’s an old fellow with an untrimmed beard and garbed in a nightgown.Secondly, I’m guessing that God exempted himself from his own Commandments, because jealousy is a venial sin, a minor misdemeanor, and forgivable. Very big of him. “Do as I say, not as I do”? This Commandment is particularly extortionate, because reads like a Mafia curse. His iniquity will be visited on the guilty, and on the guilty’s descendents. The notion fits right in with the doctrine of Original Sin, in which one is burdened with sin before one is even born. Adam originated the sin, and we’re his heirs. Spiffing.When I was a young, ignorant kid, I thought that a sin manifested itself as a black spot on one’s belly. I was continually looking for one, or what resembled an ink stain, because I was constantly sinning. One never appeared. I have a mole there, but it’s brown. It’s just a collection of chemicals.Now, was God “born” old, or did he “age”? Has anyone ever attempted an image of God as a Young Man? But, how could he “age” before he invented time? According to the Big Bang theory, it was just him and that dimensionless ball of glop that he caused to explode. Was that the beginning of eternity, or the end of infinity? Go figure. Picture a consciousness, form and gender unknown – or was there a gender? – floating in a void in immeasurable time, with only the ball of glop for company. It’s a prospect and a premise that puts all the recent CGI-rich science fiction films to shame.And whoever said God was male? The feminists have had problems with that presumption. They have been busy subjecting the Bible to Critical Theory analysis, trying either to find a semantic or linguistic loophole in Genesis which claims that God made man in his own image and likeness, or to deconstruct it to shreds in a revolt against patriarchic sexism and producing some very vitriolic screeds.Finally, to return to Michelangelo and the Sistine Chapel, what has God got against art, that is, against making likenesses of things on earth and in the sea? Some of the greatest art was created in his glory. Surely he couldn’t object to that? (Off-hand remarks here about Michelangelo, or “Big Mike,” are not meant to be deprecatory of his greatness as an artist.)3 - You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.Well, why not? It’s just about the only time an atheist or even a steadfast Christian will remember God, by taking his name in vain, or in anger, or in frustration, and curse like a sailor. Further, unlike God, I wouldn’t be offended if people began taking my name in vain. If anything, I’d be flattered. Please, take my name in vain, as often as you wish.4 - Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.I remember the Sabbath only because my bank and favorite restaurants are closed.5 - Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.I can’t honor my parents. They always voted the straight Democratic ticket, and for Obama, twice. Further, it’s a confusingly worded Commandment. What exactly had God given me? Democratic parents, or the land and the long days? Will honoring my parents add years to my life?6 – You shall not murder.Well, why not? Give me a reason. Is it because another person’s life isn’t another’s to take – that is, the person owns his own life – or is it because it’s assumed he’s God’s property, and taking his life would amount to really serious larceny and put the kibosh on God’s own plans for the person?  God notoriously does not tolerate interference with his divine plans. He can be very, very wrathful.7 – You shall not commit adultery.Again, why not? If your spouse has turned into a prune-faced anchorite utterly hostile to divorce and about as romantically exciting as Norman Bates’ mummified mother or Lon Chaney’s Phantom of the Opera, where else is there to turn?8 – You shall not steal.And not steal what? The limelight? The scene? The ball? Someone else’s real property? Commit plagiarism? Please, someone give me a reason other than God’s officious, persnickety say-so. This and the other Commandments come out of literal nowhere, from the void of faith and belief. Has the Federal government heard of this Commandment?9 -You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.I guess this is God’s dictat against lying. But why limit it to neighbors? How about unneighborly tax collectors, criminals, and feminists? I say bear as much false witness against them as the traffic will carry. Has Barack Obama heard of this Commandment? There are forms of this Commandment in the Koran, but maybe he just skipped over them in Indonesia.10 – You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s. Envy doesn’t necessarily lead to covetousness, or even to theft or illegal appropriation or pilferage or shoplifting. Some dyed-in-the-wool Christians argue that this particular Commandment is the sole foundation of capitalism. No wonder Karl Marx was dead set against it. He was wrong, too. The foundations of capitalism – indeed, of freedom of speech and of thought and of property – can hardly be the arbitrary assertion of a ghost or even of a genuine mortal.Of course, Christians won’t give up trying to wed freedom and religion. A case in point is a column, “Ayn Rand and Jesus: Do they teach opposing viewpoints about economy?” on BeliefNet, in which, incredibly, the writer asserts that there can be a moral “overlap between an atheist and a Christian.”

Among other things, there can be overlap between an atheist and a Christ follower in discovering truth.  Jesus would disagree with Ayn Rand that there is any morality outside of God. He might tell her that she hasn’t traced her absolutes back far enough to an objective reality.I would like to have seen Jesus say that to Rand’s face and leave the room in one piece. On the other hand, she was such a formidable and persuasive debater that perhaps Jesus might have wound up an atheist.Religion, she noted, was (and remains) a primitive form of philosophy. In her March 1964 Playboy interview, she said:

Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.By way of illustration, religion can be compared with the stick men children first learn to draw; a fully rational philosophy, absent any form of mysticism and reliance on unsupportable assertions, should then lead them to create the likes of Michelangelo’s “David.” But modern philosophy has so failed men in their search for a “coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values,” that they are doubling back to the primitive form of it because it seems to make more sense than, say, Existentialism or Nihilism or Marxism. One can’t really blame them. Look at what Existentialism has produced in the way of a representation of man: there’s Rodin’s “Walking Man,” and Giacometti’s. Not much of a choice. One can sympathize with them, but not ally oneself with them, except on an ad hoc basis.Faith in the existence of the supernatural, and even in the “extra-rational,” has been a stumbling block all throughout man’s history. And it has proven dangerous. Faith in a supernatural giver of laws has become faith in a statist and totalitarian system that promises paradise on earth. But it can only attempt to deliver that paradise by employing faith’s necessary partner: force. And, as Rand so well put it:

I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible….And more: no man or mystical elite can hold a whole society subjugated to their arbitrary assertions, edicts and whims, without the use of force. Anyone who resorts to the formula: “It’s so, because I say so,” will have to reach for a gun, sooner or later.

No, there is no “overlapping” possible between reason and faith. Any attempt at it will result in the triumph of faith, as exemplified in the porous, virtually tongue-in-cheek rationalizations one can read on BeliefNet, which is no defense of freedom at all. Faith can give one the illusory comfort of a comprehensible universe – or, more often than not, lead to the horrors in history and those taking place in our own time.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is Not a Scientific Organization But a Political Lobbying Group

Jan 5, 2014 | Sci-Tech

John McLean, author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report elaborates on how a Lack of accountability clouding the climate change debate.He explains how the "world's so-called authority on climate change engages in exaggerated science and has become a political tool." 

The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] charter from the outset has been ''to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation''.The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific - any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change. IPCC assessment reports claim that the human influence is significant but look closely and we find the claims are based on the output of climate models that the IPCC admits are seriously flawed, that the IPCC often asserts a level of certainty that the data cannot sustain and that as ''Climategate'' showed us, a clique of scientists has in the past sought to control the material cited by these reports.What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives.If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are - exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics - this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC's charter and the political interference.Foremost among those who imply that the IPCC has a wider remit than it does is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At its inaugural meeting in 1992 the UNFCCC declared that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 were causing significant and dangerous climate change. This statement had no factual basis. [...]The UNFCCC's deceit continues via its annual conferences that try to pressure countries into reducing carbon dioxide emissions despite the absence of any clear evidence that warrants such action.

He then goes on how various government bodies (i.e., Department of Climate Change the now-privatised Climate Commission), environmental "green" organisations (Greenpeace and WWF), sustainable energy industry, and scientists  (whose "income and reputation rest on the IPCC's position") have vested interests to endorse and "push the IPCC view, implying it's the ultimate authority on climate matters."

The reality is that the IPCC is in effect little more than a UN-sponsored lobby group, created specifically to investigate and push the ''man-made warming'' line. With no similar organisations to examine other potential causes of climate change, it's only the IPCC voice that is heard. But the IPCC's voice isn't heard in context and with all the necessary caveats; it's distorted via the UNFCCC and others who imply that the IPCC is the sole scientific authority on climate matters.Of course those with vested interest support it, which include governments, politicians, government bodies, ''green'' groups and many scientists. Ultimately it's the unquestioning media, or perhaps a media unwilling to admit that the UN and its agencies might be dishonest or wrong, that misleads the public into believing the IPCC is something it's not.

Read the full article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz2pZDoQ0f5

Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

Subscribed. Check your email box for confirmation.

Pin It on Pinterest