Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Why do we import certain things instead of make it ourselves?

Walter Williams has written a wonderful article on exporting Jobs  in comparison to importing certain goods like Cocoa. The interesting thing is that his example does not just apply to people losing jobs to overseas country, but also applies to jobs that are loss do to better competitors in the U.S. that create jobs for their companies, but cause people to lose jobs in other companies. The economy is always balancing itself out to improve the living standard of everyone as long as we have a free market. If not the benefits of division of labor would be crushed by government rewarding their friends while punishing their enemies. Click below to read Walter's article:

Trade Deficits and Exporting Jobs: Why Trade At All? by Walter Williams -- Capitalism Magazine

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Pentagon taking a page from the government of V for Vendetta?

If ever there was a sign that we are headed towards Fascism. The pentagon starting a News Correction Unit? Let's say it together- "political censorship". Yes, it appears that is on the horizon coming to a town or blog near you. See the link below for more info:

Slashdot | Pentagon Reveals News Correction Unit

powered by performancing firefox

Saturday, October 28, 2006

It's time to Cash in on the River

The flop has been laid out, but will we cash in on the river. DownsizeDC has found another great way to increase the minute men and women of liberty.  If you know how popular Texas Hold'em is around the world, then you need to read about how this game can help us grow the DownsizeDC community and push forward the Read the Bills Act.  Click the link below for more info: Blog | Opportunity knocks for the Read the Bills Act

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Technorati Tags: , , ,

powered by performancing firefox

Friday, July 07, 2006

The Ultimate Fight Championship

Don't forget this Saturday  July 8th

This will be showing on pay per view and can be seen also on UFC on Demand for the replay.  Sparks are going to fly on this one!

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Saturday, June 03, 2006

Free Markets Can Even Change Minds

The American Spectator has a nice article talking with CEO of Whole Foods
Market John Mackey. John started off believing that business was a
necessary evil and ended up seeing the benefits of the free market
through opening a small grocery store. He also makes a great point
regarding the branding of Individual rights and free markets. His point
is that we have not been branding our product very well dealing with
side issues. As Harry Browne has often said, we need to show them how
Liberty improves every one's lives and that it is just and moral. Ayn
Rand also showed that primarily it is our culture that must be focused
on first and not politics. As long as people believe that Capitalism
and Individual Liberty are evil, how many people will accept it.  Read
the entire article below:

Freedom's Whole Foods

Technorati Tags: , ,

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Urgent Action Item

The has posted a very important message regarding preventing Congress from regulating grass roots organizations see urgent action item.

Media alert: Jim Babka will be on "The Tony Macrini Show". See info below:

Location: Norfolk, VA

Date: Thursday June 1, 2006


7:30 AM Eastern

6:30 AM Central

5:30 AM Mountain

4:30 AM Pacific

Station: 790 AM WNIS

Host: Tony Macrini

Show: The Tony Macrini Show

Topic: The Read the Bills Act

Guest: Jim Babka, President,

Internet: Log on to

Click on the headset labeled "Listen Live" in the left-hand column. Winamp required.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Sunday, May 14, 2006

Hunger Insurance?

The Hunger insurance article is an  excellent thought game by Joseph Bast. He shows
you the parallels between if we adopted Hunger insurance and the
current Health Insurance we have. Another solution not mentioned in
this article is getting government completely out of the Medical
industry.  The high cost of Health care is also due to government
licensing laws, and FDA laws. Though that would be a subject for an
article of its own. The article is below:

What Hunger Insurance Could Teach Us About Health Insurance | The Foundation for Economic Education: The Freeman, Ideas on Liberty

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Getting Corn-holed at the gas pump

Many people are unaware of the down falls of ethanol. Here is an article about the high cost of ethanol.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Monday, May 08, 2006

Immigration: A much needed trip down memory lane

There is a lot one can learn from history when one is guided to essential facts.

Here is a great article on Immigration:

U.S. Immigration Debate Is a Road Well Traveled

Technorati Tags: , ,

Price Gouging and Consumer Gasoline schemes

Every time the price of gasoline goes up, emails start circulating
about how we should have a day with out buying gasoline. Another email
suggests that we avoid the big two oil companies Exxon and Mobil and
buy from their competitors. The going with out gas scheme does not
address the many other factors for the rise in gasoline prices. On the
other hand, the using the competitor scheme does not address the demand
issue. If the competing companies' demand increases due to business
taken away from Exxon and Mobil, but the supply does not increase, this
results in higher gasoline price at the competitor that you have chosen
to buy gas from. Exxon and Mobil at this point can keep their price the
same and it would be as savings compared to the higher gas price of
their competitors or they can charge the same high price that the
competitor's gas has risen to.  When it comes to gasoline, we tend to
react with our emotions instead of our intellect.  If we study Austrian
economics, we find that their can be many reasons for the rise in price
and that one of the main solutions is to increase the supply of oil. 
George Reisman has put up an excellent article about Price gouging and
the true reasons for the rise in gasoline price. See his article below:

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: “Price Gouging”: Setting the Record Straight

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Will the real friends of workers (i.e. wage earners) please stand up, please stand up

  George Reisman has come out with a great article showing the true
friends of workers (i.e. wage earners).  It is a bit technical at
times, however you can easily figure out the full meaning by reading
it in its entirety.  When he talks about money wages, he  is
referring to an inflated wage. Which may come from either inflation  directly, or
from another artificial raise like force ( i.e. Unions or
Government).  When wages raise artificially, the cost of production
goes up and so does the cost of living. Real wage is mainly dealing
with actual raise in purchasing power. When money wages go up, you are
only able to buy the same amount of things or less, because the cost of
living has gone up accordingly. However, when the cost of living goes
down, due to increased production, your purchasing power increases
even though your monetary wage amount has not gone up.  It is an
interesting article and I would challenge everyone to read it. It sheds light on a
view that most people do not think about. One of these days I will have
to write an article regarding this topic in more layman's terms. For
now enjoy Reisman's article below:

George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture: The Real Friends and Enemies of Wage Earners: An Intellectual Challenge to the Left

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Small Government Talk show update!

is helping people achieve a smaller government and regaining our Individual Liberties. You can hear and talk to Downsize DC President Jim Babka on the radio today. The show is called THE DOWNSIZE DC CONFERENCE CALL

Today's topic/s: Immigration

You can hear the show at
Click on Listen Live and choose one of the first two channels to get
the free feed. You can also call-in to talk to Jim on the air at

The show is broadcast live at ...
Eastern: 5pm - 6pm
Central: 4pm - 5pm
Mountain: 3pm - 4pm
Pacific: 2pm - 3pm
Alaska: 1pm - 2pm
Hawaii: Noon - 1pm

Technorati Tags: ,

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Just a reminder for Mixed Martials Fans

Just a reminder: Ultimate Fight Night and the 3rd season of Ultimate Fighter begins tonight on SpikeTV. Check out both websites: UFC and SpikeTV

Technorati Tags: , ,

New Fossil: evolution evidence contiues to build

Another transitional fossil has been found showing the transition from fish to land animal. Read the whole article here:

Technorati Tags: , ,

Congress is trying to stack the deck!

Reposted from:

It appears that Congress is trying to take your voice out of Washington. They like to tax us, but they do not like to represent us. Here is an excerpt from the Blog:


If H.R. 4694 passes into law . . .

  • You won't be able to use your own money to support or oppose federal candidates.
  • Taxes will fund all federal campaigns, with winners getting more money, and losers less.
  • To get full funding third parties and independents will have to collect signatures equal to 20% of the votes cast in the last election, but paid petitioners will be outlawed!
  • It's well-established that challengers must outspend incumbents to unseat them. This law would make it impossible for any challenger to outspend any incumbent.
  • Your tax money will be used to fund candidates you oppose.
  • Candidates unwilling to take government funds will be prohbited from spending any money at all.
  • It will be illegal for citizens' groups to spend money discussing federal campaigns.

This bill would be the absolute end of free elections in America.

To send Congress a message opposing H.R. 4694 click here.


To meet our April media goals we need more media contacts. If you provide contacts for radio talk shows in your community we'll make the calls to get on the air where you live. It's easy. Click here to find out what to do.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, March 30, 2006

"Online Freedom of Speech Act" Update

Here is an update from The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has issued its court-ordered regulations covering political expression on the Internet. Individuals have been largely exempted from the burdens of the campaign finance regulations. So far so good. But the Incumbent Protection Gang won't be satisfied. They'll almost certainly file suit claiming the FEC has not complied with the original court order. Meanwhile . . .

The House leadership has withdrawn the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" once again on the grounds that it is no longer needed. This is a mistake. If they would go ahead and pass this bill the whole matter would be settled. Otherwise, the entire issue is going back to the courts, which have already ruled that Congress originally intended for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to apply fully to the Internet. Only Congress can inform the courts differently by passing the "Online Freedom of Speech Act."

Here's the bottom line: The only reason the FEC went easy on the Internet was because of public pressure. Remember, the original Internet regulations they drafted were harsh, not easy. Public pressure makes a difference! So now we need to apply pressure on Congress to go ahead and pass the "Online Freedom of Speech Act." You can do so here:
Contact Congress

Plus, if you reside in the districts of the House leaders, Hastert and Boehner, please call them and ask them to bring the "Online Freedom of Speech Act" to a vote. Our system will provide you with their phone numbers after you send them your electronic message.

This is an issue where public pressure has worked, and it can continue to work if we continue to apply it.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Dumbing our kids down by banning sugar from the cupboard

It's that time of year again.You know which one I'm talking about. Children everywhere are growing obese in alarming numbers. What are we to do? Should government come up with an emergency plan. I can hear it now. Threat level is cupcake alert. Government stepping in is a bad idea in itself and is better left a subject for another article. Preventing kids from having sweets and junk food all together is the solution that has been catching my eye of recent. A war on junk food where the first casualty will be our kids' minds.

When we hide all the snacks or prevent our kids from having any sugary snacks at all, we take away our children's opportunity to use their mind.
Self-responsibility is born out of making decisions. A child must
learn the fundamental principles of making a good decision in order
to survive and prosper in life. It is our job to guide and educate
our children in those principles. This would require that we give
them as many opportunities to make decisions as possible.

As parents, we default on our responsibilities when we do not take every
opportunity to help our kid think for themselves. Banning sweets from
the cupboard and school vending machines is an example of dropping
the parent's responsibility ball. We have to give facts to why we are
preventing them from doing something. Often is the case, that the
parents have not checked the facts themselves and can not back up
their decision. If we do not give an explanation when we prevent the
child from doing something, this leaves the child with two
decisions. Do I continue to ask questions so that I can figure out
why my parent has made that decision, or do I just accept my
parent's authority and let them do the thinking for me. No
matter what we do , the child always has one basic choice. This
is to think for themselves and try to figure out the answers to their
questions or to submit to the parents answer of "Do it because I
say so!" A child that submits to his parents, when they
have not given him real answers, begins to think for themselves
less and less. The child grows to be dependent on his parents for
guidance instead of learning to think for himself. As an adult,
he is unsure of himself and has low self-esteem. When he runs into a
situation that his parents did not give an answer to, he is totally
lost and immobilized. Furthermore, the commands of the parents may
have been irrational. So he would follow irrational guidance in a
situation that could be detrimental in his life. Let's say that his
parents are racist and he never questions their views. In adult life
he may act out on that racism and beat someone up or seriously get
hurt while attacking someone.

Our children will prosper the more we give them the responsibility to think.
The principles we need to guide them on is using Reason and Logic. They
need to keep things in context by checking all the facts in the
situation. Then they need to determine based on those facts, what
actions and choices would be best in that given situation. This is
why we need to sit down with them and teach them the
facts that too much sweets can make them overweight, have cavities,
and bad health. However, in teaching them the facts, they would also
learn that balancing their meal would allow them to have sweets,
without leading to the destructive outcomes of over eating those
sugary snacks. This process of learning to check the facts of a
situation, and evaluate the costs and benefits of each decision, will
give them tools to combat any situation that life throws at them. I
say let them eat sweets, but make sure you are taking the parent's
responsibility to show them how to apply their minds to the world
around them.

esbn 4379906032135512614 Rate content:

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Monday, March 13, 2006

"Freedom Jacked"! Congress is trying to pass another Abramoff Deal

Did you hear about the new lobbying scandal? It is an "Abramoff Deal". What is an Abramoff Deal you may ask? It is when a person or group of individuals try to gain an advantage by playing both sides. Similar to a Faustian deal, they both come back to bite you in the behind. However, an Abramoff Deal is worse. In a Faustian deal, you at least know that you have a good chance of the screws being put to you. Yet with a Abramoff Deal, they will support you and your adversary at the same time. This way they gain more money or advantages from the escalating conflict between you both.

Congress is trying to pass the new Abramoff Deal as they normally like to do it. They present their bill with a name that everyone can like or would find hard to oppose. For example, the "Patriot Act" and the "Real ID ACT" both sound like something we should favor. However, if Congress would only READ THE BILLS they pass, we would cut down on some of the Individual Rights being lost and get a chance to DownsizeDC. Now, Congress has a new bill "The Lobbying Reform Act", which will make grass roots activism more difficult and costly to accomplish. It does this by requiring grassroots groups to fill out all kinds of paper work on its members and adds layers of regulation. While Congress can continue jet setting with high powered lobbyist to beautiful vacation spots rather than hear the voices of the people they represent. This puts us under scrutiny instead of the politicians.

Instead of the politicians and government power becoming more limited, it cuts out the grass roots competition. A government created monopoly helps no one except government and it's friends. As if this were not bad enough, a very important bill for individual rights (The Online Freedom of Speech Act) has been lumped together with the "The Lobbying Reform Act". The Online Freedom of Speech Act would protect our freedom of press and apply it to individuals as it should be. This way blogs and websites would rightfully enjoy the same protections as the mainstream media. The Online Freedom of Speech Act has no reason to be combined with another bill and should be voted on its own. Here Lays the Abramoff Deal, by supporting the good bill, the bad bill is passed. The bad bill will make the good bill null and void. If the The Lobbying Reform Act bill is shot down, so will the Online Freedom of Speech Act bill. Congress can now say, they supported both lobbying reform and freedom of speech or its opposition. While at the same time, they would get exactly what they wanted all along. Which is to cut out their competition and silence their critics. This allows them to continue to grow their governmental power. Congress would be playing both sides to get what they wanted.

Is this Abramoff Deal signed, sealed, and delivered? The answer is not yet. Groups like are making it easier for our representatives to hear the full force of our voices in unison for a return to a constitutionally limited government.

esbn 63233-060314-549462-33 Rate content:

Technorati Tags: , ,

Tired of big government?

Ever feel like your paycheck, your life, and your Individual Rights are
shrinking everyday? While the size of government continues to grow
bigger everyday. There is only one group I know that has made it very
easy to voice your opinion about downsizing the government. That's
right it's

Co-founder and board member of, Jim Babka will be on the Alex Jones show for an hour tomorrow. This is a big show
with a big audience, broadcast in 50 cities. You can listen on the
Internet. Go to and click on "Listen Live." Then click on Channel 1 or 2 to get the free feed.


1:00 PM Eastern
Noon Central
11:00 AM Mountain
10:00 AM Pacific
Recorded RE-PLAY available on-line at 10:00 PM Eastern

Stations by State:

Shortwave: WWCR 9.475

Prattville/Montgomery WIQR - 1410 AM


Buena Vista KDMN - 1450 AM
Colorado Springs KWYD - 1580 AM
Denver KLMO - 1060 AM
Vail KSKE - 610 AM


Bridgeport WICC - 600 AM


Chattahoochee WTCL - 1580 AM
Pensacola WVTJ - 610 AM
Pensacola WASG - 550 AM
Sarasota WIBQ - 1220 AM


Havana WDUK - 99.3 FM
Murphysborough WINI - 1420 AM


Estherville KILR - 1070 AM
Maquoketa KMAQ - 1320 AM
Mt. Pleasant KILJ - 1130 AM
Oskaloosa KBOE - 104.9 FM
Oskaloosa KBOE - 740 AM


New Orleans WTIX - 690 AM


Denton WKDI - 840 AM


Boston WBPS - 890 AM


Fulton KFAL - 900 AM
Liberty KCXL - 1140 AM
Mountain Grove KELE - 1360 AM
Salem KSMO - 1340 AM
Springfield KWTO - 560 AM
Thayer KALM - 1290 AM


Glendive KXGN - 1400 AM
North Platte KOOQ


Ainsworth KBRB - 92.7 FM
Ainsworth KBRB - 1400 AM
North Platte KODY - 1240 AM
North Platte KOOQ - 1410 AM


Brockport WMJQ - 105.5 FM
Brockport WASB - 1590 AM
Canandaigua WRSB - 1310 AM


Canton WCER - 900 AM
Uhrichsville WBTC - 1490 AM


Greenville WALE - 990 AM


Anderson WAIM - 1230 AM


Alcoa WBCR - 1470 AM


Austin KWNX - 1260 AM


Ladysmith WLDY - 1340 AM

Brockport WASB - 1590 AM
Canandaigua WRSB - 1310 AM


Canton WCER - 900 AM
Uhrichsville WBTC - 1490 AM


Greenville WALE - 990 AM


Anderson WAIM - 1230 AM


Alcoa WBCR - 1470 AM


Austin KWNX - 1260 AM


Ladysmith WLDY - 1340 AM

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Thursday, March 09, 2006

The Soul of Science Vs. the Ghost of Intelligent Design

The most frustrating thing about the
Evolution vs. Intelligent design debate is the voluminous research
both sides have done. How can either side condense that information
into a paragraph or sound bite in order to persuade the other side.
When it comes down to it, the essential driving force of both groups
is philosophy. It deals with two main branches of philosophy,
epistemology and metaphysics. Epistemology deals with the theory of
knowledge. In other words, how do we gain knowledge and how do we
know it is true. Metaphysics tells us what kind of universe we live
in. Your answers to these questions will determine the quality of
your science and whether something should be considered science at

Starting with metaphysics, do we view the
universe as something that has always existed, with everything having
a set identity and nature. This would entail that based on each thing
having a set nature, set consequences would occur by different things
interacting with each other. In other words, cause and effect is the
expression of the set nature of things applied to action. Which in
discovering the set nature of things and observing the cause and
effect of their identities in action, allows us to find universal
principles that apply to many things besides the ones we are
observing. For example, water boils when the right amount of heat is
applied. On the other hand, do we view the universe as something a
all powerful being created. Things did not always exist only the
powerful being was eternal. This universe would not have set
identities and natures. It would have the natures that the powerful
being or beings (god or gods) would give it. If the nature of
something is created by a god, it can be changed by that god. So a
car could be turned into a living human being if a god decides to. A
house is a lion if god wishes it so. Observe the different views of
life those two different ideas create. The universe that
always existed(UAE) suggests that studying every
thing's specific natures and their interactions with each other will
lead to an ever growing knowledge that uses past knowledge as a
stepping stone to reach new heights. A universe that was
created(UWC) suggest that we can never really know the
truth about anything because god can change the nature and identity
of something, by simply wishing it so.

This lays down the foundation of epistemology. In a
Universe that always existed, knowledge is attainable. It is
derived from the facts we observe, as well as the abstractions we
make that can be traced back to the basic things we observe in the
universe. Like links in a chain connected to an anchor, so must our
abstract ideas link back to the information we gain from our senses.
For in this type of universe, we have a specific nature. Our hearts
pump blood, lungs take in air, and our senses receive information
about the world out side our body. If we accept that our senses are
the base of knowledge, then it is a simple answer to the question:
“how do we find truth”? A good place to start is Reason, our
faculty that allows us to identify and tell the differences between
the information we get from our senses would give us the first clue.
If knowledge is a matter of identifying and differentiating between
things that we discover, then truth is a matter of integrating all
the knowledge we gain in a non-contradicting way. Think of it like
putting a big puzzle together. Ideas that do not link back to the
facts of existence would be like puzzle pieces from another puzzle.
They would not fit. We will not have an accurate picture if we try to
smash the pieces together in order for them to fit.

A Universe that was Created would give us a world in which we
could not trust our senses. In the UWC all things can be its opposite
at the whim of an all powerful creator. If the puzzle pieces did not
fit, our faith and prayer could possible persuade the creator to
transform the pieces so that they would fit. The truth would be
what ever the creator told you it is. Your senses could not be
trusted. The only thing that can be trusted is faith in the creator's
word. You guessed it, gaining knowledge only from the creator is
where it leads us. Since there is no objective way to determine the
truth, special people with the gift to communicate with the creator
would be the ones to give us knowledge.

Now for the fun part, science implies a philosophy that
recognizes a Universe that always existed. Hence, why the scientific
method relies on experimentation to gain information about the
natures of what exists. Using logic, scientist weed out any ideas
that contradict facts that have been verified by many fields and many
experiments. Intelligent design's major arguments filter down to the
main idea that if things that exist are very complex, then a creator
must have made them. They do not offer evidence for a creator's
existence. Instead they claim that if we do not have all the answers
to every aspect of evolution, all at once then a creator is the only
possible answer for the complexity we see around us. As if humans
gain knowledge automatically and all at once. Here we see the UWC
view of knowledge. Humans gaining knowledge like osmosis, rather than
through discovery and putting each part of the puzzle together to see
the full picture.

The idea that complexity equals a creator and many variations of
that idea spawned from Rev. William Paley. Paley's analogy was that
if you found a pocket watch on the ground, that it was unfathomable
to think that it came to being naturally, but would have needed a
creator because of it's intricate workings. Some people call this
the Watchmaker idea. Richard Dawkins a very knowledgeable person on
evolution, enjoyed this analogy so much he wrote a book called the
which shows that the complexity we see around us
was created by the blind forces of physics. In this book, he talks
about how he created a
computer program
to show the cumulative effect of small changes
through time. The program starts with a parent biomorph and shows
what the possible offspring would like like by varying the genes
slightly. Then you would select a child that looked most like a
design you want and it would become the parent instead. Then the
process is repeated by showing you the new offspring. In the end you
will have a complex design if you continue to select the more complex
design to be the new parent. Some may say that we take on the role of
creator in this biomorph software. However this misses the point, the
real role that we are actually playing in this computer game is
nature, selecting who survives long enough to reproduce. Whether they
survive because of better physically advantages, environment, or
mating habits. The point is they lived long enough to reproduce and
pass on their genes. The game just shows us that complex things can
be created by the different gene combinations guided by the blind
hand of physics.

On another note, we often forget that our ideas do not become
true just because we falsify some one else's ideas or find some error
with some of their ideas. There are Intelligent design advocates that
offer no proof of the existence of a creator. A key component of
science is falsifiability. It is not a matter of just falsifying
other people's ideas, but our own. For something to be proved true,
in other words verified, it has to be able to be falsified. Here's
the deep thought of the day, what evidence would you accept, that
what you believe isn't true. It is often heard, that we can not prove
that an all mighty creator doesn't exist. I must ask again,"
What evidence would you accept that their isn't an all powerful
creator." The only answer I have ever received to this question
is a reversion back to the supernatural or faith. For example, some
one told me they would need to take a time machine and go back to the
beginning and witness their was no creator. This assumes that time
travel adheres to the facts of existence. Which it does not, and is
another story for another time. An alternative way to look at this
question is court cases. Anyone can claim a person guilty. However,
that person is not guilty until proven innocent. The one making the
claim must provide some evidence of guilt before you can prove that
claim wrong. Hence the rule of law, the accused is innocent until
proven guilty. It is like someone claiming that Johnny is an arsonist
and wants us to prove that he is not an arsonist. There would be no
context of proof to offer if the person making the claim never gave
any evidence to their claim. If the accuser stated that they saw
Johnny at the scene of the crime before the house burned down, then
we would have to prove that he was somewhere else or doing something
legitimate at the scene of the crime. On the other hand, if the
accuser says Johnny did it with out proof to back up their claim,
then we could spend eons finding evidence that he did not do it. Yet
all this evidence may not make a difference if we do not know what
proof the accuser has against Johnny. That is why another important
concept is that the burden of proof is the responsibility of the
accuser. This is the same situation when we take a look at
creationism and its offspring Intelligent Design. The accuser says
that you can not prove that a all powerful creator exists or that the
things in the universe are to complex so they must have been made by
a creator. In the first part we have to ask what evidence has the
accuser provided that a creator exists. In the second part, it sounds
like they are offering evidence by saying that complexity points to a
creator. However, this is not a new idea. Before there was science,
when we did not understand something, our claim or idea was that god
must be doing or creating it. For example, lightning was claimed to
be god's doing. This was the catch all phrase for “I don't know”.
Intelligent Design advocates can not fathom any other possible answer
for complexity in the world that is supported by the facts provided
by our senses. So they say, “God must be doing it”. If they do
not provide evidence, then their claim is arbitrary. It is an idea
separated from the facts of existence.

The supernatural or faith is not science and neither is its
offspring Intelligent Design. Advocates of Intelligent design (ID)
state that they provide a theory like every other scientist. However,
a theory suggests that some evidence exists, but not enough to be
conclusive. There are many things that may falsify their theory. ID
scientists either have no evidence or theories that flat out are in
no way connected to the facts of existence. We called that arbitrary
claims in the old days. However, when it comes to the theory of
evolution, most scientists acknowledge the fact that evolution
occurred in the past, present, and will occur in the future. This is
not what is at question. There is plenty of evidence of evolution
through out many fields of science and growing. The true theory in
dispute is by what process is evolution happening. Natural Selection
is a big factor, but not the only one that causes evolution.

We do not teach voodoo or snake oil treatments along side doctors
that teach medicine to cure your ailments. Let's not start teaching
Intelligent design along side biology. Allowing ideas that have not
the sliver of evidence into our training of knowledge is like letting
someone one dump a box of puzzle pieces that do not belong with the
puzzle you are working on. It prevents you from seeing the big
picture sooner and in some cases prevent you from ever completing the
puzzle until you realize that those foreign pieces do not belong and
need to be removed.

Rate content:

esbn 54512-060308-462258-25

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Sunday, February 26, 2006

The Low-Fat Religion

I always find it interesting how we have always bought into the low-fat craze. Most of us have never really done the research ourselves because it requires more time and effort. I myself recommend that once you get your carbs back in line, and you are at your ideal weight, that a true balance would be 40% carbs, 30% protein, and 30% fats. Here's an interesting article on how low fat diets can be dangerous or deadly.

Anthony Colpo - Why the Low-Fat Diet is Stupid and Potentially Dangerous

Technorati Tags: , ,

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Morality, Its not just for Religions

The other day in talking with two different friends, they each brought up quotes on morality.

"Do not be too moral. You may cheat yourself out of much life. Aim above morality. Be not simply good; be good for something." - Henry David Thoreau


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"- Gandhi
We often hear that we must be more moral, our society is losing its morals, and we are losing our morals because we are losing faith. Through out my life different people would throw around the term morality. Yet interestingly, the impression I received was that they did not know specifically what it meant. The usual definition or explanation was that it meant being good. When we deal with morality, we are dealing with ethics and values. Good is a value or in other words a measurement of something. In order to measure something, you need a standard of value or measurement. For example, a ruler's standard of measurement is one inch. What is the standard of value for good or morality? The standard varies depending on your philosophy and ethics. Many people hold this standard subconsciously. However, it can be quite eye opening to understand what your standard happens to be. Holding this standard consciously allows you to measure whether an action or thing helps you to accomplish or maintain your standard (which would also be your ultimate value) or does it prevent you from accomplishing or maintaining your ultimate value. I agree with Ayn Rand's observation, that only living creatures can have values. Life requires self-sustaining action. A cup does not have to take any action to remain in existence. However to maintain life, certain actions are needed. An example would be searching for food or building shelter from the elements. Animals, unlike humans, automatically take actions to maintain their life if the are not stopped by an outside force. Humans, must choose the actions needed to maintain their lives. However, since those actions are not automatic, we need to discover which actions maintain our lives or destroy our lives. Hence, the need for ethics/morality.

Let us look at the first quote. Henry is talking about the morality of most religions. That standard of value is not life, but what god commands you to do. Think of the consequences of god as your standard of value. His commandment may be contradictory of what is required to maintain and enhance your life. Furthermore, it takes away your personal responsibility to identify the facts of existence and to act accordingly. Instead, it promotes obeying authority. I have to think that Thoreau was basically saying that you have put aside the morality with god as a standard and for time to time and use Rational Self-interest the morality with life as the stand. I say one promotes life and the other promotes normally the after-life.

The quote from Gandhi, I have to agree with. I just do not agree in the way he intended. How we treat animals does show our moral progress as a society. If we elevate animals to be equals or above humankind, then we are not progressing because human life is not our standard of value. We have to remember that in the Hindu culture god is in every animal. This is the reason for sacred cows. In this case, it is not the animals that are the standard of value, but their god.

For many people being moral is about following god's authority, for me I say try Rational Self-interest, the other white meat. It will promote and enhance your life.

Rate content: esbn ESBN 74935-060226-666481-45

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Abortion is a Property Rights issue

A wonderful little piece by Humble
B Wonderful

has lead me to ponder the abortion
issue again. Essentially her position is that abortion is a property
rights issue and provides a wonderful thought exercise on her blog in
regards to that position. I agree with her points. Further more I
agree with the Objectivist
that abortion is Pro-life and it is a property rights issue.
The right to property or ownership is the freedom to use and dispose
of one's property as you see fit. The first thing one owns as a
separate individual being is one's body. Therefore, the right to
property in this case is the right to use and/or dispose of ones body
as you see fit. A government that states or is given the power to
control what goes in or what goes out of your body, implies they have
a right to the use/ or dispose of your body. Government is only
a group of individuals. So lets follow this reasoning to its
conclusion. A group of individuals that controls the use of /or
dispose of your body implies that you are the property of this group
or government. This is just plain slavery. The rights of a fetus
would be the right to slavery. That's just not right at all.

Let us make another observation, that a fetus is not a human being. It
is a potential human being. For example, a peach seed can become a
peach tree. A peach seed is a potential peach tree or in other
words ungrown tree. However, a peach seed is not the same as a peach
tree. The peach tree can feed you now if it is the right season and a
peach seed by itself can not feed you any season until it becomes an
actual peach tree. Now, potentials have value and this explains the emotional attachment
to a fetus. If there is a chance or a potential to gain something in
life that you value and if that potential opportunity has ended, most of us would be
sad. The greater the value the more that we would be sad. Our
feelings however do not change that a women's body is her
The fetus can live off of it biologically as long as it
has the
permission of the mother.
may ask why we many times refer to the fetus as child or baby if it is not an actual being. If you think
about it, how many times have we talked about a potential as if it
were an actual already. You drive by the home that you are
going to buy and say "there is my home" instead of
saying "there is my future home and it is owned by the Jones
right now". We use present terms to show how much we value the potential future.

A final thought on property rights, is that all parts of the body
feel pain and have reactions. Body parts also can not survive with
out being attached to a person's body or some machine to keep it
alive. A fetus until born is a body part. It depends on the
mother's body to survive. Sure, there are means to keep fetuses of a
certain age alive outside the body and once they are removed from the
body they should have full rights because they are no longer part of
the mother's body. Yet, while they are a part of the mother's body,
if the mother decides she no longer gives the fetus permission to
stay in her body the fetus most be removed in the safest way for the
mother. This may be a C-section or could be an abortion. This is up
to the mother and her doctor's expert opinion.
Now, I know some
will say that fetuses can laugh, cry, avoid light sources and etc.
However, Studies into Fetal Brain & Cognitive Development show
that these are reactions caused by the brain stem not the cognitive
area which would be the fore brain. This brings us back to
a fetus being a potential being not an actual being. A fetus is more like a body part of the mother and abortion is an extension of the right of
property that the mother holds over her own body. The fetus does not gain
these rights until it is an actual being not a part of the mother. Abortion is pro-life. It is pro the mother's life the
only actual being in this situation and not the potential human

Rate content:
esbn ESBN 80022-060226-717354-50

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Another state of the union

Well we had another ho hum state of the union again. The Cato Institute had an interesting lesson on the history of state of the unions.

Speech from the Throne

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Have respect for your own species. Animal testing is ok!

I had to post this because the idea of animal rights is an assault on human being's real rights, values and morals. We need to stop this human-hatred. I think it expresses
low self-esteem. To value animals on the same level as a human is lack
of value for being a human. Animals live by the law of the jungle.
Which is to kill or be killed. However, some humans believe that we
should treat them like humans. Obviously holding humans to a double
standard. Your not going to find a hungry mountain lion saying, " dude
you have rights so I am not going to eat you." Here is one test I like
to ask," If your child had a disease that the cure would be found by
experimenting on an animal, would you save your child or the animal."
If you said the animal instead of your own child, then you probably do
not deserve to be human. You might as well walk to your nearest jungle
and live with out the advancements of REASON and hope that a
brother animal does not eat you.

Side Note: It was brought to my attention that my original post may have not been as clear as intended. Onemain point that was br ought up was my thoughts on torture of animals for no reason and whether I was looking at compassion as part of the equation. There is a common saying that the difference between humans and animals is that we have compassion. So let me add some clarification to those points. I also agree that animals should not be tortured for no reason. If the experimentation is to further human knowledge and by furthering knowledge it in turn saves human lives and increases human longevity then it is a moral act. Furthermore, My post had two main themes. The first one is that the essential difference between humans and animals is the abilty to reason. In other words, our conceptual faculty. A human's basic means of survival is reason. It allows him to discover what is posinous or nonposinous, how to extend his life through production, and ect. If reason is our basic means to survival, it is right for us to quest for knowledge, including animal testing ( Not animal torture by sadistic people). The second theme is actually in regards to compassion. My compassion is to Humans first and animals second. If medical testing saves human lives, extends their lives, or makes their lives more enjoyable, then it is a moral act and compassion for our fellow Human Beings leads us to continue animal testing.

Some Interesting articles are Below:

  • "Animal Rights" Movement's Cruelty to Humans

  • The Terror of "Animal Rights

  • The Conference for Human Extermination

  • Technorati Tags: , , ,