I personally am anti-abortion, but as I believe in our system of government as enumerated in the Constitution, I'm willing to accept the legality of it so long as it's done constitutionally and not legislated from the bench. Roe v Wade was not constitutional; it was the Supreme Court looking at the Constitution and saying, "Right here, between the First and Second amendments--I think I see something in there, between the lines, about abortion being a right." "Why, I do believe you're right! That is there! All right, abortion can't be outlawed by anyone. Next case!"
I could tolerate the legality of abortion if it had been arrived at in a constitutional fashion--that is to say, if a bill had been passed by legislature and signed into law by executive. The problem is, the abortion rights people in the 1970s knew they couldn't do that; the vast majority of people in the US were anti-abortion.
That's, y'know, kind of why it was illegal in so many places.
So, prior to Roe v Wade--for example--abortion could be illegal in Indiana and legal in Illinois. It was up to the states; if the citizens of a particular state wanted it legalized, all they had to do was to elect people to represent them who shared their views.
But that was too hard and too slow for liberals. Besides, the people might change their minds, and this was too important. Hence, lawsuit after lawsuit, until one hit the Supreme Court; and the Supreme Court saw fit to invent--from whole cloth--a new right, such that it's now nearly impossible even to limit abortion to exclude barbarisms like partial birth abortions.
States' rights have been eroding since before the Civil War--states' rights under the 10th Amendment were the central issue of that war--and that's something that has to be corrected.
* * *
Jerry Pournelle has redesigned "the original blog". I like the new format.
And he says there won't be cuts. He's right; there won't--not until there is no economy for Washington, D.C. to tax. By then it'll be too late to prevent the collapse, as (absent a reasonable and paradox-free method of time travel) you cannot prevent something that has already happened.
* * *
Annoying auto-playing video at this link about an Australian broadcaster who is being investigated for speaking out against anthropogenic global warming.
Warmistas insist that 28% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from human sources, because pre-Industrial Revolution the concentration was 280 PPM and is now 385 PPM.
I guess they've gotten out their atomic force microscopes and checked each molecule of CO2 in an air sample for the "made by humans" tag, because that is the only way you can make that assertion.
We do not know where the excess CO2 came from; these people are assuming it's from human sources. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: human activity emits CO2, CO2 is higher, therefore all the excess comes from human sources. It doesn't follow and there is no way to prove it's the case.
The figures cited for the carbon budget of the atmosphere are also wrong:
Climate commissioner and executive director of the ANU Climate Institute Will Steffen said another calculation was the amount of additional carbon, contained in carbon dioxide, that humans contributed to the atmosphere each year.The annual carbon budget of Earth's atmosphere--the amount of carbon which circulates through Earth's carbon cycle--is about 206 billion tons; of that amount 6 billion tons come from man-made sources.
"Every year the earth - land and ocean combined - takes a net five billion tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere, but humans put around nine billion tonnes in, meaning we are accumulating an additional four billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere each year," he said.
The "additional four billion tons" figure comes from figuring out how many tons that extra 100 PPM of CO2 amounts to, then dividing that by the number of years since the Industrial Revolution began. (The atmosphere is massive; it's a tiny fraction of the total mass of Earth but it's still freakin' huge compared with us.)
Since it's long since been demonstrated that CO2 lags warming (rather than leads it) you can't even assert that human activity leads to warming, much less that we are somehow overloading the carbon cycle.
...and so now we have the warmistas showing their true colors: you dare not disagree with them, because if you do, you're going to be investigated and threatened.
If the science actually supported their position, would they have to do these things? DPUD: "'Green Science' is Neither.
* * *
Call yourself "Anonymous" all you like, but there is no true anonymity on the Internet because those packets have to make it to your computer somehow, you fucking ass goblin.
* * *
That Pournelle link (the second one) actually comes from this Ace of Spades DOOM! post and the DOOM! post is full of, well, DOOM!
From the DOOM! post is this link with this quote:
In terms of total employment, the U.S. lost 0.7 million jobs during the first 24 months of Obama’s recovery. The nation has never before had an economic expansion where total employment after two years of recovery was lower than it was at the end of the recession. In June 2011, America had 2.9 million fewer people working than when Obama was inaugurated. (By the same point in Reagan’s presidency, our total number of jobs had increased by 0.7 million, equivalent to 1.0 million jobs after adjustment for today’s higher population.)The reason we've never had an economic expansion where total employment was lower? Because it doesn't frickin' happen that way, that's why! The simple answer is there is no recovery and there never was. The "expansion" is a numbers game perpetrated by a government eager to hide the truth so it can "extend and pretend".
In 50 years, I wonder if the history of this depression is going to start in 2000?
* * *
I keep coming back to that friend of mine who--around 1993-ish--said that his Chinese girlfriend never had to worry about having a place to live, or food to eat, or medical care, or education, because she came from a communist country.
I regret not being fast enough on my feet to rejoin with, "Sure, and she doesn't have to worry about having her own opinions, either."
Well, there's another nifty thing about China: trafficking in children! Yes, your unwanted children can be sold for profit! Who cares if you have a daughter? Sell her into slavery and try again to have a son!
China's traditional preference for male heirs means some families sell their female babies in order to try for a boy, since the country's one-child policy limits most urban couples to one child and rural families to two.But hey! It's only a daughter, so why worry?
Of course the Communists have outlawed such things; but *wink wink* hey the proles aren't going to eliminate themselves, are they?
* * *
So I went to the church to see my therapist, L.
I sat in the truck for a bit, then decided I'd get out and wait by the door. As I opened the door, I heard this SCRRAAPE.
"WTF?" I wondered. "What's with the door--oh, it's not the door!" I turned and saw a red car coming to a stop, front end damaged, on the wrong side of the road. As I watched, two young people got out of the car yelling something or other.
Black car sitting in the intersection, pointing south, across the right turn lane; gold car behind it.
Judging by the damage to the red car and the position of the black car, here's are two possible scenarios:
(1) Red car was approaching light from north as light was turning red and tried to beat it, making a left turn just as the opposing signal turns green. Black car, getting green light, begins to pull out into intersection, going straight, and gets clobbered by red car.
(2) Red car was approaching light from west as the signal turned green. Black car, in left turn lane but with no protected left, tried to make a left before the red car got there, and the black car smacked the red car.
...but I did not see any of the actual accident itself, so I have no clue what actually happened. In either case I can see how the two cars car would end up where they did. The red car didn't seem very badly damaged (and they were both modern styro-cars) so it must've been a fairly low-speed impact, but in either case the black car was turned 90 degrees and probably struck the gold car behind it. In case (2) it would also have had to roll backwards about 20 feet or so, which is not impossible if the driver was completely blindsided and didn't hit the brakes before collision.
Either way, when there's a collision at an intersection it's because someone failed to yield right-of-way, and that's usually because he ignored the traffic control device.
Oh, a 3rd possibility: the gold car hit the black car from behind, forcing it into the red car's path as it made a perfectly legal left turn from the southbound left turn lane. That would also account for the situation.
* * *
Speaking of accidents--
Apparently there was a tragedy at a liquor store in Beecher this past week. A woman had to take her kids with her to work, because her babysitter canceled, and so she took the older two boys into the store first. (They were four and two, respectively.) The youngest was a baby; she returned to the car to get the baby and when she got to the door of the store she was greeted by her 2-year-old, who was screaming.
Turns out that the 4-year-old had found--in that one or two minute period--the gun kept behind the counter, put it to his head, and pulled the trigger. Of course the kid was killed instantly.
Okay: how do you assign blame in this instance? The only thing I can see that was done wrong by anybody was that the gun was not stored with the safety on. I mean:
1) One does not expect there to be unsupervised toddlers in a liquor store.
2) A liquor store in a small town near a main highway is a perfect target for a robbery, so personal protection is necessary and reasonable. (And perfectly legal.)
3) According to the mother, the kid was unsupervised for two minutes.
That last--the kid must've known the gun was there, he must've seen it some previous time, because that's an awfully short period of time for a kid to 1) discover gun, 2) get gun, 3) shoot himself while playing with it. He must've made a beeline for it the instant his mom was out of sight.
...if the safety had been on, he would have had a lot harder time shooting himself.
What it ends up being is a tragedy, pure and simple, and it looks to me as if you can't say that any one factor was a cause.
BTW? Was there another clerk on duty? Was the store open? No idea--I heard this at Bible study the other night because my pastor officiated at the funeral. The local weekly will has the kid's obituary but no story; I guess it happened too late for the paper to include the story, so it'll probably be in next week's paper.
Of course the gun-grabbers will seize this story with glee: "See? See what happens when people can own guns?"
* * *
Reading the To Aru Kagaku no Railgun manga over at MangaReader.net--I just finished reading the entirety of the "Sisters" arc.
Steven Den Beste says he really wants to see that arc animated; having read the whole story I'm not so sure he'd actually enjoy it as much as he thinks he would--assuming that he hasn't read the manga, I mean. (He's not really a big manga guy, so that's probably a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption.) It's a pretty unpleasant story; the part that was told in the first To Aru Majutsu no Index series contained the nicest elements of it. "The rest of the story" is dark and nasty.
...especially the part with the team that's brought in to stop Misaka as she tries to destroy the facilities where the Sisters are made. Four girls, and they're all pretty bad people. Two of them at least are just as evil as can be; it was not what I call a fun read, at least not those parts. I think the presentation in To Aru...Index was probably the best way to handle it.
I also finished the first Rosario+Vampire manga series. I do not recall seeing, in the anime, Tsukune getting "poisoned" by Moka's repeated injections of her blood into him to make him into a temporary vampire.
You know, there are so many damn ways that the vampire myth is screwed up it's hard to tell what's original any more. I've decided that Bram Stoker's Dracula, the original novel, that is the definitive source, and everything else is apocryphal.
That means that you don't turn into a vampire unless the vampire injects his blood into you; but when that happens, that's it--you're a vampire, period, and there's no going back. He can drink your blood, a little or a lot; if you die from blood loss, you're just dead. You don't come back as a vampire. If you get your blood drunk three times it's the same as having it drunk once or fifty; you don't turn into a vampire after being fed on three times.
Oh, and one other thing: YOU DON'T FUCKING SPARKLE WHEN EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT.
I really don't like vampires, anyway, but I already ranted about that just a few days ago.
As for my favorite from Rosario+Vampire it would have to be Ruby:
She's a witch, and she's an adult--so no freezing, no enslaving, no consuming life energy, no drinking blood.
Oh! And then there's this cover image from the magazine the story was in, featuring Fuuka in a squeeze suit! How awesome is that?