maxomai: dog (Default)
This one is about the "gas tax holiday" proposed by Clinton and McCain.



Thoughts?
maxomai: dog (Default)
This one is about the "gas tax holiday" proposed by Clinton and McCain.



Thoughts?
maxomai: dog (Default)
We know what Crowley thinks of abortion. Anyone with any doubts about this should go to one of the following:

http://knight-monk.livejournal.com/212472.html
http://omphalos111.livejournal.com/41481.html
http://doveserpent11.livejournal.com/40007.html
http://richard-kaczyn.livejournal.com/146842.html
http://aish-mlchmh.livejournal.com/tag/abortion

That said: how is abortion not a woman's right under Liber OZ?

To me, this seems pretty clear. No matter how much one might recoil in horror, no matter whether this is a sin against the Holy Spirit or not, if motherhood thwarts a woman's rights under OZ, then she has a right to abort. In fact, she has no right but to abort under those circumstances.

To which, of course, one could raise the following objections:

• "What about the right of the fetus to live as it will?" I assert that there is no such right, except insofar as the mother is willing to consent to this, since it is her role in this operation to provide the matter and information with which life is sustained.

• "Doesn't a woman magickally invalidate her own right to life by aborting?" No, for the reason above, and because a fetus is not a full-blown human being as we understand the idea. At most, it is a τεκνον. And in its early stages, it's not even that. As a side note, I wish the pro-life movement would get over their silly and superstitious insistance that life that is genetically derived from humans is "human life." No: it's not, not unless it demonstrates some manner of comprehension.

• "So, you're basically arguing for infanticide?" Not as such. One can at least see in a newborn infant that the neural net is being organized. Then again, societies and animals have abandoned unfit newborns in order to conserve resources, and we have done much crueler things in the name of much loftier and more praiseworthy goals.

• "But the moral argu...." You lose.

Have at!
maxomai: dog (Default)
We know what Crowley thinks of abortion. Anyone with any doubts about this should go to one of the following:

http://knight-monk.livejournal.com/212472.html
http://omphalos111.livejournal.com/41481.html
http://doveserpent11.livejournal.com/40007.html
http://richard-kaczyn.livejournal.com/146842.html
http://aish-mlchmh.livejournal.com/tag/abortion

That said: how is abortion not a woman's right under Liber OZ?

To me, this seems pretty clear. No matter how much one might recoil in horror, no matter whether this is a sin against the Holy Spirit or not, if motherhood thwarts a woman's rights under OZ, then she has a right to abort. In fact, she has no right but to abort under those circumstances.

To which, of course, one could raise the following objections:

• "What about the right of the fetus to live as it will?" I assert that there is no such right, except insofar as the mother is willing to consent to this, since it is her role in this operation to provide the matter and information with which life is sustained.

• "Doesn't a woman magickally invalidate her own right to life by aborting?" No, for the reason above, and because a fetus is not a full-blown human being as we understand the idea. At most, it is a τεκνον. And in its early stages, it's not even that. As a side note, I wish the pro-life movement would get over their silly and superstitious insistance that life that is genetically derived from humans is "human life." No: it's not, not unless it demonstrates some manner of comprehension.

• "So, you're basically arguing for infanticide?" Not as such. One can at least see in a newborn infant that the neural net is being organized. Then again, societies and animals have abandoned unfit newborns in order to conserve resources, and we have done much crueler things in the name of much loftier and more praiseworthy goals.

• "But the moral argu...." You lose.

Have at!

Okay..

Dec. 2nd, 2006 07:25 pm
maxomai: dog (Default)
Michigan, or Florida?

I slightly prefer Florida, because I'm an SEC fan, and because that was one of the most insane games I've ever seen.

Okay..

Dec. 2nd, 2006 07:25 pm
maxomai: dog (Default)
Michigan, or Florida?

I slightly prefer Florida, because I'm an SEC fan, and because that was one of the most insane games I've ever seen.
maxomai: dog (Default)
More on Iraq:

maxomai: dog (Default)
More on Iraq:

maxomai: dog (Default)
The anti-immigrant hysteria's gotten out of hand, folks. Now Mothers Against Illegal Immigrants are begging us to please think of the children, who might have to grow up in a world with brown people.

I'm starting to think that the only proper response to idiots like these is to breed them out. The gene pool can only tolerate so many stupid people before civilization colapses.
maxomai: dog (Default)
The anti-immigrant hysteria's gotten out of hand, folks. Now Mothers Against Illegal Immigrants are begging us to please think of the children, who might have to grow up in a world with brown people.

I'm starting to think that the only proper response to idiots like these is to breed them out. The gene pool can only tolerate so many stupid people before civilization colapses.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Our recon force on the East Coast ([livejournal.com profile] flavobean) points us to this very frightening admission from the wonderful folks at Wal-Mart:

Wal-Mart tells state Governors they can't afford employee health care anymore.

Now, let's get something out of the way right now: Wal-Mart isn't in business to provide their employees (excuse me, "associates") with health care. Hell, they're not even in business to provide their employees with a decent, living wage, or with management that treats them as any more than a replaceable, forgettable cog.

But this admission from one of the largest and most profitable companies on the planet is an indication that our present proto-feudal system of employer-based health care isn't just inadequate and barbaric, it's also unsustainable.

Wal-Mart, for their parts, are demanding that state governments do something about the matter. The problem, of course, is that state governments are rarely flush with cash, and so their ability to "do something" is limited. They're going to need help from the feds. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is in the control of a bunch of idiots and nutjobs who are busy trying to beg and steal their way back to Hoover administration policies.

So here's the million dollar question: what the heck do we do about this?

UPDATE I should point out here that it was not my intention to make this an anti-Wal-Mart thread. However, since we're into it, SC and I have plenty of reason to actively hate Wal-Mart. This is because of the way SC was treated while working there, and the way she was treated by them after leaving Wal-Mart (including withholding her final paycheck). Quite frankly, this is fundamentally an issue of customer satisfaction. If SC were treated better, we would probably shop there. There are plenty of other reasons that you can list for why we might hate Wal-Mart, but most of them are bunk IMO.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Our recon force on the East Coast ([livejournal.com profile] flavobean) points us to this very frightening admission from the wonderful folks at Wal-Mart:

Wal-Mart tells state Governors they can't afford employee health care anymore.

Now, let's get something out of the way right now: Wal-Mart isn't in business to provide their employees (excuse me, "associates") with health care. Hell, they're not even in business to provide their employees with a decent, living wage, or with management that treats them as any more than a replaceable, forgettable cog.

But this admission from one of the largest and most profitable companies on the planet is an indication that our present proto-feudal system of employer-based health care isn't just inadequate and barbaric, it's also unsustainable.

Wal-Mart, for their parts, are demanding that state governments do something about the matter. The problem, of course, is that state governments are rarely flush with cash, and so their ability to "do something" is limited. They're going to need help from the feds. Meanwhile, the Federal Government is in the control of a bunch of idiots and nutjobs who are busy trying to beg and steal their way back to Hoover administration policies.

So here's the million dollar question: what the heck do we do about this?

UPDATE I should point out here that it was not my intention to make this an anti-Wal-Mart thread. However, since we're into it, SC and I have plenty of reason to actively hate Wal-Mart. This is because of the way SC was treated while working there, and the way she was treated by them after leaving Wal-Mart (including withholding her final paycheck). Quite frankly, this is fundamentally an issue of customer satisfaction. If SC were treated better, we would probably shop there. There are plenty of other reasons that you can list for why we might hate Wal-Mart, but most of them are bunk IMO.
maxomai: dog (Default)
Police are investigating the negligent discharge of a firearm in a daycare, that resulted in the injury of a 7-year-old. The firearm was brought there by an 8-year-old.

What kind of parent lets an 8-year-old bring a gun to a day care?

Police charged the boy's father, John L. Hall, 56, with leaving a firearm in a location accessible by an unsupervised minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon.


In other words, this guy got a gun illegally (as a felon he's not supposed to have one in the first place) and left it where his kid could find it. Sounds like a guy who's just winning in life, doesn't he?

And what the hell is an 8-year-old doing in day care?

"Bell curves have thick tails." --Bart Kosko
maxomai: dog (Default)
Police are investigating the negligent discharge of a firearm in a daycare, that resulted in the injury of a 7-year-old. The firearm was brought there by an 8-year-old.

What kind of parent lets an 8-year-old bring a gun to a day care?

Police charged the boy's father, John L. Hall, 56, with leaving a firearm in a location accessible by an unsupervised minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon.


In other words, this guy got a gun illegally (as a felon he's not supposed to have one in the first place) and left it where his kid could find it. Sounds like a guy who's just winning in life, doesn't he?

And what the hell is an 8-year-old doing in day care?

"Bell curves have thick tails." --Bart Kosko
maxomai: dog (Default)
If you're just waking up, you may have heard that the mining company reps got it exactly backwards -- 12 miners were found dead, with one survivor, and not the other way around.

This "miscommunication" was the result of people grabbing at rumor rather than substantiated fact. It started with the townspeople, and that's understandable, but it then spread to the media, who ran with it without bothering to double-check.

Those of us who've been watching the media being led around by the Bush people shouldn't be surprised by this. Meanwhile, what I want to know is this: could this have been prevented if OSHA could enforce the rules in a way that mattered? There were apparently just a lot of issues with this mine, but all OSHA could do was impose fines up to $400. If it's a choice between a few tens of thousands in fines, and hundreds of thousands to improve safety conditions, your choices are dictated by the demands of the free market. What if those fines were in the millions? What if OSHA could shut the mine down? Would this have made a difference?
maxomai: dog (Default)
If you're just waking up, you may have heard that the mining company reps got it exactly backwards -- 12 miners were found dead, with one survivor, and not the other way around.

This "miscommunication" was the result of people grabbing at rumor rather than substantiated fact. It started with the townspeople, and that's understandable, but it then spread to the media, who ran with it without bothering to double-check.

Those of us who've been watching the media being led around by the Bush people shouldn't be surprised by this. Meanwhile, what I want to know is this: could this have been prevented if OSHA could enforce the rules in a way that mattered? There were apparently just a lot of issues with this mine, but all OSHA could do was impose fines up to $400. If it's a choice between a few tens of thousands in fines, and hundreds of thousands to improve safety conditions, your choices are dictated by the demands of the free market. What if those fines were in the millions? What if OSHA could shut the mine down? Would this have made a difference?

Profile

maxomai: dog (Default)
maxomai

April 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
2324 2526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 08:40 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios