Wednesday, April 23, 2008
This is precisely what we have in NZ today - and in most of the western world, for that matter. Citizens blandly sit back and vote for governments, then complain when those governments act in ways that diverge from what the masses say they want. Democracy in action!
Why is it that most people think they cannot survive without governments? Why do people need to have every area of their lives controlled and taxed to the nth degree? While I'd agree there is scope for limited government, what we have now is a system that has over-reached itself. Governments, MPs, and their employees have become corrupt, bloated parasites, feeding off hard-working people and creating nothing of value in return. Careers have developed at the expense of working people, who continue to be taxed, regulated and treated as though we are morons.
Maybe we are morons, continuing to vote these bastards into power.
You asked for it, NZ. Don't start complaining when you end up in Room 101, with no escape.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
"To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life.
By Michael S. Berliner, 4/15/2008 2:32:10 PM
Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism's goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, environmentalists have made "development" an evil word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power--and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees. No instance of the progress that brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those "protecting" the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.
Nature, they insist, has "intrinsic value," to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. As a consequence, man is to be prohibited from using nature for his own ends. Since nature supposedly has value and goodness in itself, any human action that changes the environment is necessarily immoral. Of course, environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants something.
The ideal world of environmentalism is not twenty-first-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the "environment." Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation that consistent environmentalists would cheer--at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology.
The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is fundamentally anti-man. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man--the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For environmentalism, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds, and bacteria somehow do.
They don't mean it? Heed the words of the consistent environmentalists. "The ending of the human epoch on Earth," writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, "would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet . . . . Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.
The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the "needs" of the nonhuman.
To save mankind from environmentalism, what's needed is not the appeasing, compromising approach of those who urge a "balance" between the needs of man and the "needs" of the environment. To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life. To save mankind requires the return to a philosophy of reason and individualism, a philosophy that makes life on earth possible."Michael sums it up clearly. The green movement is dangerous, and motivated purely by the desire for political power. Sure, we need to preserve the environment, but the solution is not political. It never was.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Mothers too often spend their lives doing everything for their kids. Cooking. Cleaning everything. Washing. Mending. Ironing. Making beds. Clearing out the garbage. Providing money to pay bills. Paying bills. Ferrying people round in the car. Solving problems. Fixing broken stuff. Buying new stuff. Bailing kids out when they get into trouble. Bathing them. Washing their hands. Doing their dishes. Buying them clothes.
While this is fine when the kids are small and dependent on mum for everything, it's no longer acceptable when kids begin to grow up and can start doing things for themselves. This sort of behaviour totally disempowers kids, and leaves them without any life skills. They leave home totally unable to deal with life in the real world. And the downstream effects on society are enormous, as the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces and deal with the damage these people cause.
Don't give me that bullshit about "I'm doing it for love" or "all lifestyles are valid" or "I have a right to live my life as I choose". Sure, you can do something occasionally as a gift, because you love someone. But don't disempower your kids. Don't inflict your warped values on the rest of us, or expect us to pick up the pieces of your kids' failed lives. You don't have the right to get your own needs met at the expense of someone else's. No lifestyle is valid when it has a negative impact on someone else.
If you want to be a martyr, fine, that's your choice. But do your kids a favour, and teach them some independence so that they can function as self-responsible adults. And give the rest of us a break, so that we're not continually forced to deal with the failure of your parenting.