Friday, December 22, 2006

The Real Santa Claus - Not Who You Think

Its that time of year when Santa Claus goes around the world giving away toys. What a great philanthropist. But lets take a closer look at the man in the red suit, and what he is really doing.

Think about some of the gifts that are given from Santa Claus. CDs, DVDs, books, video games, and various name brand products. If any body else did this that would be intellectual property theft, copyright violations, trademark infringements, and the like. Why is that not the case with Mr. Claus? It is. The North Pole looks more like a Chinese knock-off factory than a Winter Wonderland. Santa is costing our economy billions of dollars every year. It Santa didn't give away all these gifts, people would have to go out and buy them from legitimate companies, which would generate jobs, raise the stock market, and overall help our economy. Just imagine how much more in the black Black Friday would make our nation's businesses if not for Santa.

Santa Claus goes around to people's houses, sneaking down their chimney's or any way he can sneak in. Just think about the millions of homes trespassed every Christmas. And of course in homes without chimneys, he has to break and enter homes, and not merely trespass. He is dangerous, he knows how to get pass the most secure security systems. No one is safe. What a sad state our world is in when millions of dollars won't buy you protection from Santa Claus, if that is his real name.

Santa Claus goes around the globe every year. What else is he doing, going to North Korea and Iran, the Axis of Evil, before coming to the US. Does he go through customs? No. Santa is violating UN sanctions by bringing luxury items. But more importantly, how do we know that toys are the only thing being brought into the United States. With North Korea having nuclear bombs now, what's to stop Santa Claus from smuggling one or more of them into the country. Santa Claus is illegally crossing borders, without going through customs, declaring his luggage, and being inspected. Besides weapons, imagine what else Santa could be bringing. How do all the illegal drugs get in our country? Our nation's hardworking border agents wouldn't let that happen. Its not there fault, so it can only be Santa's. He does have to finance his whole operation somehow.

Let's turn our gaze onto Santa's workshop, or should we say Santa's sweatshop? How does Santa manage to pump out so many gifts? By forcing children to work in substandard conditions, underpaid, overworked, and utterly dependent upon Santa for their livelihood up there.

He knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good. One thing Santa Claus apparently doesn't know is that you have according to the Supreme Court a constitutional right to privacy. How does Santa know all this without obtaining any warrants for surveillance? Santa has the world's massive intelligence network. His reckless disregard for your rights makes Bush's warrantless wiretaps look like holding a glass to your wall. There's no telling where all the bugs are in your house. For starters, every item that Santa gave you last Christmas. Hopefully all Santa has hidden are bugs, but I fear that worse may lie in his presents, biological and chemical weapons, explosives, who knows.

And if Santa does know when you've been bad and when you've been good, he could have been a great asset. Would not Santa have known that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction? He could have prevented this whole war. But he did not. He withheld this knowledge in the march to war. The 9/11 Commission missed out on Santa's knowledge of the attacks before they happened. That's just the tip of the iceberg, every other planned crime could have been prevented with Santa's help.

Last but not certainly not least, Santa's propaganda machine. Look at all the Christmas movies, songs, and TV specials painting Santa in a positive light. This web of lies has gotten us to become complacent over Santa's illegal activities. But that's not the worse of it. The worse awaits those heroes who would stand up to Santa's tyranny. Take a certain fellow living near Whoville. He tried to stop Santa's work, and so is called the Grinch. I fear I too will now be the target of Santa's propaganda.

When all the facts are in, Santa is by far the worst criminal in the world. He should be at the top of the most wanted list. We need to strike before Santa strikes at us again. Bush, I implore you to send in a Black Ops force to his North Pole hideout before Christmas Eve arrives.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, December 21, 2006

The Logical Implications of Evolution

If what some say is true, that there is no creator God and that we are mere products of evolution, then there would be numerous implications of this in our world. If you believe this, then you must apply it to such areas as health care and environmentalism.

Let's clarify what is meant by evolution before we go on to its implications. Encyclopedia Britannica says that evolution is the "theory in biology postulating that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." These modifications come from random changes in individual organisms genetic code (DNA). Organisms with modifications advantageous for their particular environment increase their probability of reproducing while organisms with disadvantageous modifications decrease their probability of reproducing. (Hence survival of the fittest) Organisms that reproduce pass on these modifications to their offspring, this process of selecting organisms with advantageous modifications is called natural selection. Over much time, through natural selection, new species arise as change occurs, this change being evolution. I will stress at this point that what I refer to as evolution is an unguided process. If any divine intervention occurs then it would not strictly be considered evolution, neither in this post nor by most scientists.

Survival of the fittest should be the only rule of law. Why then do we need to improve our health care system. I'd say we should just go to a Darwinian health care system. Surely we've been making our species weak by actually preventing the sick from dying. I have bad eyesight, shouldn't natural selection have weeded me out so that later generations would not have the same problem. Therefore, glasses, contacts, and laser eye surgery must go. More and more weakness enters our species every generation as more and more people are able to survive with disorders that should have killed them off. We must put a stop to this nonsense, this health care devolution that is taking place.

What about the little children though? Surely we should provide health care for them. Wrong! Evolution depends on natural selection to remove organisms from the gene pool before they reproduce, not after. So, the implication of this is that we need to let the weak youth die off before they can have children. Therefore, that lofty goal of ensuring every child has access to adequate health care is the worse idea ever. Childhood is the perfect time to let them die, to make our species stronger. If anything, we must strip children of health care, not give them more.

And then you have the elderly. If the goal of life is to reproduce, which would be suggested by evolution, then after people have children we don't need them. Why bother taking care of people late in life, clearly Darwinism would necessitate that we let them die. They're just taking up vital resources anyways. We don't need to even wait until someone retires, because the only real importance one has is not in his or her work but in his and her progeny.

Health care is not the only area that would be affected by a consistent application of evolution. We, human kind, are just animals, no more special then single cell amoebas. What does this mean? It means everything we do is natural. How did we get to the point of where we're at now? Natural selection. If we're burning fossil fuels and causing global warming, so what? Natural selection caused it to happen, so its not wrong. We should continue just as we are, and let natural selection guide us. At most we'll kill ourselves off and nature will continue and adapt. You know what else has an impact on its environment, trees. Trees absorb water and release it later. They also hold soil together, preventing erosion. No one criticizes trees for changing the weather or interfering with the flow of water, why should the case be any different with humans. We're no better or worse than a tree.

Who cares that animals and plants are dying off because of global warming? Let evolution do its work. If they can't survive then they don't deserve life anyways. If they can't adapt then they must go. Make way for the new, progress must go on. What if, by the extinction of hundreds and hundreds of species today, many new species can arise? Would you deprive them of their existence by selfishly protecting the species alive today? If the dinosaurs hadn't died off would we be around? We should repay that debt and kill off other species so new ones can arise.

Who cares about global warming, regardless of it being caused by humans or not. First of all, because humans are just natural, then global warming is natural either way. Change is natural. Coast lines changed before, whats wrong with them changing now? The earth used to be a molten piece of rock, where's the outcry over that change?

For that matter, do we need police? Clearly, there is no such thing as right or wrong anyways in a Darwinian world. Just let natural selection do the job of police. If crime is disadvantageous then criminals will get killed off in natural selection. On the other hand, if crime is advantageous then those who hold to outdated morals such as not killing, stealing, raping, etc., then they will be the ones to die off. In 'nature' does one say that one animal killing another is wrong? No, of course not. Well, its already been established that we are just as much apart of nature too, certainly not above it. So the same should apply to us too. We cannot commit wrongs anymore than other animals can.

I should point out at this point that this is not what I believe. There is a God who created the universe, every living being, and us. We're not here by accident, by random chance. We're here because God made us. And God made us in his image. And God created mankind above the rest of the living beings. That does not give us free range to destroy recklessly creation, but a responsibility to care for it. Only on God does environmentalism have any basis, not on evolution. And because we are made in God's image, we are not free to kill and steal and rape. Every man, woman, and child is made in God's image, and because of that we should treat them with respect. God put in us a moral compass. That's why we have laws, not because they evolved through natural selection. One must consider their beliefs and the logical implications they necessitate. So if you hold to evolution, then you should wholeheartedly embrace these ideas. To do anything but is to foolishly hold conflicting beliefs.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Control Of The Senate On The Line Again

Yesterday, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota suffered bleeding in the brain caused by congenital malformation. It appeared at first that he had a stroke. He was doing a phone interview, started stuttering, recovered, and went back to his office. There he felt bad, they got the physician, who had him sent to the hospital. Today he underwent emergency brain surgery.

This could have a political impact. The North Dakota Governor Mike Rounds is a Republican, and if Johnson were to leave office he would appoint a new senator, who could be a Republican. The Senate right now is 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. If a Republican Senator were to take over, the Senate would be split 50-50 with the Vice President having the tie breaking vote, giving control of the Senate to the Republicans. That would be significant since which party has control over the Senate has control over the committees, over the legislation that makes it to the floor, over judicial nominations, etc. I'm from Kentucky, and Senator McConnell from Kentucky who as of right now will be Minority Leader would become the Majority leader.

To anyone who would put politics above an individual man's health, don't break out the champagne yet. The Senator would have to resign or die, he wouldn't be forced out. In 1969, Republican South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt suffered a stroke and continued to serve out his last 4 years even though he never went to Congress. So if Johnson were not to recover, it is highly likely he'd hold onto his seat just to keep control of the Senate in the hands of the Democrats. Which, if that happens, we're paying from taxpayer money Johnson to do nothing. Of course, we're already paying Congress to do nothing, so that's not anything new.