Sunday, December 31, 2006

Eugenics Wars

Two interesting news items today, whose juxtaposition reveals a disturbing double standard, and highlights the ongoing politically-correct brainwashing of society.

Without arguing the particular merits of either position, I am simply showing the difference created by one group having a well-established vocal media campaign, and the other one lacking it.

First up:
Science told: hands off gay sheep
Isabel Oakeshott and Chris Gourlay

Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger

SCIENTISTS are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.

The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research, at Oregon State University in the city of Corvallis and at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, has caused an outcry. Martina Navratilova, the lesbian tennis player who won Wimbledon nine times, and scientists and gay rights campaigners in Britain have called for the project to be abandoned.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.
Note that nobody is suggesting, oh, aborting homosexually-inclined fetuses. This is a potential neo-natal cure. To even desire a straight child however is apparently homophobic and evil.
Professor Charles Roselli, the Health and Science University biologist leading the research, defended the project.

He said: “In general, sexuality has been under-studied because of political concerns. People don’t want science looking into what determines sexuality.

“It’s a touchy issue. In fact, several studies have shown that people who believe homosexuality is biologically based are less homophobic than people who think that this orientation is acquired.”
Doesn't matter, Professor. The gay lobby wants to shut down free scientific inquiry.

Interesting it's the same types of people who still, to this day, chastise the Catholic church for being uncomfortable with Galileo's astronomical research hundreds of years ago -- and for which it has apologized -- who are calling for their own stifling of Science.

Oh, but they have a good reason, you see!

Because curing hormonal imbalances is the same as Nazi eugenics!
Peter Tatchell, the gay rights campaigner, said: “These experiments echo Nazi research in the early 1940s which aimed at eradicating homosexuality. They stink of eugenics. There is a danger that extreme homophobic regimes may try to use these experimental results to change the orientation of gay people.”

He said that the techniques being developed in sheep could in future allow parents to “play God”.
Never mind that the Nazis were killing off the "undesirables" rather than curing them.

Look at the propaganda machine that instantly cranks up! In addition to hysterical professional gay-rights activists, we also have University professors and non-governmental organizations joining this circus of condemnation:
Udo Schuklenk, Professor of Bioethics at Glasgow Caledonian University, who has written to the researchers pressing them to stop, said:
“Imagine this technology in the hands of Iran, for example.

“It is typical of the US to ignore the global context in which this is taking place.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the pressure group, condemned the study as “a needless slaughter of animals, an affront to human dignity and a colossal waste of precious research funds”.
Ok, that's all pretty much to be expected.

Now, contrast with this rather blandly-reported item, also from today:
Group recommends Down syndrome testing

WASHINGTON - There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect.

The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.
This is presented as entirely uncontroversial. It is merely a sober medical pronouncement in a respected medical journal, as Science marches on to make modern life easier.

The completely unspoken assumption is that first-trimester detection makes abortion easier, if that is what the family wants.

It is so taken as matter-of-fact that the article just breezes on by the issue:
It's not just a question of whether to continue the pregnancy. Prenatal diagnosis also is important for those who wouldn't consider abortion, because babies with Down syndrome can need specialized care at delivery that affects hospital selection, he added.
Why no, it's not just that at all! They feel they have to remind people that there may be other reasons!

Not a peep about Eugenics or Nazis in this article.

Whether such comparisons would or would not be appropriate is not my point.

My point is that if the second article is taken as rationally presented, then the first article -- where the procedure (if it even works on humans!) is a simple cure and NOT abortion -- is from some strange Bizarro World.

On the other hand, if you take the first article as reasonable and rational, then the second one should logically be making anti-eugenics advocates apoplectic.

Clearly, there's just no active lobby for Down's syndrome sufferers. The first article isn't really about eugenics, it's about the gay lobby losing power if there are fewer gay people, whether or not they can have the ability to live more normal lives.

You'd think these critics would like the notion of "choice" in the matter, they use that as their rallying cry in so much else.

Ha, you thought they really supported "choice" for women? Well, here's a choice the Left doesn't want women to make!

Chew on that hypocrisy for a while. In fact, that's not surprising, as the whole left-wing radical agenda does not rest on a logical foundation, unlike that of the Right. It's really just a grab-bag of grievances to hold together a coalition of special interests for political power, and not a coherent philosophy.

Remember, the cure doesn't even exist yet for people, but a media machine is cranking up to keep us from even researching it or talking about it, spewing anger and invective.

Just scream Homophobe! Racist! Nazi!

That's how the radical Left totalitarian operates, whether their religion is islam or atheism.

Get your group defined as a recognized Victim of Cruel Society, then demand privileges and money as reparations.


Friday, December 29, 2006


As happens once in a while, last Friday (Dec. 22) this humble blog had an "instalanche" of 450 visitors, which is about ten times the usual amount. There was a secondary blip on Sunday.

That usually indicates someone up the foodchain put a link to here -- sometimes as an actual blog posting, or sometimes simply in a comment by a reader at a larger blog.

I didn't notice this until it was too late to find out where the traffic was coming from, as the free counter stats only save that info from the last 100 visitors and there were no obvious stragglers coming in by mid-week when I tried to check.

So if anyone is coming back here after having been directed by a link last weekend, please let me know where it was, as I am interested. Or if you were the linker and are still reading, drop me a line or leave a comment here please.

Sometimes links happen from hostile lefty blogs, but there were no nasty comments left so it probably wasn't from one of those this time.

In addition to my small core of regular readers, I've noticed I'm getting more and more traffic from random google searches. Certain search terms are very popular in driving people to this blog.

One of the top ones is probably "eating roadkill" if you can believe it! That posting mocking the practice gets lot of traffic from people presumably interested in doing it, as there is a continual trickle of outraged comments condemning me and Western civilization left at that article.

The "Rangers at Pointe du Hoc" is also common, as is "Laser gunship."

Next are "M1 Garand," "Grand Strategy," "Electoral College," and "Immodest Proposal."

I sometimes get hits from people searching for the "Alexander Method" but they're likely looking for the exercise system, not the "untieable knot" which also does come up in searches from time to time.

Thanks all for reading!

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Canadian Forces in Afghanistan

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Mistakes and Failures

The Iraq War is a mistake and a failure has been a common refrain recently, apparently because it is leading to an Iraqi Civil War.

An interesting statement.

One wonders by what metric it is judged.

Similar logic would then support the following assertions:

The Declaration of Independence was a mistake and a failure because it led directly to the Revolutionary War -- which killed more Americans than 9/11.

The Constitution of the United States was a mistake and a failure because it led ultimately to the U.S. Civil War -- America's worst war by far (well over 100 times worse than Iraq).


The mistake and failure crowd is judging current conditions by comparing them to some fantasy alternate timeline in which there are absolutely no bad consequences to have not taken action. This assumes Saddam Hussein was just a misunderstood teddy bear.

How about otherwise having to face not just Iran's budding nuclear program, but Iraq's as well, as sanctions would have decayed under the oil-for-fraud program?

Let's examine the specific claims:

Iraq was a mistake and a failure WMD stockpiles were found.

I call that a lucky break for our troops! To complain about this again assumes Hussein never, ever had or would have WMD-producing or using intentions.

Translations of captured Iraqi documents are proving otherwise, though the MSM doesn't really report it. The govt. can't apparently handle the translation task of millions of documents and put them on the web. This site is a great resource for what is being found. For example,
On the subject of nuclear program, I translated and posted a document last month dated January 2001 that shows with a shadow of doubt that Saddam was personally involved with his nuclear scientist to re-build the nuclear program.
Seems some people would rather our troops got gassed.

Nothing to see here, move along...

Iraq was a mistake and a failure because...we are less safe.

This relies on assuming a Hussein-free Iraq generates more terrorists, which produces a higher threat.

Well guess what, prior to the Iraq War, there were already plenty enough terrorists with resources to pull of 9/11, which is about as bad as terrorists alone can ever hurt us. Producing more terrorists by itself doesn't make their lethality increase, nor apparently the frequency of their mass attacks.

What would make terrorists more dangerous is their ability to connect with a rogue state and acquire atomic bombs.

Which they now can never do from Hussein's Iraq.

Ergo, we are more safe, which is all the justification needed post 9/11.

Iraq is a mistake and failure because...people keep dying.

By that reasoning, the whole world is a mistake and a failure. Wake up and smell the Hobbesian Leviathan.

Iraq is a mistake and a failure because...daily life is miserable in Baghdad.

The Tikriti-connected Sunni arab in Iraq may certainly view the Iraq war as a mistake. The Nazi SS also came to regard our entry into WW2 as a bad idea. So what? Our nation is safer.

Kurdistan, "the other Iraq", happens to be doing very well. They don't think it's a mistake.

To match our opinions to that of a single faction is ludicrous.

Iraq is a mistake and a failure because...liberal democracy hasn't taken hold.

The project of injecting Western-style freedoms into Islamic culture may indeed fail. A mistake to try? More like a moral imperative, as if it does work it would spare us having to solve Belmont Club's Three Conjectures by force, i.e. killing a billion people.

That again would be their failure, not ours.

There's lots of confusion between us and them these days though, isn't there? Multiculturalist dogma has worked hard to destroy a confident self-identity in the West.

Iraq is a mistake and a failure because...things aren't as good as they could have been with better postwar management.

Yes, mistakes were made and the best-case outcome failed to materialize. Very true. Adapt and adjust. Make the best of it. We're still safer and better off for having acted than not.

I mean, look at Libya's secret atomic program: "I saw what happened to Saddam, and I was afraid!" wailed Gadaffi.

Iraq is a mistake and a failure because...we hate George Bush and he must not be seen to succeed at anything.

All too many subscribe to that line of reasoning. One would think they had no stake in the outcome of a civilizational struggle, as if they live on some other planet.

What has been obscured by partisan sniping and biased reporting is that Iraq can be seen as a series of successes, each leading to further layers of problems that were exposed.

Baghdad was captured in March 2003 in a brilliant campaign. Major combat operations ended in April 2003. Saddam Hussein was dragged out of a hole a few months after that.

Looks like Victory and Success to me!

So Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. Our problem? Our mistake? Our failure?

One might even say that true cynical Realists would welcome driving a wedge into the faultline in the rotten Middle East between Arab and Persian, Sunni and Shia, to pit them against each other as they are both our common enemies; properly understood, al Qaeda is simply the Saudi-backed Sunni counterrevolution in terror and islamic fundamentalism, trying to regain the mantle of leadership from the Iran-backed Shia islamic terror revolution that flared up in 1979.

As Spengler says, embrace chaos because it's inevitable, even vital if we are to survive:
Like or not, the US will get chaos, and cannot do anything to forestall it. My advice to President George W Bush: When chaos is inevitable, learn to enjoy it.
A tragedy is unfolding whose final curtain never comes down. Washington must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, because the Ahmadinejad regime wants an oil empire stretching from the southeast shore of the Caspian Sea to the southwest shore of the Persian Gulf. Reza Pahlavi, son of the late shah, warned of Iran's imperial intentions in a Fox News interview on Saturday. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad cannot abandon Iran's nuclear ambitions any more than Adolf Hitler could have kept the peace with Poland in 1939 and remain in power.

Aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear capabilities - Washington's only effective option - will set into play Iranian assets in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, precipitating a regional war (War with Iran on the worst terms, February 14).
When the administration of president Ronald Reagan set out to bring down the Soviet Empire, it did not inquire as to the consequences for Russian or Ukrainian; its object was to reduce a threat to the United States.

The first principle is to reward friends and punish enemies.
He even has a prescription that I endorse:
Americans do not wish to shed their citizens' blood for the purpose of nation-building in countries they do not much care about. The best solution would be to adopt the French model, in the form of a Foreign Legion based offshore. The world still is full of first-rate soldiers with a Russian or South African pedigree who are not suited to civilian life. By extension, Washington might issue Letters of Marque to private entities to deal with enemies at arm's length.
I'd also recruit Gurkhas!

Saturday, December 02, 2006


So there are calls to investigae the oil companies and to tax them for "windfall profits" because gasoline is so expensive.

Gas isn't real cheap in my area compared with others.

Right now, the 87 octane is $2.49 a gallon.

A good portion of that is taxes.

Not to mention distillation and transportation costs from perhaps halfway around the world.

Plus a fear premium as instability looms.

I went to the grocery store the other day.

How about water.

You know, what you need every day or you die.

I just bought a six-pack of 24-ounce Aquafina bottled water. That's a Pepsi product.

That's 144 ounces, or 9/8 of a gallon, for $3.99, or $3.55 per gallon.

It gets better.

Milk was $3.89 a gallon, and that's the store brand!

Name-brand milk goes as high as $4.89 a gallon.

Those price-gouging dairy farmers!

They probably get all sorts of government subsidies too.

No populist outrage over the price of milk though, is there?

How much profit is in a bottle of purified water?

Gasoline only seems expensive because people don't usually buy 20 gallons of milk at a time.

But you know what else?

If I just wanted a little bit of gasoline, it would still prorate at $2.49 a gallon, no matter how little I bought.

Try buying milk by the quart! In that size, it shoots up to $7.16 a gallon!

Gas is cheap, and should remain so -- cheap, abundant energy frees the human soul from the age-old constraints of drudgery, time, and space.