Vuelve y juega: Toca recordarle a Mauricio Laurens y al público en general la clase de piltrafa moral humana que es Roman Polanski.
¿Qué tal?
jueves, 29 de noviembre de 2012
viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012
I really, really want Samantha's teacher to stand up for what he did
Philadelphia student says teacher mocked her for wearing Romney shirt - Philly.com: A uniform-free "dress-down" day at Charles Carroll High School in Port Richmond turned into a public dressing down for a student who chose to wear a pink T-shirt supporting Mitt Romney for president.
Samantha Pawlucy, a sophomore at Carroll, said her geometry teacher publicly humiliated her Friday by asking why she was wearing a Romney/Ryan T-shirt and going into the hallway to urge other teachers and students to mock her.
"I was really embarrassed and shocked. I didn't think she'd go in the hallway and scream to everyone," Pawlucy said. "It wasn't scary, but it felt weird."
Pawlucy said she decided to wear the shirt after researching the candidate and President Obama and concluding that she was a Romney supporter. Her father, Richard, said she was especially interested in Romney's opposition to late-term abortion.
The most interesting thing is how the teacher cannot cope with their outrageous behavior. Freedom of speech? Naw, as long as you don't wear a T-Shirt of a legitimate party. B-b-but those darned repubs are the KKK!!! Yes, very mature of you, teacher. Well argumented. Like your geometry class.
Future Teacher of the Year, would you pretty please with sugar on top stand up and tell the world who you are, and explain us why did you feel the need to verbally abuse and bully a sixteen year old girl, that made an informed decision, all by herself and stood up for it like you weren't doign it right now? Extra bonus questions: Please define: a) Tolerance b) Freedom of Speech c) Diversity d) Cowardice.
Don't keep on hiding, teacher. The world is waiting for your wisdom.
sábado, 29 de septiembre de 2012
A la cárcel el "pastor" que abusaba de sus fieles
A la cárcel el pastor [culión] que abusaba de sus fieles - KIEN&KE: Un juez de garantías envirá la cárcel al "pastor" [sic] Álvaro Gámez, acusado por algunas de sus antiguas feligreses de la Iglesia Salem (en Pasto) que por años dirigió, de haber sido abusadas sexualmente bajo engaño [las ponía a tomar "leche espiritual" (!)]. A Gámez lo encausaron judicialmente después de que algunos de sus seguidores hicieron grabaciones en video, donde fue registrado teniendo relaciones sexuales con mujeres de su iglesia. La juez consideró que Gámez, a quien le habían concedido la libertad hace un par de meses, era un peligro para la sociedad y en la calle podría poner en riesgo la integridad de sus víctimas. La defensa de Gámez ha dicho que su cliente no abusó de sus seguidoras [!!!] y que las relaciones fueron consentidas [!!!]. Mientras arranca el juicio, Gámez deberá ir a un centro de reclusión, tal y como ocurrió con Alexandra Castro Becerra, una contadora pública de 25 años que le ayudaba al pastor a cometer el ilícito.
¡Ya era hora!
A la cárcel el "pastor" que abusaba de sus fieles
A la cárcel el pastor [culión] que abusaba de sus fieles - KIEN&KE: Un juez de garantías envirá la cárcel al "pastor" [sic] Álvaro Gámez, acusado por algunas de sus antiguas feligreses de la Iglesia Salem (en Pasto) que por años dirigió, de haber sido abusadas sexualmente bajo engaño [las ponía a tomar "leche espiritual" (!)]. A Gámez lo encausaron judicialmente después de que algunos de sus seguidores hicieron grabaciones en video, donde fue registrado teniendo relaciones sexuales con mujeres de su iglesia. La juez consideró que Gámez, a quien le habían concedido la libertad hace un par de meses, era un peligro para la sociedad y en la calle podría poner en riesgo la integridad de sus víctimas. La defensa de Gámez ha dicho que su cliente no abusó de sus seguidoras [!!!] y que las relaciones fueron consentidas [!!!]. Mientras arranca el juicio, Gámez deberá ir a un centro de reclusión, tal y como ocurrió con Alexandra Castro Becerra, una contadora pública de 25 años que le ayudaba al pastor a cometer el ilícito.
¡Ya era hora!
miércoles, 19 de septiembre de 2012
France to close embassies in fear of cartoon backlash
 |
| "Holy rage" |
Something's deeply wrong here. Christians have to endure way more than so-touchy Muslims, and secularists cave in to them always but "valiantly" continue to defy those pesky Jesus-screamers. The Christians protest peacefully, but somehow manage to get painted as bigoted and intolerant, while Muslims set on fire everything and somehow their bleeding, offended hearts are those that get pitied. They might not recognize it, but those brave anti-Christians fear them more than they love free speech and "freedom from religion".
Well, where's your bravery, secularists and progressive heroes alike?
lunes, 27 de agosto de 2012
Justicia en caso de la muerte de niños araucanos - ¡Gracias a Dios!
Fallo por crimen de niños en Arauca - Noticias de Justicia en Colombia - ELTIEMPO.COM: Después de casi dos años de ocurrido el crimen (octubre del 2010), la justicia declaró culpable de la muerte de tres menores y la violación de dos niñas al subteniente Raúl Muñoz Linares.
En un país en el que sobreabundan los crímenes atroces, no era de extrañarse que semejante barbarie hubiera sido olvidada. Afortunadamente el degenerado fue hallado culpable de los horrendos crímenes cometidos: asesinato y violación de menores.
"El fiscal logró demostrar su tesis, y aunque las pruebas no son abundantes, sí son contundentes", señaló la juez.
Muñoz Linares fue acusado de doble acceso carnal violento y triple homicidio agravado y se encuentra recluido preventivamente en la cárcel La Picota.
Eso es porque no se pueden admitir como pruebas los cambios sorpresivos de abogados y demás tácticas dilatorias a las que ya están acostumbrados los estrados judiciales que ven como tratan de tumbar procesalmente lo que no pueden refutar en el juicio.
Hace apenas unas horas, la Procuraduría reveló los resultados de su propia investigación y señala que las pruebas contra el oficial son contundentes.
Paz en la tumba de las inocentes víctimas.
domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012
The worst job ever: risking your sanity in the Internet to protect yours
How Child Porn And The Other Awfulest Things Ever Get Scrubbed From The Internet: There’s a lot of stuff on the internet, and every day more gets added to it. Not all of it is kosher. Child porn. Narco executions. Beheadings. So an invisible workforce has emerged to help scrub the festering filth, one that is often poorly paid, in entry-level positions with little support or job security. As an interview earlier this week with a former Google worker showed, the psychological costs can be high.
“We were the 911 for the internet. We handled every single report on an internet child porn,” Cindy said. “Man, I wished I worked at Google compared to what we were dealing with. Every week we saw about 25,000 reports and every single report had at least 200 to 500 images and videos to review.”
The Trolls in 4chan's /b/ may be rejoicing every single day in their filth, but in the meanwhile the unsung heroes of the Internet work 24/7 to protect us from truly unwatchable images. Don't you think I'm not for freedom of expression, but I'm really against depicting in the Internets images depicting criminal behavior, just for your frigging pleasure.
martes, 24 de julio de 2012
Bar Stool Ecnonomics (Taken from the Internet)
As a progressive hero, I may not agree with this at all, but this is unbelievable funny. Judge for yourselves, please.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.00
The sixth would pay $3.00
The seventh would pay $7.00
The eighth would pay $12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00
So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.
“Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get there “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20“ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right, shouted the seventh man. “why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in union. “ We didn’t I get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalist and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.00
The sixth would pay $3.00
The seventh would pay $7.00
The eighth would pay $12.00
The ninth would pay $18.00
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.00
So that’s what they decided to do. The men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with arraignment, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
“Since you are all such good customers, he said, I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.00.
“Drinks for the ten men now cost just $80.00
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $ 20 windfall so that everyone would get there “fair share?” They realized that $ 20.00 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so:
The fifth man like the first four, now paid nothing ( 100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of 12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid 14 instead of 18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before! And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20“ declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right, shouted the seventh man. “why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in union. “ We didn’t I get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalist and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible
David R. Kamerschen, PH. D
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
miércoles, 11 de julio de 2012
Scientologists Plan Hollywood TV Studio: Chanology, Operation Clambake, now it's up to you...
Scientologists Plan Hollywood TV Studio: (Reuters) - The Church of Scientology, the religion whose followers include actors Tom Cruise and John Travolta, plans to start a religious broadcasting center to promote its teachings over TV, radio and the Internet.
The center, located near the church's West Coast headquarters in Hollywood, would occupy the nearly five-acre studio property the church bought last year from Los Angeles public TV station KCET for $42 million. The station would elevate the public profile of a religion that has mostly relied on pamphlets and books by its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, to proselytize for new members.
By The Finch, supressive person
As the old man said, sunlight is the best desinfectant. The more they try to go public, the more obvious and clear their lunacy it will get. Katie Holmes' and Nicole Kidman's lips might be sealed because of emotional blackmail, but others still have the chance to speak out before the lunacy spreads even more. By the way, for those that want to spare between $ 80 K and $ 300 K, a lifetime of misery and want to find out what Hubbard's spawn is really about, please go straight to Operation Clambake and read what a "no turn the other cheek <<religion>>" works.
And watch the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", too. Lord Xenu might thank you for that.
And watch the South Park episode "Trapped in the Closet", too. Lord Xenu might thank you for that.
sábado, 23 de junio de 2012
Tek Young Lin, Ex-Horace Mann Teacher, Says He Had Sex With Students - NYTimes.com
I will repeat this as many times as necessary until the people realize that a lot of public school teachers, specially those in New York, are involved in pedophilia, and the scandal should be as big as the one that shamed and shaked the Catholic Church.
As in the Catholic Church, a lot of teachers and union bosses know exactly what is going on, but prefer to shut up and cover up the abuses. The unions use their power to make those abusers keep their jobs with full pay, instead to collaborate with their prosecution.
If celibacy and sexual repression are the factors that trigger pedophilia in the Catholic Church, which are the factors among the teachers? And why the silence and indifference of the progressives?
miércoles, 13 de junio de 2012
Food Nazis' Rampage on New York
Health panel talks about wider food ban - New York News | New York Breaking News | NYC Headlines: "The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens. They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.
At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods."
Progressivism must believe in personal freedom, not in patronizing. These NYC measures against the sell of junk food may be well intentioned, but reek up to high heaven of facism.
I didn't knew I would see the creation of a junk food black market in New York, but it looks like I will. Major Bloomber knows already that the Big Apple is facing major economic problems and he is even considering the legalization of gambling; so that we don't know if this junk food ban issue is a huge distraction.
But we already know that the common sense ban in NYC is in full effect already.
martes, 5 de junio de 2012
Unions behaving like soulless corporations
 |
| Looks like they were in Wall Street! |
Unions haven’t found the enemy yet – and it is them.
For starters, collective bargaining for unions is a right. It is clear as day that as individuals, negotiations are doomed to fail. That said, it is clear that Wisconsin unions messed it the big time when they didn’t realize that it was only fair (Obama’s favorite word after the pronoun "I"!) that the public employees should pay something for their pensions and healthcare.
In their quest for social justice, unions conveniently forget that public employees don’t work for a soulless corporation but for the government, which is financed not only by soulless corporations’ taxes, but by citizens’ taxes, too. And public servants work for the citizens, as they like to forget when they justify their lousy performances that characterize the governmental rule.
This arrogance has become the trademark of unions, and this is the reason why they should – win or lose today – do some soul searching.
miércoles, 9 de mayo de 2012
Elizabeth Warren: nobody should get away with gaming the affirmative action system
Affirmative action was implemented to fight discrimination, not to boost mediocre resumés. That doesn't stop people from trying, anyway, like Elizabeth Warren did. The sipmac team was following her career for awhile, since her statements progressively reeked of lame excuses and distorted lies. The veredict:
domingo, 29 de abril de 2012
Rob Shaw: Taking a Deeper Look at Cartoon Characters of the 90s (and my take)
Rob Shaw at the HuffPo trashes some saturday morning classic cartoons, and here's my take on some of those (I never dig Freakazoid!)
Pokemon: It is still an imaginary, simple, idealistic world where animals were created to fight, but animal cruelty is severely reprimanded and discouraged. Pokemon Trainers must bond with their creatures and team up to win.
Johnny Bravo: the biggest loser. What makes an adult to keep on watching this cartoon is how innocently clueless Johnny is, because he never seems to realize how offensive for women his shtick is. His only friend is a small girl, because he has the mind of an immature child. Not to mention his surreal adventures.
Scooby-Doo: come on, everybody knows that Scrappy Doo was a huge mistake.
Cow and Chicken: one of the funniest, most surreal and avant-garde cartoons ever. Never to be taken seriously.
Dexter's Lab: poster child for skeptics and atheist-friendly fare. What's wrong with that?
Pokemon: It is still an imaginary, simple, idealistic world where animals were created to fight, but animal cruelty is severely reprimanded and discouraged. Pokemon Trainers must bond with their creatures and team up to win.
Johnny Bravo: the biggest loser. What makes an adult to keep on watching this cartoon is how innocently clueless Johnny is, because he never seems to realize how offensive for women his shtick is. His only friend is a small girl, because he has the mind of an immature child. Not to mention his surreal adventures.
Scooby-Doo: come on, everybody knows that Scrappy Doo was a huge mistake.
Cow and Chicken: one of the funniest, most surreal and avant-garde cartoons ever. Never to be taken seriously.
Dexter's Lab: poster child for skeptics and atheist-friendly fare. What's wrong with that?
miércoles, 18 de abril de 2012
Chuck Lorre's Electoral Choice
Chuck Lorre is an exceptionally succesful producer and creator of US hit series like "Two and a Half Men", "The Big Bang Theory" and "Mike and Molly". By now he's the quintessential Hollywood insider, but he claims he's an innocent boy at heart. The curious thing is no matter how Big Hollywood players thrive thru corporate welfare a/k/a "crony capitalism", Chuck equates this with the Republican way. Lorre's very smart and should know that Hollywood prefers Democrats for this game, but in his mid the pure ones are those Democrats. Maybe because they are eager to use the word "progressive" and behave like they care. Anyway, here is Chuck Lorre's editorial:
Does Chuck think that the Republicans are going to win?
sábado, 14 de abril de 2012
Clásico de Clásicos: Cómo se cría a un delincuente (tomado de Internet)
Hace algunas décadas ya circulaba este decálogo, pero lo posteo dando el crédito a quien se le ha atribuido. Un clásico de clásico que rompe con nociones todavía en boga, bienintencionadas pero dañinas.
Decálogo para criar delincuentes.
El popular juez de menores de Granada, Emilio Calatayud, conocido por sus sentencias educativas y orientadoras, ha publicado un libro "Reflexiones de un juez de menores" (Dauro) en el que inserta un "Decálogo para formar un delincuente ". Es muy interesante. Dice así:
1. Comience desde la infancia dando a su hijo todo lo que pida. Así crecerá convencido de que el mundo entero le pertenece.
2. No se preocupe por su educación ética o espiritual. Espere a que alcance la mayoría de edad para que pueda decidir libremente.
3. Cuando diga palabrotas, ríaselas. Esto lo animará a hacer cosas más graciosas.
4. No le regañe ni le diga que está mal algo de lo que hace. Podría crearle complejos de culpabilidad.
5. Recoja todo lo que él deja tirado: libros, zapatos, ropa, juguetes. Así se acostumbrará a cargar la responsabilidad sobre los demás.
6. Déjele leer todo lo que caiga en sus manos. Cuide de que sus platos, cubiertos y vasos estén esterilizados, pero no de que su mente se llene de basura.
7. Riña a menudo con su cónyuge en presencia del niño, así a él no le dolerá demasiado el día en que la familia, quizá por su propia conducta, quede destrozada para siempre.
8. Dele todo el dinero que quiera gastar. No vaya a sospechar que para disponer del mismo es necesario trabajar.
9. Satisfaga todos sus deseos, apetitos, comodidades y placeres. El sacrificio y la austeridad podrían producirle frustraciones.
10. Póngase de su parte en cualquier conflicto que tenga con sus profesores y vecinos. Piense que todos ellos tienen prejuicios contra su hijo y que de verdad quieren fastidiarlo.
Decálogo para criar delincuentes.
El popular juez de menores de Granada, Emilio Calatayud, conocido por sus sentencias educativas y orientadoras, ha publicado un libro "Reflexiones de un juez de menores" (Dauro) en el que inserta un "Decálogo para formar un delincuente ". Es muy interesante. Dice así:
1. Comience desde la infancia dando a su hijo todo lo que pida. Así crecerá convencido de que el mundo entero le pertenece.
2. No se preocupe por su educación ética o espiritual. Espere a que alcance la mayoría de edad para que pueda decidir libremente.
3. Cuando diga palabrotas, ríaselas. Esto lo animará a hacer cosas más graciosas.
4. No le regañe ni le diga que está mal algo de lo que hace. Podría crearle complejos de culpabilidad.
5. Recoja todo lo que él deja tirado: libros, zapatos, ropa, juguetes. Así se acostumbrará a cargar la responsabilidad sobre los demás.
6. Déjele leer todo lo que caiga en sus manos. Cuide de que sus platos, cubiertos y vasos estén esterilizados, pero no de que su mente se llene de basura.
7. Riña a menudo con su cónyuge en presencia del niño, así a él no le dolerá demasiado el día en que la familia, quizá por su propia conducta, quede destrozada para siempre.
8. Dele todo el dinero que quiera gastar. No vaya a sospechar que para disponer del mismo es necesario trabajar.
9. Satisfaga todos sus deseos, apetitos, comodidades y placeres. El sacrificio y la austeridad podrían producirle frustraciones.
10. Póngase de su parte en cualquier conflicto que tenga con sus profesores y vecinos. Piense que todos ellos tienen prejuicios contra su hijo y que de verdad quieren fastidiarlo.
jueves, 12 de abril de 2012
No le gusta el aborto? No le gusta la lógica?
¿No le gusta el aborto? No tenga uno¿No le gustan las corridas de toros? No vaya a ninguna
¿No le gusta el incesto? No cometa incesto.
¿No le gustan las violaciones a los derechos humanos? No cometa ninguna
¿No le gusta la corrupción? No se corrompa
¿No le gustan las drogas? No consuma drogas
¿No le gustan las armas? No compre armas
¿No le gusta comer carne? No compre carne
¿No le gusta el ejército? No se enrole
¿No le gusta la pedofilia? No tenga sexo con menores
¿No le gustan los asesinatos? No mate
¿No le gusta la lógica de este post? A mí tampoco
¿No le gusta el incesto? No cometa incesto.
¿No le gustan las violaciones a los derechos humanos? No cometa ninguna
¿No le gusta la corrupción? No se corrompa
¿No le gustan las drogas? No consuma drogas
¿No le gustan las armas? No compre armas
¿No le gusta comer carne? No compre carne
¿No le gusta el ejército? No se enrole
¿No le gusta la pedofilia? No tenga sexo con menores
¿No le gustan los asesinatos? No mate
¿No le gusta la lógica de este post? A mí tampoco
Pero esta es la lógica que usan quienes están a favor del aborto para insinuar que quienes están en contra se deben limitar a no tenerlos. Como pueden ver a través del desarrollo, la lógica que usan está supremamente viciada porque está basada en el sofisma de que quienes se oponen a la idea simplemente deben “dejar hacer.” La misma lógica debería mantener a los antitaurinos, ONG’s de derechos humanos (Americas Watch, Amnesty International), al procurador y a la contralora, bien encerrados en sus casas. Los pederastas, los corruptos y los asesinos por la sola fuerza de este razonamiento viciado, podrían hacer de las suyas mientras usted se limite a responder por sí mismo no abusando de menores. Los objetores de conciencia y los pacifistas deberían permanecer en casa, lo mismo que los activistas de PETA.
No sólo son las ideas, sino la lógica que las sostiene.
lunes, 9 de abril de 2012
El Bogotazo: cita con lo inevitable
Para un prócer progresista como yo, y ahora que el 9 de Abril se ha institucionalizado en Colombia el Día Nacional de la Memoria (como esfuerzo para hacer visibles a las víctimas de la violencia en este país), era imposible marginarme de la conmemoración de ese nefasto día de 1948 en que se produjo el magnicidio de Jorge Eliécer Gaitán y la historia del país se partió en dos.
El que sentencia una causa sin oír la parte opuesta, aunque sentencie lo justo es injusta esa sentencia.
miércoles, 7 de marzo de 2012
Obama, gun control, and the law of unintended consequences
Guns, by definition, shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians, neither outlaws nor good law-abiding citizens, period. Gun ownership should be a state monopoly, period. Civilians should be kept very far away from guns, period.Why? You might not know, but open and under radar efforts have failed to produce a real impact in this phenomenon, except in Chicago. Eric Holder is in boiling water ever since his Operation “Fast and Furious”, initially designed to prove the link between American arms sellers and Mexican gangs, backfired spectacularly by providing these gangs sophisticated weaponry they wouldn’t have had otherwise.
And there have been a scarcity in guns lately, indeed. But it is only because guns manufacturers just can’t keep up with the huge demand of firearms and ammunition.
The big irony in all this is that Obama would have kept the gun market away from this unexpected frenzy just by doing nothing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions (and is full of guns).
Guns manufacturers must really heart President Obama.
martes, 21 de febrero de 2012
Food Nazis regulate US Lunchrooms
Top Level USDA Reps Showing Up in US Lunchrooms I’m a progressive. Progressives want to improve society, making it less unfair, more egalitarian. Period. So, finding that the US Department of Agriculture is checking lunchboxes and verifying menus at school cafeterias is outright fascistic to me!Last Monday a top United States Department of Agriculture representative showed up at a school in Richmond, Virginia to arbitrate bake sales and tater tots.Now the state knows better than everyone else in matters of school food and needs to enforce (bleurgh) healthy food policies everywhere… for our children, no less.
This reeks so of Hitlerjugend...
This is an utter waste of resources.
This does not solve the unemployment crisis, unless you count the Food Police as an improvement.
This does not solve the dependence on fossil fuels and the energy crisis either.
This does not solve climate change issues.
This does not solve the American median income decline, nor the income inequality of Corporate America.
Persuasion is one thing and enforcing is really another.
The US Government is very short of mandating people to exercise and eat healthy. Tomorrow will be something else than healthcare. We may not like it, but it would be late anyhow. They are doing this — forcing us to do this, for our own good. They know better, we don’t.
We’re plain dumb. We’re cattle. We should follow and obey.
“Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us”, said Leo Tolstoi. “The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government”, said Martin Luther King, Jr. The Obama administration has failed to oversee this and prefers to ignore the forsaken promises of unity, rejoicing in exercising raw power against its people.
You may see goodness in a government controlling children’s food; I see power overreach and the death of liberty.
jueves, 9 de febrero de 2012
Schopenhauer's 38 Stratagems, or 38 Ways to Win an Argument (From the Internet)
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), was a brilliant German philosopher. These 38 Stratagems are excerpts from "The Art of Controversy", first translated into English and published in 1896. Schopenhauer's 38 ways to win an argument are:1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow his or her propositions remain, the easier they are to defend by him or her.
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there
in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
6. Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By
asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.
8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
9. Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
10. If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.
11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.
13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the
answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.
15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as thoug you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.
16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other
statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.
17. If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.
20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly
to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.
21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.
22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contractiong your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the orginal statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.
24. This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by
false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.
27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
28. This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly
begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely
yourself.
31. If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
33. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or
evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
35. This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.
36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as ife he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.
38. A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.
(abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer)
As a matter of fact, I should concede I find some stratagems fair and OK? Am I wrong?
2. Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his or her argument.
3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to a particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than that which was asserted.
4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent till the end. Mingle your premises here and there
in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitious route you conceal your game until you have obtained all the admissions that are necessary to reach your goal.
5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If the opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
6. Another plan is to confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By
asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.
8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgement or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.
9. Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.
10. If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek them to concede.
11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.
12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable in your proposition.
13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him or her an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the
answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed.
15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment.
Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as thoug you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he or she suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject a true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your own for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what the opponent accepted. For this, an extreme degree of impudence is required.
16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other
statements, beliefs, actions, or lack of action.
17. If your opponent presses you with a counter proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.
18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him or her to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.
19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his or her argument, and you have nothing much to say, try to make the argument less specific.
20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly
to accept your conclusion. Rather draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.
21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial, refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him or her. For it is with victory that your are concerned, and not with truth.
22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.
23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his or her statements. By contractiong your opponent you may drive him or her into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the orginal statement your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits.
24. This trick consists in stating a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition and by
false inference and distortion of his or her ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears the opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so appears to be indirectly refuted.
25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against him or herself.
27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. Not only will this make the opponent angry, it may be presumed that you put your finger on the weak side of his or her case, and that the opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.
28. This trick is chiefly practicable in a dispute if there is an audience who is not an expert on the subject. You make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes the opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If the opponent must make a long, complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen.
29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly
begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.
30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he or she generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have invented entirely
yourself.
31. If you know that you have no reply to an argument that your opponent advances, you may, by a fine stroke of irony, declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
33. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or
evades it with a counter question, or tries to change the subject, it is a sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without knowing it. You have as it were, reduced the opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.
35. This trick makes all unnecessary if it works. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect, work on his or her motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion, should it prove true, seem distinctly to his or her own interest, the opponenent will drop it like a hot potato.
36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If the opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as ife he or she has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him or her some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.
37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way which bad advocates lose a good case. If no accurate proof occurs to the opponent or the bystanders, you have won the day.
38. A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular trick, because everyone is able to carry it into effect.
(abstracted from the book:Numerical Lists You Never Knew or Once Knew and Probably Forget, by: John Boswell and Dan Starer)
As a matter of fact, I should concede I find some stratagems fair and OK? Am I wrong?
Related articles
viernes, 3 de febrero de 2012
Las farc destruyen Tumaco: un acto "revolucionario" demencialmente inhumano
Un mayor estadounidense pasó a la historia durante la Ofensiva Tet en Vietnam al emitir a la prensa una de las declaraciones más demencialmente orwellianas de la vida real: “Tuvimos que destruir la villa para poder salvarla”. Cuarenta y Tres años más tarde, las autodenominadas farc (perdón por la expresión facha, pero hoy no cabe otra) actúan con la misma filosofía, atacando despiadadamente con explosivos a la relegada población de Tumaco, en el Pacífico Sur colombiano.Si las farc necesitaban llamar la atención sobre la olvidada población, pues sí que lo lograron. Pero si lo que quieren mostrar fuerza para llegar pisando duro a una eventual negociación de paz, pues que están locos de remate. Atacar a un pueblo al que dicen representar y defender es irracional, demencial, ilógico, estúpido, indecente, obsceno e imperdonable.
Las farc no salen de su eterno y único libreto de secuestrar y atacar civiles inermes, indefensos e inocentes; lo único que demuestran es su inhumana insensibilidad. ¿De verdad creen que cuando llegaren a desmovilizarse (que no a tomarse el poder) un progresista sensato va a querer votar por ellos?
El Progresismo no es extremismo. El Progresismo defiende a los débiles, no los destruye.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
