Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Sunday, 18 February 2018

Podesta is WRONG on CO2 and Population Growth

Filed under: Politics, Science — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 4:56 AM (04:56)

On 23 January 2018, the Washington Post ran a rather silly op-ed piece by John Podesta and Timothy E. Wirth titled Women’s rights issues are climate change issues.

Just when you think that the willful insanity of “intersectionality”[1] hasn’t gone far enough, something like this comes along.

In that article, they made the following assertion —

Recent research has reinforced the understanding of the benefits of helping families plan the timing, spacing and number of their children. Brown University researchers showed that slowing population growth can enhance economic outcomes and reduce emissions simultaneously.

To summarize the article, Podesta and Wirth say that slowing population growth will stop or slown down climate change, thus leading to better lives for all, and that’s why the dams holding back the rivers of public money must be torn down.

Still, Podesta and Wirth have it backwards — as per capita wealth and standard of living improve, population growth slows down.

This has been known since the 1990s.

If he’s truly concerned about this, I’m sure they’ll be willing to lead the way on reducing the population and controlling carbon dioxide emissions.

In particular, they can volunteer to stop exhaling so much of the carbon dioxide they think of as a “poison.” Both Podesta and Wirth have already done their bit of pissing in the gene pool, so we’ll have to settle for half a loaf here.

In fact, it seems that while carbon dioxide doesn’t seem to be the planet-killing greenhouse gas that the eco-fascists claim it is, it IS responsible for increased plant growth around the world. That’s not just me spouting off the top of my head here, that’s from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)[2] — one of the “go-to” governmental agencies on the climate-change / global warming “issue,” per the eco-fascists themselves.

As for the population “issue,” I’ve already noted that Podesta and Wirth have done their “damage” (I don’t know what their kids are like, so the quotation marks might be unnecessary), but they still, rather hypocritically in my opinion, insist that OTHER PEOPLE’S lives be publicly managed.

See “The Stork, by Nina Haley (embedded below) for an example of this sort of thinking —

Notice how after the stork-dropped bundles land on the ground, there’s an explosion, followed by babies, houses, and SUVs?

Take a closer look at the instances of when there’s multiple storks flying in formation. Don’t they look something like this?

That’s the U.S. Army Air Corps’ 384th Bomb Group en route to their target during World War II.

How about this one?

Didn’t the storks dropping baby bundles in Haley’s video clip look a bit like those B-17s dropping ordnance?

Basically, the most realistic way to describe the mindset of the population limiters and regulators is the term antihumanist[3] — “humans are basically bad, thus they need to be limited and controlled.”

In conclusion, all I need is mailing addresses for Podesta and Wirth. That way, I’ll know where to send the plastic bags, so that they can lead by example on these “issues.”


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. “Intersectionality” — Infogalactic page, Wikipedia page
  2. Reiny, Samson, “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds.” https://nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Earth Science News Team, 26 April 2016. Web. 28 January 2018.

    Hogan, James P., Kicking the Sacred Cow. New York: Baen Books [Simon & Schuster]. 2004. p.265.

  3. Zubrin, Robert, “The Population Control Holocaust,” https://thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust, The New Atlantis, Spring 2012. Web. 29 January 2018

    See also The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (Wikipedia page)

NOTES

  1. H/T Sean Adl-Tabatabai via Joseph L. Roberts

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

“Mine” vs. “Yours”

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:27 AM (00:27)

From what I’ve seen in thirty years of being involved on the public scene, there seem to be two basic mindsets towards life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, money, time, effort, you name it, where politics is concerned.

First is the “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours” way of thinking. This is the dominant mindset amongst libertarians. Some conservatives subscribe to it, as well.

But not the neo-conservatives and social conservatives, who seem to be perfectly OK with government at every level getting bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, just so long as they approve of the ways it gets bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The issues of abortion, same-sex relations, gambling, drugs and prostitution are examples of this.

Or said “conservatives” are concerned with getting “their fair share” of time at the public trough – contracts for the various social-welfare programs, construction contracts, and such.

Which brings me to the other prevailing mindset on the political scene, that of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours in negotiable (and ultimately mine).”

These are the people who get all kinds of pissed off when their money or personal property is damaged or taken without their consent. Yet if yours is similarly taken or damaged, especially when done by governmental edict, well, it’s your job to “suck it up for the common good.” Or “for the children,” “for the Earth,” or whatever.

For example, this picture of someone complaining that her Bernie 2016 sticker was stolen:

Seriously, folks, since when has Bernie Sanders EVER supported the rights of private property owners?

I would assume that anyone supporting his failed presidential bid would be in line with his views of “let’s take from the rich.” Am I out of line by suggesting that?

Another point – despite Bernie’s rather “strident” rhetoric about “soaking the rich,” he didn’t have any problem plunking down 575,000-600,000 for a lakefront dacha in Lake Hero, Vermont.

Does anyone care to guess what will happen to any vagrants who should wander onto the property?

You mean he won’t put them up in the guest bedroom for a few days, til they’re ready to move on?

What do you mean, his protective detail from the Vermont State Police will have said vagrant taken away in handcuffs?

Another instance of this:

Back in January 2013, Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNowNM Executive Director Pat Davis[1] supported “assault weapon” bans of various kinds, and then campaigned for the State of New Mexico to recognize same-sex marriages as legal[2].

So according to Bushee and Davis, my individual, pre-existing right to own and carry weapons isn’t really a right at all, merely a government-granted privilege, revokable upon the whim of a bureaucrat (the “yours” of this instance). At the same time, they insist that the rights they cherish (same-sex marriage — the “mine” here) to be taken as sacrosanct.

Well, America, which mindset do you prefer? Pick one and stick to it, please.


NOTES

  1. Bushee is no longer a City Councilor in Santa Fe, while Davis is currently “representing” District 6 on the Albuquerque City Council. No doubt that Bushee has been replaced with someone equally looney.
  2. Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

    Not that such an ordinance would have actually survived a court challenge, as New Mexico has a pre-emption clause in Article II, Section 6 of the State Constitution:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

    But Bushee had to have her warm fuzzy (and no-charge advertising media coverage) for the moment that she “got something done” and “made a difference,” so she sponsored the ban anyway.

  3. Approximate reading level – 13.4
  4. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 894, 16 October 2016
  5. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Facebook [page / profile] / Google Plus / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Saturday, 11 April 2015

A Question for Judge Malott (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Media, Philosophy, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:00 PM (18:00)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Editorial Page Editor, Albuquerque Journal
Date: Friday, 3 April 2015
Subject: A Question for Judge Malott

In today’s op-ed piece about discrimination, Judge Malott states that as the trial judge in Elane Photography v. Willock[1], he ruled that it’s illegal for people to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation, and that Elaine Hugenin was wrong to refuse service to Vanessa Willock on that basis.

This begs the question of why it was so important for Willock to force herself upon Hugenin, but I digress.

The question then for Judge Malott is this: is it against the law for a gay-owned business to refuse service to straight people simply because they’re straight?

If the answer is “yes,” then the Judge is saying that people should be forced to associate with others that they would prefer not to, and freedom of association goes down the toilet.

If “no,” then the judge is saying that politically-protected segments of society get to lord it over to those deemed unworthy of such protection, and the question isn’t about the offending conduct, but “who” does to “whom.”

I’m having trouble deciding which answer to this is worse. In the end, I’d prefer that individuals be free to associate with others of their own choice, period.

To the LGBT folks — If you want someone to take pictures or video of or bake a cake for your commitment ceremony, why would you force yourself upon those who don’t want your business when some of their competitors will happily do business with you?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Elane Photography v. WillockBing / DuckDuckGo / Google

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.8
  2. As published in the Albuquerque Journal
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress

Copyright © 2015 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Thursday, 21 March 2013

[LPNM] Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNow New Mexico’s Executive Director Pat Davis will tell you that they are all in favor of expanding the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. In reality, they are ultimately hindering the LGBT cause, as opposed to helping it.

“How so?” you might ask. After all, both of them have been rather outspoken in support of same-sex marriage.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, Bushee was quoted (and her hand photographed) as “urging county clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”[1]

And ProgressNow New Mexico joined in yesterday with an email blast and Facebook posting.[2]

Now remember that in 2005, Democrat Attorney General Patsy Madrid filed litigation against same-sex marriage licenses issued by Victoria Dunlap. Those with good memories for the political scene will note that Dunlap was the Republican County Clerk in Sandoval County at the time. After Dunlap left office, Patsy dropped the lawsuit she filed against Dunlap’s actions.

The lesson to be learned from this is the Democrats will treat people of the LGBT persuasion as a political soccer ball, to be kicked around at a whim. Why shouldn’t they, as LGBT people will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat regardless of what Democrats do between elections?

And it should also be noted that both Bushee and Davis regard the rights of others not in their political circle as soccer balls, to be kicked around at their leisure. If not as flies to be swatted.

On the latter, I’m referring to one issue in particular, specifically the individual right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, for the purpose of self-defense.

On 20 December 2012, Bushee said that she would sponsor a ban on civilian possession of “assault weapons” – military-pattern semiautomatic rifles – within the city limits of Santa Fe[3]. Warbling in tune with Bushee, ProgressNow NM has kept up a steady flow of strident, hoplophobic catcalls on behalf of the victim disarmament cause[4].

Consider that since it was founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party has supported the rights of LGBT people to live their lives free from coercion just the same as we libertarians support the rights of conservatives to live free from coercion.

How many conservative-type people in New Mexico really care per se about LGBT people being of the LGBT persuasion? Probably not many. So when I bring up to them the idea that LGBT should be just as free as they are to live without coercion, my case is undermined by Davis, Bushee and their ilk clamoring to infringe upon other, equally-cherished rights. “Why should I care about their rights when they don’t care about mine?” goes the question.

In short, if Bushee and Davis want their cherished freedom to be LGBT to be upheld, it would behoove them to respect the rights of others to own and carry weapons, among other rights.


NOTES

  1. Albuquerque Journal: 20 March 2013 – City Attorney: Same-sex marriage OK
    Santa Fe New Mexican: 19 March 2013 – Santa Fe leaders ask county clerks to honor same-sex marriage
  2. ProgressNow New Mexico – Facebook page post and email blast
  3. Albuquerque Journal: 20 December 2012 – Assault Weapons Ban?, 14 January 2013 – Coss Headlines Santa Fe Gun Control Press Conference
  4. http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488185797897738
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488015187914799
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487840961265555
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487719194611065
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487713881278263
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/526701757382247
    http://progressnownewmexico.pnstate.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=81426.0
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487208071328844
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487207284662256
  5. Original article
  6. Links to this post
  7. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – WordPress / Yahoo!
    2. The Weekly SeditionWordPress / Yahoo!
    3. Duke City Fix

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Feinstein DOES Want to Ban All Guns

Filed under: Philosophy, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:59 AM (03:59)

How many times have we, the advocates of the right to own and carry weapons, heard this from the hoplohpobes and victim-disarming hypocrites:

“We don’t want to ban all guns. All we want are some reasonable controls on guns.”

We’ve been hearing it quite often from all corners of the victim-disarmament crowd – mostly from the useful idiots who carry water for this evil, stupid brand of insanity (“I don’t like guns, therefore no else should have any”), but also from their legislative buddies, the same buddies who often have armed bodyguards in close proximity.

Below is a clip taken from an interview that Senator Dianne Feinstein gave to CBS’ 60 Minutes in 1995. In this clip, the Senator stated that her intention with the 1994 Clinton-era “assault weapon” ban was to require everyone to turn them all in to the federal government:

Feinstein is one of the hypocrites in that she’s had a concealed-weapons permit herself, as well as armed bodyguards from the California Highway Patrol (remember the TV series CHiPs?) assigned to her personally.

What I would like to know is when she’s going to have those CHP officers assigned to her protection detail report to Sacramento for other duties? When is she going to surrender her concealed-weapon permit?

After all, if she were honest and had any integrity, she wouldn’t have any problem rendering herself as defenseless as she wants to render everyone else.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter
    2. Personal blogs – Xanga
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / WordPress

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: