I picked up Bastiat’s “The Law” today. His description of “a just and enduring government” - I found particularly topical:
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost.
Wow. Usually, collectivists like to shroud their redistribution rhetoric, typically in dishonest, relationally-inverse-from-what’s-really-going-on terms (i.e. create jobs, more tax cuts for the rich, etc).
Lots of quote-gems here for the McCain campaign. I can’t imagine some scaled-down version of this one will go unnoticed.
The tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community-organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
The promo from the documentary Hakani – this is some pretty disturbing stuff:
Check out its Wikipedia page and you’ll find out some straightforward background info:
Hakani is a controversial movie addressing the theme of infanticide in tribal communities in Brazil. The film takes the format of a documentary featuring a dramatic reconstruction of the true story of an attempted infanticide…The movie is part of a wider movement against infanticide amongst Brazilian Amazonian tribes. The pressure brought by the movie has brought the issue into the public eye and as far as the Brazilian Congress with a new law, Muwaji’s Law, being proposed. The law would allow an Indian child to be removed from its parents on the evidence that the child might be the target of a planned infanticide.
And then some information that is, perhaps, more disturbing than the promo. The film has its critics.
Opposition to a film effectively decrying infanticide? On what basis? Well, the most vocal of them is a purported “human rights” (uh…) organization called Survival International. Now, for SI, what legitimizes this viciously cruel, superstitiously-inspired sacrifice of an innocent life?
The organisation claims that the film is a tool for evangelical Christian groups to increase their ability to spread religious belief despite the Brazilian government’s concerns about their methods.
You know, when it comes to being buried alive or receiving theological proselytizing, I think I’ll take the proselytizing.
A symptom of ethical relativism. Really. That’s disgusting.
Forget Darwin vs. Genesis–what about Ptolemy vs. Copernicus, or Egyptian vs. alien pyramid builders? As the folks over at the T-shirt site, Teach the Controversy explain:
‘Big Science’ is always suppressing The Truth with their blatant pro-evolution anti-wacko agenda: from the fact that UFOs built the pyramids to the reality of creationism and fact the universe is “Turtles All The Way Down”. It is time to fight back and urge schools to Teach The Controversy with these intelligently designed t-shirts.
Pick your controversy from the designs below:
Thanks to shameless capitalism, controversialists of all stripes, flat-earthers included, can now express their grievances against the demythologizing tendencies of science on their chests.
I’m totally buying the one where the devil is burying the dinosaur bones.
Back in March I wrote a post entitled My “right” to purchase your product, critiquing Adbusters lawsuit against Canwest Global. The latter entity, a broadcast company, refused to sell airtime to the the former.
Abusters lost the case and, in realizing that you can’t simply force another into business – that it, in fact, takes the mutual consent of both parties to make a contract valid – apparently now rejects the very concept, evident by one of the latest ABTV videos.
Titled Ad-idas, the 5-minute video documents Neil Boorman’s quest “to claim due advertising fees from a brand giant”.
The brand giant in question is Adidas and the “due advertising fees”? According to Boorman, it amounts to 10,000 pounds based upon – nothing consensual, of course, but rather – the 10-15 years Boorman has voluntarily spent being a “human billboard” for the company. You know, wearing Adidas shirts, shorts and shoes out in public.
Now obviously, Mr. Boorman isn’t a true Adidas fan. He isn’t a fan of any corporation. In the same vein as Naomi Klein, he’s a hardcore anti-consumerist borderline luddite; and in the same vein as Michael Moore, the video is dishonest in strategy but authentic in message. But yes, Boorman believes this garbage. As the tagline states, “Why do we buy clothes that advertise brands? They should be paying us!”.
Yeah!
Companies should be paying consumers who choose to buy their branded products for the subsequent advertising that the aforementioned companies never asked for. The consumers deserve it. It’s just!
Yes. In fact, tomorrow I’ll be sending Adbusters an invoice for showcasing the crappy Neil Boorman video in question.
Take a look. Or don’t! It doesn’t matter really. There isn’t a contract or any criteria whatsoever I have to meet. I don’t even have to speak highly of the content. I determine what they owe me. It’s that simple!
