1. Zelaya ousted and marginalized

2. Iran exposed as brutal killer of a young woman

3. Tea Parties mobilize

4. Healthcare immobilized

5. ClimateGate.  This turned Copenhagen into a flop and exposed Algore for the criminal that he is.

6. ACORN Scandal

7.  Ted Kennedy dies

8.  Audit/End the Fed campaign rises

9.  McCain-Feingold declared unconstitutional

10.  Google bails on China. (Both 9 and 10 were in the works even though they were announced in 2010.)

Just to top it off, Massachusetts continues the momentum in a full crush-scendo that sends a 2010 message, “We’re not Kennedy-style statists, anymore!”  (They almost got rid of their income tax in the last decade. So, maybe they are not statists of any style.)

There is a lot to build on here.  Clearly, the Left is in power, but not in control.

-Lorenz Kraus

He takes a piece of your wealth to spread it around by means of force. He takes a piece of your freedom to enslave you to the state under threat of fines and prison. The public option is socialized medicine or prison. Take your pick.

Lorenz Kraus 2009

To demonstrate that a microbe causes a disease, several tests are done to establish causation. These are called Koch’s postulates. HIV “the virus that causes AIDS” fails these postulates.

So argues this scientist, which has influenced a new documentary describing this sham on a generation reviewed in this article.

In some sense, AIDS is like snake oil, but instead of being some concoction that cures numerous ills, it is a disease responsible for numerous (-26) ills.  Not everything sticks to fly paper, but if taxpayer funding is at stake, better find something that everything can stick to.

Just as socialized weather research creates “global warming,” i.e., attempts to manipulate data or lose it or manufacture it to continue further fears and thus taxpayer funded research into it, socialized medical research has done the same to steal billions from taxpayers to fund AIDS research.

One has the mourn the total waste of millions of man-hours of highly intelligent researchers on crap, when they could have use their brains to actually do something for humanity.

Lorenz Kraus 2009

“Actually Dawkins is a 6-6.9 on a scale between 0 and 7. And the only reason he is not a 7 is because it would require him to make the absolute positive statement “There is no God or anything remotely like it” which any good scientist would never make since we do not have complete knowledge about the universe.”

They say philosophy is the queen of the sciences and this should illustrate why.

Certainly, a scientist cannot claim omniscience, but on certain things a philosopher can by means of metaphysical principles, especially, genuine philosophic axioms. The power of drawing a principle whose validity precludes a miracle making almighty god, an eternal god, a non-material god, or a god of moral judgment, is possible by reference to axioms we know to be true and contradict what is presumed to be the nature of god. If theologians or “prophets” say god is X and reality can only be Y, then the issue of god can be dealt with soundly, directly, and with intellectual self-confidence. When a notion of god contradicts axioms, we can be certain that such a god does not exist.

The scientific atheism always has to leave room for the possibility of discovering a god requiring some growth or modification of a few pages in a textbook. Since the universe is so vast, presumable we have to leave room for the possible discovery of life on other planets.

A philosopher can make sweeping judgments about the universe using his axioms. If every bit of reality is what it is, then it can not be what it is not. So, an elephant cannot be Jesus. Jesus cannot be a talking fire because fires don’t talk. Fire cannot be the word of god.  God cannot be everywhere. What is is everywhere. Every specific thing is where it is. It is so much and not more, or finite. Infinite is not.

One reason why the New Atheists are likely to be forgotten is that their message leaves the door open for the possibility of god. Whereas a philosopher closes it the minute any notion of god contradicts established axioms.  Philosophy is the queen of the sciences.

Another illustration of this is the issue of abortion.  To claim that a fetus has a right to life  contradicts the women’s right to life. Since contradictions cannot exist, any theory of rights must not lead to a clash of rights. Otherwise, the theory has no way to resolve two equal claims. If it did, it would have to refrain from participating in such a debate as abortion, since it could not say which is right. The only way to resolve the contradiction and uphold a theory of rights, is to hold that the woman has a right to life from her birth to her death, and every point in between, establishing for her the right to terminate a pregnancy at any point that she is pregnant.

Lorenz Kraus 2009

I have a minor point to pick with using the term aggression as synonymous with the initiation of force.   Aggression is too vague and vast a concept compared to the very narrow matter of the initiation of force.

Aggression could be letting others know you are armed, or that you are trained in arms, or in the liberal’s view, it is even aggressive to believe people have the right to bear arms. Aggression has an emotional tinge to it.  A person fighting in response to an assault can be more aggressive once the fight starts than the mugger who started it. In the search for justice, there is no way to separate the two except in terms of the initiator and the victim. In fact, supposing that the 1991 Gulf War was a matter of Saddam Hussein initiating force against a US territory-protectorate of Kuwait, the response to that attack was very aggressive to the point where it was deemed immoral by the president himself to vanquish the remnants of the fleeing Iraqi army. Our aggressive response would have made the current Iraq war unnecessary. If the dispute arose because Kuwaiti oil companies were sticking subterranean oil wells into Iraqi territory, and if one supposes that Iraq had a legitimate property right in those oil rights, then Kuwait was initiating force, even though it was not acting aggressively like a bully, but quietly like a pickpocket. Of course, then, the US was lending itself to that use of force.  In other words, you could violate rights without overt aggression, and you can protect your rights by aggressively overwhelming the enemy. An adjective like this is no substitute for “initiation of force” as the term denoting the form of action required to violate someone’s rights.  The issue then becomes, what is the form of force? A hold up? A disguised well? A front company? A computer virus sent by email? Or a bullet fired in one’s direction?

Etymology: Aggression means attack. This may be legitimate or illegitimate.

1 : a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master
2 : the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another
3 : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

“aggression.” Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009.

Merriam-Webster Online. 25 September 2009
<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aggression>

Often used with aggression, is “bullying,” “harassment,” and “intimidation.” These are also emotional words, and even subjective. Consider the disputes that arise over what is and is not harassment. Things like war, or who started the pretext for a war, cannot be in dispute. What matters is who is initiating force versus who is on the receiving end of that force. That is what makes it improper to speak of aggression.

It does a disservice to the victim of force since it obfuscates the issue.

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

I got to ask the first question of the whole event.  My question was basically, “are members of Congress willing to guarantee their plan’s success under penalty of death?  Since there will be shortages, and people die, doesn’t that constitute murder? and shouldn’t they pay with their lives? If they aren’t willing to back their plan with their lives, why should we be expected to?”

It was a question of accountability.  Congressman Tonko didn’t offer to guarantee the plan’s success, and refused to accept responsibility for the plan’s failure. So, I can see he has no courage of conviction.

It was nice to meet other hard-core pro-freedom Americans.  They really exist.  This town hall meeting did more to bring them together and build their contacts and organization than it did for the left.  The leftists were weak and speechless at times.

A lady wanted to tell me her experience with the system in England.  I really didn’t want to hear it because she said the patient stacking issue is all propaganda. Well then, why should I not think her “experience” itself is not her propaganda? She then got deeper which was great. She said, “well, its just mean mean mean to not give care to the poor.”  I was ready for that.  I told her I don’t care about those who have no health care. It’s not my obligation to pay for other people’s care. It’s their own responsibility. I don’t mind being mean.  I don’t want them to steal my money! She thanked me for my honesty and moved along.

Another communist called it selfish to deny care.  I told her, have you heard of the book “The Virtue of Selfishness?”  She didn’t like hearing that!

These meetings have a lot of potential to create the hockey stick effect of a hard core pro-freedom movement shed of conservative corporate state worship.  It was a great day for liberty.

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

Evolution means that those life-forms that adapt to their changing environments live and those that do not die.  All animals are suited to certain conditions and not others.  A species either has the gene pool containing traits needed to adapt at the same rate as conditions change or it goes extinct. If conditions change faster than or beyond the genome expression, it goes extinct.

Human beings have free will and their moral sense is really a form of the willingness to adapt to changing conditions. Those that do survive, and those that cling to old ways that are not suited for life die.  Free will is a constant in the human species, but at an individual level, the moral sense and societial and economic evolution and adaptation are interactive.

We need to adapt knowledge or else we are left behind.  If you still have a TV with an analog signal, you don’t have TV.  It’s digital only now.  You either learn computers or you are stuck in a rut. You either have a car or are limited to public transportation.  You either eat healthy and don’t smoke or you undermine your health.  You watch what you spend or else you end up in bankruptcy.

These actions express a will to live. You constantly seek to adapt yourself to those which sustains your life. Failure to adapt means slow decline.  Look at the auto industry. The rest of the world has weak or no unions. Their autos thrive in quality and sales. Detroit is a basket case.

We have to get rid of the welfare-state or else America will be unfit to live and overrun by the lowest order, the brazenly ignorant, brazenly lazy, and brazenly violent.

If we have a will to live, we have to keep up with what our survival, happiness, and enjoyment demand. Or else we loose our quality of life. Just look at Albany, New York.  It has become a cesspool of vagrants and thugs.There is no strategy to make it a livable city, except pour more government into it. The population collapsed from 1950 to now by 30%.  Mostly, this is attributable to the demolition of the city center to erect the South Mall government complex, the dozens of welfare buildings on the north and south ends of the city, creating a welfare-state corridor. So, out goes the productive element of the city and in comes the social pariah.

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

They even want adults to get chopped.

Can you see how government is invading one’s personal space? When government tries to grab your private parts, nationalize them, and seize them for the “common good” does that get you thinking about how this government should be dissolved?

Certainly, the debate is more about spreading religion than public health, a sort of secular covenant with the mystical state who is your god. Parents are pretty stupid if they give into this.

Why do normal babies have to be genitally mutilated to serve public policy? Why does your baby have to be maimed because gays and drug users didn’t control themselves in the 1980’s? Why does your baby have to pay with his rights and flesh?

This story illustrates the evil of public healthcare policies.  Personal values and decisions and individual rights are irrelevant to the health care czars. Rights mean nothing to them.

Circumcision is a rip off and so is socialism.

The funny thing is, what if they find a cure for this virus?  Get a look at all those idiots who got chopped all for nothing. Ha Ha.

Incidentally, I have never known any family, friend, or acquaintance to have acquired this virus or this disease.  Does it really exist? It cannot be as wide spread or dangerous as the official state says it is. Is it like global warming? All hot air?

Here is a counter-theory to the AIDS dogma by Peter Duesberg. It might not be right, but it is interesting.

Lorenz Kraus  c 2009

I’m no fan of god, but who said god wants Obama as a partner in these matters?

This is the messiah-complex that American presidents often suffer from.

Those who hide behind god for their agenda mean to say that the Obama state wants to play the role of God in matters of life and death.

Clearly, Obama knows he is crossing a line, not merely, in American politics, but the whole of Western civilization. Even Kings knew their limits. But, Obama knows none. He is pushing as far as the public lets him get away with things. When the public piped up recently to put some discipline on him, he retreats.

God won’t save the Obama administration because there isn’t one, and even if there was, what’s so special about Obama that he would be a partner, instead of any one of us?

Lorenz Kraus c 2009

Do not overuse the word tragic. You do not want to dumb down a concept reserved for shades of greatness. A teen killed while driving drunk is not tragic. It is stupid. The by-stander, who happens to be the town doctor, getting hit and killed in the process, is tragic.

If tragedy were not an exclusive concept, then everyone’s death would be a tragedy. What then is the point of the concept?

Since it would be perverse to call a murderer’s hanging a tragedy, it must refer to those of virtue having their lives cut short.

Thus, tragedy is an exclusive concept whose signature is the life cut short of those whose potential could add to our lives.  The more they could add to our lives, the greater the tragedy.

When washed up politicians or celebrities die, it is hardly a tragedy.  Even when great men die of old age, we do not call it tragic. Tragic is for those young at heart who have something to offer the world, but the world for whatever reason, was not hospitable to their existence.

Lorenz Kraus c 2009