I wrote this originally as a comment to this blog post, and decided it would make a better standalone.

One thing that has always seemed to puzzle progressives is how the middle class individual gravitates towards the more not-interventionist end of the political spectrum. Wouldn’t he benefit from stronger unions and wealth distribution?

This is not how members of the “middle class”, and temporary members of the “lower class” view themselves. The American experience has taught them that each rung of the class ladder is a temporary state, to be passed over as you improve the lot of your family.

In the US, we level up!

Conservative members of the middle and lower class see economic interventionism and graduated taxation for what they are. Rather than taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor, progressive schemes leave the wealth of the rich intact. Where the money actually comes from are those individuals who are actively climbing the ladder from one class rung to another.

Individuals who are already wealthy, such as Woodrow Wilson in his day, and Barak Obama in ours, will stay at the same rung in any case. Their policies make it harder for members of the lower classes, professionals and small business men to join or surpass them. It is an attempt, purposeful or not, to create a new nobility from the wealthy political caste.

The blue-collar workers in America has sensed this trend. They have experienced and internalized the sharp contrast between the years under Jimmy Carter and those with Ronald Regan. They have felt the betrayal under the two Bushes as they were cynically offered bribes of the peoples money, and their freedoms were rapidly eroded. They have felt as though the country is tumbling over a precipice, as the current administration not only keeps the policies of Bush that angered them, but comes up with breathtakingly huge new ways of coddling them and hindering them, making sure neither they nor their children have the same opportunity to climb to the highest rungs of success.

We are the ones that view ourselves not as a European style class, but as a projectile of success. We want everyone to have the same chance for success with as few hindrances as possible. We are voting for our economic best interest.


I thought that the current interesting topics are a good excuse to come off of my long hiatus. Particularly the controversy surrounding Todd “Legitimate Rape” Akin. While I was irritated at his comments, they did ring a bell in the form of a concept I learned from my Psych 101 class.

During the description of the sequence events that occur leading up to and during the female orgasm, the professor described how the uterus contracts, mentioning that this was to draw the semen into the uterus and increase the likelihood of conception. A fact that floated at the surface of my mind until after the test, whereupon it sunk into a dark corner of my mind, waiting to spring forth as an interesting and inappropriate bit of trivia upon an unsuspecting public.

I did a trivial search on the subject of “female orgasm uterus contracts” and came across this article on sperm retention theory. Indeed, one of the prominent explanations for the female orgasm is that it makes it more likely to conceive a child with a preferred partner. In a species that has leanings towards rape, this would be a useful tool in the female’s arsenal. Score one for the Puritans and the inept congressman.

What can we learn from this? There are no winners here! At best, Mr. Akin mumbled a half-remembered anecdote that he never bothered to understand. Fire him. Women are not educated enough about their own bodies to even be aware of this super power they possess. Put them under Obamacare, they are clearly not competent to make their own healthcare decisions. No one in the media has thought to do a Google search to find out if there is anything behind Mr. Akin’s statements besides the typical ignorant ramblings of a politician. Hire an intern or something, jeeze.

I have been thinking for a bit on why people deny things for which there is generally solid evidence. We have global warming, the holocaust, and the theory of evolution for starters. Is it really because these concepts are incompatible with their belief system? I have concluded that it is something more. It is because of the policies based on them.

With evolution, it does go against a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. I don’t see this as the real source behind the militant disagreement with it though. Given the chance, Christians would eventually embrace it, as they have with other unpopular scientific discoveries. What really inspires the refusal is that evolution is used as a tool to enact anti-religious policies outside the scope of the theory. By denying the theory of evolution, some Christians seek to throw atheism back to a time when it was politically impotent and intellectually indefensible.

Denial of the holocaust, particularly in middle-eastern countries,  also is rooted in policy consequences. It was because of the Holocaust that there was support for Israel to be re-established. By denying that it ever took place, Muslim leaders seek to take away both the main impetus for having to live with the Jewish State as a thorn in their side, and the stigma of having supported Adolph Hitler during WWII.

Finally there is the denial of global climate change. Like the others, it is an attempt to block policies, which in this case are designed to increase government control over society. If we could just get rid of this theory, then the doors would be open to harvesting natural resources that would spur growth in our economy, and maintain a greater degree of personal freedom and upward socio-economic mobility.

This is the problem we see here: we have a tendency to attack the tool rather than the underlying problem. This is a children’s sword-fight, where one party hits at the sword of the other party. Evolution has nothing to say for or against the existence of deity. The Holocaust has no bearing on whether there should be a state of Israel. Global warming is irrelevant to the question of to what extent a government should control or be controlled by its people. Enough sword-fighting, we need to get down to the root of things. It is time for some fencing.

I am usually loath to embed video, but this is worth it.

It explains the absurdity surrounding the ever-increasing debt limit in an easy to relate to way.

Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine where the practitioners produce remedies for ailments by serially diluting substances that would normally cause the observed symptoms. The more diluted the resulting mixture, the more effective it is believed to be. For example, if a practitioner of homeopathy were to blame the malaise of our country on Washington D.C., they might try dumping it in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, then drinking a tablespoon of the – now highly dilute – city. From this example, one can immediately see the utility of this form of medicine.

Another application of this medicinal theory that has great potential is in the music industry. Take an artist or genera of music that you are not fond of, say Justin Bieber, and dilute it multiple times with music that you find acceptable. By playing this highly dilute mixture of Bieber music, you counteract the harmful effects of the undiluted substance. (Perhaps it is no accident that love of his music is known as “Bieber Fever“.)

Other benefits could also soon be realized. Anyone who has sampled a bit of the radioactive waste from the Fukushima Daiichi – hyper-diluted by the Pacific Ocean – is now protected from the hazards of radioactive contamination. Diners at Chinese restaurants can now take a highly diluted MSG solution to keep from getting headaches. Girls, tired of being hit on by the wrong sort of guy at the bar? Try a couple drops of 40X diluted jerk sweat.

As can be seen from this brief post, the manifold benefits of homeopathy are bounded only by the imaginations of the practicioners. There is no need to wonder at it having become a multi-million dollar industry. Now, fellow bloggers, perhaps I could interest you in a 400X dilution of Troll dung?

Here is an interesting piece of ethical gymnastics: Self-defence is justified, but self-defence with a gun is not.

I am a proponent of gun ownership, firearm safety, and the right to self-defence. If a person is willing and able, they should responsibly own a gun, know how to shoot it, and use it to defend themselves and their family in the unlikely event that the need arises. If a person is put in that position, they should use the most effective tool available.

While this is my position, I can understand if someone makes the argument that we should not defend ourselves, but hope for the police to arrive in time to defend us. This, in my opinion, is stupid beyond reason; but I will allow that a consistent person might make such an argument.

Then there is an intermediate position. Self-defence is fine, so long as you use an object not solely designed for that purpose. Steak knife: valid defensive implement. Katana: not valid. Shot-put: valid defensive implement. Shotgun: not valid. Crowbar: valid defensive implement. Morning-star: not valid.

What is needed here is simplification. Either I am justified in defending myself and my family, or I am not. If I am, then let me worry about the appropriate tool for the job. 😉