Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Journal: Regarding Hawkins Ultimatum 2

Hawkins made a statement that the fate of humanity hangs on our ability to leave planet earth. He quotes a number of historical events which nearly wiped the human race from the pages of history. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the history of the world understands that the human race as it is will face an event that will wipe out our species once and for all. Or will it? Technically, humanity has survived since the very first moment of life. Every cataclysm, our ancestors have survived. KT extinction, survived; PT extinction; survived. Of course, we weren't in our current form but we did survive or else we wouldnt be here today, right? Who says our current form is our final form?

So I decided to read through the various replies, with my BS meter set to 3 or higher, and all I saw was BS. It really reads as a litany of the Left. Trash human beings for not being perfect in the ways that no one is perfect. Humans are "greedy", they watch "NASCAR", or some other type of disparaging comment. Really just recycled garbage from DailyKOS or MediaMatters. Very few posts discussed the legitimate challenges to Hawkins Ultimatum. The few that did were drowned out by Leftist rhetoric which is based on utopian fantasy. All boring and useless points.

Looking at the history of human migration, there are two primary factors, though both can arguably be linked together; persecution and/or need/want of resources. Unlike history, the move into space is many of orders of magnitude more difficult. In order to leave the safety of earth to go into space, the reward or the advantage gained would have to be substantial. Going into space for exploration or for science makes sense; it only affects dozens perhaps hundreds of people who are willing to make tremendous sacrifice. Without substantial advances in bioengineering, starting a colony on a remote earth like planet would require 10,000's of thousands of ordinary every day people to make a sustainable society. This would require a tremendous amount of resources and technology that currently does not exist. Human beings cannot exist in an isolated, monotonous state for years, much less the generations it would take to get to another solar system. The moral of this story is that we have not even begun to identify all the obstacles which stand between now, and a future where human beings travel amongst the stars.

I think Hawkins statement is not a denouncement of the human species, any particular philosophy, or NASCAR. Instead, I look at it as a challenge to thinking people to consider methods to further advance the welfare of humanity. To set our goals to beyond our imagination and to work for them for more than one generation, because more than one generation is counting on it.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Conspiracy, Cooperation, and Coincidence. 3

In my formative years, I was taught that it is important to known the difference between Conspiracy, Cooperation, and Coincidence. Even more important to assign the proper and logical label to any given situation. A lesson that I was never taught, but learned in my latter years; to know when assigning such distinction to a situation is no longer relevant.

There is a struggle at hand in our society. A struggle between two philosophies. On the right, you have the belief in Natural Law, and on the left a belief in a variety of Marxist ideas. Conservative philosophers have been engaged in a perverted game of "tit for tat" with one another. Conservative commentators have been busy digging up as many "facts" about the beliefs of the elected, appointed, and the activists on the Left. In return, the Left has responded with one of three recourses, two being the most frequent; dismissal or laughter (sometimes both). The third recourse being the most humorous is in the instance where the conservative is wrong. They decry the conservative as mean, derisive, and treacherous while avoiding the topic in dissent.

As amusing as that game is, even more so is the accusation of media bias from the right, while in the same token hoping for some miraculous, conversation of said media. As if the continual accusations of media collaboration and collusion with Left wing activists would not force one to assume that they are one and the same... and still they speak in tones of hopeful reconciliation. One may call it Shakespeare, an act to show their desire to go half way, but to the suspect and disheartened, it wreaks of foolishness and poor design.

What good are these games? What have they produced? What advantages have been gained with these silly gestures and posing as the victim? As opposed to drowning out clear, and simple reason with musings of conspiracy, how much more effort could have gone into revealing those things which are so clearly around us? We must assume that those who have already decided will seldom change from external influences, while those who are undecided will either be suspect and difficult to move, or feckless and moved easily by the most palpable argument. In either case, it is irrelevant to categorize the truth, as the truth is all that will persuade the suspect, and secure the easily persuaded.

In 18 months the Socialists in the United States have done, and not done;

- Not repealed the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II.
- Implemented Health Care legislation that, once fully implemented, will cause the current private health care system to become untenable.
- Carbon Dioxide, which all creatures exhale (humans included), declared a poisonous gas, allowing unelected, nameless bureaucrats and political appointees to pass destructive regulation against private industry while providing an obscure barrier shielding elected officials from their actions.
- Coordinated within several states to subvert our Federal system of governance by assigning their states electoral college vote to the national popular vote, even if the popular vote of the state would dictate the electoral college vote in the favor of the state.
- Through Fannie Mae or Freddy Mac underwrote the financial melt down of 2007-2008.
- Repeat Freddie and Fannie, but with college student loans. Melt down to come. ... and on and on and on....

Sticking to the facts, objectively, without exaggeration, will do just fine.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Pillar of Shame

Yesterday was the 15th Anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre, and was reading about the mountain of shoes at the Brandenburg gate in Germany. Its a fitting memorial though it would have been if it were placed in New York City, UN Headquarters. The irony, of course, is that few of the voices that decry the massacre are the same voices that decry foreign intervention which could have kept the Srebrenice massacre from happening.

The massacre at Srebrenica was a built to order massacre, courtesy of the moral relativists at the United Nations. Taking no sides, other than providing "safe zones" to non-combatants, the United Nations mandate came with some rather restrictive rules of engagement. The soldiers stationed in the town of Srebrenica, although well trained (Dutch Special Forces, known as the Dutch Bat) were lightly armed and prohibited from operating in a provocative manner. With such vague guidance, the rule of least force continued to spiral out of control. From light weapons to bright blue helmets, the Dutch Bat were prohibited from placing obstacles and barriers which could appear to be construed as fortifications. The only thing keeping the Serbs out was a threat of UN actions if they crossed an invisible line.

Worse, the lack of perimeter defense not only provided no protection from the Serbs, but it also provided no means to control the local refuge population, which had become infiltrated by non-uniformed combatants. In a tit-for-tat game of village burning, the Bosniak guerrilla's would target Serb villages at night, killing civilians and destroying property, and then slipping back into the UN safe zone. The Serbs, were provoked for several days by these attacks which the UN forces were unable to stop, thus leading to the eventual slaughter at Srebrenica.

The UN has much culpability in the massacre. Sure, the Serbs did all the dirty work and deserve the infamy they earned. First, if the UN had not gotten involved in the conflict (setting up safe zones, etc), refuges would have never gathered in Srebrenica for safety. Without a safe zone, no Bosniak's would have gone to Srebrenica. Naser Oric wouldn't have had a safe haven to operate out of. Even if the argument is made that the safe haven was "good", then appropriate steps should have been taken to secure the safe haven. Leading up to the massacre, the Bratunac and Srebrenica area had been a war zone conducted by local militia's and paramilitary organizations. The attacks had been directed DIRECTLY against civilian targets and property (in all fairness, the bastards destroyed EVERYTHING they possibly could). There should have been no illusion that either Serb or Bosniak were willing to inflict hard directly against civilians.

Why this post after 15 years... Well. The main reason is something I read today that I had never seen before. "Then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a 1999 report that the United Nations failed at Srebrenica because of errors, misjudgment and "an inability to recognize the scope of the evil confronting us." He said the U.N. treated Serbs and Muslims equally when they should have made a "moral judgment" that ethnic cleansing â" practiced mostly by the Serbs â" was evil."

This is a reaffirmation of my belief that the United Nations is deeply under the control of the Neo Marxists/Statists, who believe in moral relativism. It was moral relativism, and a belief that there "are no bad guys" just people who "disagree", that caused this disaster.

The Pillar of Shame has already been created... its the UN.

User Journal

Journal Journal: How Mexico is Screwing Europeans... and no one see's it coming

"The Left" in the United States, which has abandoned its fairly successful, long term strategy of a gradual march to socialism, veered hard left during the first week of May by coming out strongly against Arizona's new legislation calling for enforcement of existing immigration laws. With an uptick in violence along the US southern border, most Americans have become concerned about the lack of border security with Mexico. During the good ole days of Clinton and Bush where the economy was strong, illegal immigrants were seen as people who would do the jobs that "Americans wouldn't do", but now the economy isnt so great and many Americans who called themselves "blue collar democrats" would like a crack at those jobs illegals have taken.

Despite the best efforts of the media, American citizens still know the difference between illegal immigrants (those who enter into the US without going through any sort of immigrations process) and legal immigrants. Despite the rhetoric of a racist, isolationist white America, most Americans have been accepting of immigrants who came to this country and have accepted our values and our traditions. Of course, that was until the Left decided to try and muscle politicians with scenes of throngs of Latino's marching on the various capitals, carrying flags of foreign nations, decrying our nation, and mocking/denigrating our society.

Video's like this being broadcast to bully politicians into passing amnesty legislation, are being watched by millions of unemployed and otherwise non politically aligned Americans who will not like what they see. In November 2010, the American citizens are going to voice their anger at the ballot box, and the political makeup in DC is going to change... dramatically.

And what does this have to do with Europe? Well... just check out your history books. Where do Europeans go when their continent begins to implode? The United States. The timing couldnt be worse for the failing EU experiment and the even bigger failures of socialist governments in Europe. American's are going to elect politicians who are going to take a "no bullshit" approach to immigration reform. The days of immigration litmus tests are going to return, and I have a strong feeling that socialist minded people are going to be "screened out". Considering Europe is pretty much full of socialists, where will they go when the Last Best Hope has shut its doors, raised its fences and posted sentries on the watch tower?

User Journal

Journal Journal: First Greece... soon the EU 1

"But if national health care were indeed the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union as you appear to be trying to hypothesize, then all of Europe should have collapsed by now, as well as Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and Canada, to name a few." Darn_Registrar

Living in Northern Virginia in the autumn of 2006 is much like discussing the fate of the socialist states of Europe today... right now. The housing market would never bust. Housing prices would never decline, only stabilize. The far right "cooks" were screaming from the roof tops "the markets going to explode", but the shmarmy intellectual elites on the left and in the main stream media dismissively claimed, "The market will just flatten out".

By the end of the fall of 2006, the US housing market began to crumble. No, it didnt crumble in grand Glen Beck style. It crumbled like an ancient coliseum built over a fault line. The ponzi scheme was running out of witting participants, but there were still to many people waiting for their remittance. Too many big players calling the scam a legitimate scenario. Big business, Big government, and Quasi-Government Businesses all repeating the same, well orchestrated song: "The bottom of the market is nigh." Drawing in unwitting risk takers both medium sized and small into a deepening and widening pit that continues to grow to this day.

The pattern of denial which can still be seen surrounding the global economic crisis should be sending shock waves down the spines of any European with internet access. At the moment, Greece is in the throws of societal collapse. Have no doubt about it. 14% of the population of Greece work for the government which is about to cut salaries, benefits, and pensions. 40% of the GDP is consumed by the government, which means that the people of Greece largely rely on public sector services and benefits. On top of that, in order for Greece to receive its Oliver Twist style "more sir" hand out, it will be forced to increase taxes on consumer spending. This will only amplify the problem by making Greece a more expensive place to do business (and more expensive for tourists, a major economic engine).

Here is the real kicker. The bail out from the EU will only make things worse. Thats right. Worse. Just like Greece, the denziens of the EU have a sense of entitlement that would make a Chicago community organizer blush with shame. With the bail out money in hand, and a society steeped in Marxist ideology, Greece will maintain its business and investment unfriendly regulations and practices.

The bigger question is, who is going to bail out England, Germany and France when their economies topple. You might be laughing at how strong the economies of Germany, France, and England are at the moment. But let us not forget that Spain, Portugal and Ireland are next up on the bail out board. How many more bail outs are the three pillars of the EU going to be able to support before the numbers begin to add up? When will the self centered nature of Marx based ideology kick in and force the major EU players to decide: better them than us, and bail out on the bail outs? Who will be left footing the bill? The failed states remaining in the EU?

I always wondered what happened to the unpaid debts of the Soviet Union....

User Journal

Journal Journal: Collective Tyranny and the modern Intellectual 2

As a conservative and a Christian (two very unpopular things to admit on Slashdot) some would probably be shocked to hear that I am not against collectivism. In fact, I believe collectivism fills some very key deficiencies in society, such as caring for the less fortunate who are our brothers and our sisters, our neighbors, and our fellow countryman. Personally, I participate in several "collectivist" types of activities, such as distributing food to the unemployed, and repairing the homes or providing services to the elderly. The human affinity for community is an undeniable driving force of our psyche. Yet, collectivism can only go so far, as has been proven time and time again throughout the 20th century. Once collectivism becomes a tool of the state, a compulsory system, its sinister side appears and the result is human disaster in both death, destruction, and poverty that is unrivaled by any other system of governance.

Despite the apparent deficiency of societies based on collectivism (either in the form of high tax society or direct redistribution of wealth), the western Intellectual is still disturbingly enamored with the struggle to implement collectivism on a grand scale. Having been a "liberal" myself in my formative years, I can identify with these academics and intellectuals. I think Jamie Glazov put it succinctly when he wrote in his book United in Hate, "Convinced that it is incumbent upon society, and not him, to imbue his life with purpose, the believer becomes indignant, he scapegoats society - and ends up despising and rejecting it." It is fairly simple to see why the need for "Change" is so readily accepted by those who benefit so greatly from the system in place.

The problem I run into, is that I am still pretty bad at dealing with people. So when talking to other people who are bad with people, I often end clenching fists than extending hands.

I'm not sure how to change hearts and minds of the disenfranchised, because they live in a society that feeds off of its own. The liberal world is full of unachievable goals of strength, beauty, intelligence and success which ridicules those who have it for being greedy, mocks those who attempt to become the things they are told they should be, and scorn as low lives, geeks, nerds, or other stigma's those who do not even try. On top of it, the liberal eco system cuts off the outside by presenting the other side of life, the conservative side, by presenting it in every possible negative stigma possible, from racists to zealots to homophobes or bible bangers intolerant of everything that moves. If I lived in a world that gloomy, I think I would "Hope" for "Change" too.

Yet the promised social utopia never appears. We never get any prettier, smarter, stronger or faster. Our food doesnt get healthier, the governments never get less corrupt, people dont welcome you with open arms... instead the exact opposites occur.

It was a hard and isolating road to escape from the liberal double think thought trap. Talking with the religious types at church wasnt as harsh as I thought it was. Reaching out and helping the homeless wasnt so bad. Advising teenagers against premarital sex, not to do drugs, and to sacrifice for the future didnt oppress them (though, it probably didnt do much good either). I've grown happier with the world around me, I've accepted that I have problems socializing, that the world doesnt suck, and yes, it is probably me that is the one out of place. So I look for people like me, even if they are liberal, to befriend on common interests and leave the politics out of it. Perhaps if they learn to love the world they are in, they wont have any more "hope" for "change".

User Journal

Journal Journal: The Internet without VISA/Debit Cards

I received a recent email from my bank regarding legislation being proposed in congress that impacts financial institutions ability to collect transaction fees. Below is an excerpt from the email:

"I am writing to you about an issue that could negatively impact all PSECU members. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation that would reduce the amount of interchange fees paid by merchants when they accept a credit or debit card in payment for goods or services. Interchange fees are used to pay the costs of processing credit and debit card payments, with a portion going to credit card issuers like PSECU.

This issue is important to all of our members since roughly 60% of our annual net income is derived from them, allowing PSECU to offer low- or no-cost products and services. Interchange income also helps PSECU absorb the cost of fraudulent transactions when merchant data systems are breached. A significant loss in interchange fee income may result in PSECU having to charge more fees, increase interest rates on loans, or at worst suspend some products or services. Therefore, it is critical to preserve the income PSECU receives from interchange fees paid by merchants."

I've done a little more research and it turns out that many smaller banks may be forced to cut VISA/Debit services for their members. I couldnt imagine online shopping without it.

User Journal

Journal Journal: Why... why... communism has failed already... 6

Just got finished watching Glenn Beck episode with doctors on it. The show ended with a medical student explaining how a government option will provide low cost insurance that will create competition. Of course, its the government that is currently restricting competition between the 1300+ insurance companies in the United States. Create the problem and become the solution. Brilliant. One caveat as a proof read. I am not exactly sure WHY these companies cannot compete. Whether it be federal or state laws that are creating the barriers. Something to research on the spare time.

Anyone who has spent any amount of time dealing with the government, especially the federal government (state DMV is a paradise compared to dealing with any federal agency), knows that efficiency, low cost, and competition is not in the lexicon of government vernacular. Insurance companies have to be more efficient than government under one simple principle of nature: no business could operate like the government and survive. Businesses that operate on "deficit budgets" quickly lose value as their debt to income ratio become unsustainable.

And government debt CAN become unsustainable. Ask the USSR.... oh wait.

As a conservative, I accept a few simple facts in life. We are all individually responsible for ourselves. Our government is here to provide some basic services, but it is not here to "take care of us". Government that governs less is the best form of government. People will always go without, either by choice or by circumstance. No entity on this planet can give everything to everyone. Government cannot replace God. The harder we try to create an omnipotent entity to care for us, the closer we come to creating the golem that destroys us (see USSR and Mao for more details).

The debate is not about health care. The debate is collectivism versus individualism. Hopefully we will see the errors of the past... but by that last comment tonight... I fear for the worst.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm not a god, I was misquoted." -- Lister, Red Dwarf