Today, I venture to opine on a subject this has been over opined about by people far more qualified to offer opinions than yours truly.
Still, I will offer my own opinions with the hope that my use of simplification and common language might be more palatable than that typically used by the over educated.
In theory, a Free Market, operated in an environment of laissez-faire, is the best, most reliable and most equitable economic model available. So, how could such a system possibly fail? IMHO, partly due to its own accumulated success.
What could I possibly mean by such a silly statement? How can accumulated success lead to systematic failure? Simple, it does so when the economic model (the Free Market) attempts to operate in a vacuum. Said differently, when the economic model operates as if it alone is responsible for long term societal prosperity.
Secondly, this socioeconomic model fails when it is overburdened from without.
Thirdly, a state of “general prosperity” is anathema to those among us who, seemingly unable to control themselves, seek to control everyone else instead.
Still sounds a bit silly, does it not? Not to me.
In the case of the United States of America, a mostly free market economy (what I see as a “free enough” market economy) took a fledgling nation from a condition of national non-entity to super-power status so quickly that it gave us all a mild form of collective whiplash. It also gave us a level of general prosperity never before seen in the world and, by many, thought to be impossible to attain.
Then, almost suddenly, it all seems to be unraveling at the seams.
I have suggested 3 basic reasons for this:
→ Accumulated success
→ Overburdening from without
→ The desire to control acerbated by unbounded greed
Let us now discuss these individually, in simple terms and using common sense language:
St. J9 and I will be attending Freedom Fest 2016, July 13-16 at Planet Hollywood, Las Vegas, NV. We will also be attending part of the Atlas Summit (July 11-13 at Planet Hollywood) and the John Stossel program (audience).
Might we see any of you there?
If you plan to go, the early-bird special rate ends on January 31, 2016.
Register at: FreedomFest.com
This lately from Breitbart: EXCLUSIVE–Linda Tripp: ‘Bill Had Affairs with Thousands of Women’
You know, you really have to admire the guy despite him being a totally despicable criminal sleezeball. Even pretending to be governor then president is hard enough — but to be bedding women by the THOUSANDS in the process? Wow. My one woman wears me out.
In addition to the drivel I post here, my aging mind rambles in many other directions – none of them in the least productive, but, at least it helps keep the old gray matter a bit more pliable.
For instance, I was just thinking about another great paradox (doesn’t most of human life seem to be exactly that?). In this instance, it occurred to me that (IMHO) the greatest tool for the enhancement of individual liberty occurred in the latter half of my own life. I refer, of course, to the Internet. Yet, this great tool for enhancement of liberty, via unfettered communication, occurred at the same time that so many people have been dumbed down to the point where they really have nothing worth saying (or hearing). Your typical combined miracle and tragedy. So, the Internet is used, primarily, for useless drivel. Just think of it. At no other time in human history would it be likely that a small group of people, like the participants in this blog – people who will probably never know each other as physical human beings, nevertheless can come together to discuss whatever amuses us.
Then I think – what if the Internet had been invented in the late 18th century? Imagine Tom Paine distributing his pamphlets to the world, not just to a handful of revolutionaries? Imagine that Jefferson could have participated, real time, in the drafting of our Constitution even though he was on another continent and on another mission at the time. Myriad similar examples abound.
Today I propose to you that all belief systems share a common fallacy when, instead, they should share a common truth.
Let us imagine that I am greatly troubled (as I sometimes have been in the past) about the origin of this universe. So, seeking a quiet place to ponder, I find myself in a place reserved for the practice of Judeo-Christian worship. As I sit there pondering, a priest/minister/rabbi of that particular sect approaches and asks me the nature of my obvious pondering. I explain and receive the apparently definite answer that this universe, and all it contains was created by a being they call God. Have I received the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Only I now ponder about the origin of God.
Later, I find myself in the presence of a renown scientist. One who has truly delved deeply into the physics of this universe. I repeat my yearning to know the origin of this universe. The scientist treats me to a lengthy description, most of which is quite beyond my ability to comprehend, about how all the material that existed started to collapse upon itself due to an ever strengthening gravitational force. Finally, all that matter is condensed down to almost nothing – to a state where, rather than condense further, all it can do is explode in the greatest explosion this universe has ever seen. Then, as the detritus from that explosion started to cool, it started processes that ultimately produced this universe. Do I now know the ultimate answer to the mystery of this universe? No. Now I am even more confused because I have no idea where that matter came from to begin with much less how gravity came to be.
Many people earnestly believe that our universe (multiverse?) and all within it were the result of a conscious act by an intelligent being. I propose to describe, in this article, a possible method whereby that might really have happened, devoid of any and all acts by that dynamic duo Hocus and Pocus.
I begin with a fact that is self-evidently true… if there was/is a creator, that creator pre-existed that which it created – in this case, the present universe which we inhabit. That being true, it must be equally true that the creator of this universe is not OF this universe, therefore any attempt to “know” anything about said creator is doomed to failure. This is because all our ability to “know” or to “describe” anything is based on the known laws of this universe, leaving us helpless to “know” or “describe” anything outside this universe where whatever laws may exist are unknown to us.
Having established that basis, let us try to agree that there are two primary methods by which this universe might have been created. The first, which I will label the “Zap! – Zam! – Viola! method which, of course would depend on magic (the “creator” having magically “created” everything in this universe via supernatural methodology). Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion on any subject that necessarily includes superstition, the supernatural or mysticism, I reject this method.
As previously stated, I am essentially dropping out of political commentary because the political situation is beyond the ken of rational discussion. Yet, I still have the urge to amuse myself via diarrhea of the keyboard, hence a journey into new fields of discussion.
Today’s rant was inspired by a billboard I saw the other day while riding down the highway. Now, I had seen this and similar billboards for years but, for some reason, this particular sighting rather slapped me upside the face when the idiocy of its message actually got through. The message:
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
Now anyone with ¼ of a brain knows that life, as we currently understand it, actually began several billions of years ago.
I am a longtime fan of the writings of the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Among other insights he offered us was that while the universe seems likely to spontaneously produce new life on a grand scale, by processes we do not yet fully understand, there remains the possibility that the universe got the process right ONLY A SINGLE TIME. And, in Dr. Sagan’s opinion, on the mere possibility that spontaneous life was a singular occurrence, we should treat it as a miracle beyond mere reverence. I find myself in total agreement with Dr. Sagan’s viewpoint.
The Obama administration announced during a conference call with reporters Monday evening that the president’s upcoming executive order may require somebody selling even a single firearm to obtain a Federal Firearms License.
During the call White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained the details of the order, which will be announced publicly by President Obama Tuesday at 11:40 a.m. The action, officials explained, would include guidance on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will now determine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms under federal law and, therefore, who is required to obtain a license to sell firearms.
Complete article here.
This is a good example of a “law” (dictate) that everyone should simply ignore. This kind of bullying only works when we willingly submit.
At the risk of being boringly repetitive, I offer again my view of natural right, distilled down to its very essence:
Each and every individual human being has the unalienable right to do whatever they wish, whenever they wish – so long as, in doing so, they do not deny another human being that same right. Any human being that knowingly and intentionally limits the right of any other human being thereby forfeits whatever right the offender was otherwise heir to.
This seems to me a simple, all encompassing rule that any human being with the ability to think can clearly understand. An entire body of law condensed to two short sentences.
Disagreement or contrary opinions eagerly solicited.
Troy L Robinson
Imagine, if you will, that some new prophet suddenly appears with instructions direct from the deity for constructing a new religious sect (no, not me – I am a strictly non-prophet operation).
Let us assume the new sect is benevolent in every respect, that it respects other sects and non-believers, that it follows the Judeo-Christian tradition in every respect, including the ancient Jewish practice of human sacrifice.
After all, if the deity created all life, it seems only reasonable that it demand that some meager amount of said life be offered back as a sign of respect and acknowledgment. Let us say that a child of less than 5 years must be sacrificed on the eve of each new moon. Not all that extravagant is it? And maybe, for good measure, the sacrifice of a female virgin on each winter solstice to thank the deity for the return of the Sun. Again, not at all extravagant. Indeed, given current population growth rates, such modest sacrificial demands would hardly make a statistical difference in the population.
And, keep in mind that these sacrificial demands would not be optional. They would be mandatory for each congregation of practitioners. Period, no exceptions allowed.
Indeed, there is really nothing really new in the proposed sect and much to be admired. For sure, no jihad, no mass murder.
So, my question to all of you is this: Would any national government accept or allow the open and public practice of this “new” religion? For sake of argument, let us narrow the question to address only the United States. The first amendment to our Constitution says, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…
Seems pretty clear to me. Government is not allowed to “prohibit the free exercise…”, so that is that. Light the fires and bring in the virgins. Or is it really that clear?
So, a massive attack in California, apparently by peaceful Muslims. Thanks to Obama’s insight, I now understand why.
Here I was, thinking that some brain-washed folks, desperately clinging to ideas and traditions formed when many of our kind still lived in caves, were bent on killing any and all who dare try to enlighten the Muslims – or even just trying to enlighten themselves.
Now I understand that they are being driven wild by fear of global climate change – no religious connection whatever. WOW! That really explains everything. All I need to do now is turn off the AC, burn my F-350, get a horse to ride and all will be well again.
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Doesn’t the 25th amendment to our Constitution allow for removal from office of a president who is clearly unfit to do the job? According to Bill O’Reilly, this almost happened to Reagan when he was actually doing a half-derriere job. The current guy, IMHO, is doing a “derriere free” job (unless you count his head as a derriere – or, being stuck in a derriere). It is truly amazing how much more damage can be done in “only” 14 months.
I know that we all pretty much agree that the USA is nearing its end. But that does not mean I cannot (or should not) protest every inch of the way toward that end.
Think about it. Then pour yourself a good dram of Scottish magic (I prefer Laphroaig), light up a good cigar, and read something that pleases your mind. At least this works for me.
Troy L Robinson
Here is a quick question that, I hope, will inspire more spirited exchanges. The question is: did Europe ask for the troubles it is now having with Muslim imports?
My answer is a definite YES, just as we are eventually going to pay for our own foolishness in that area. But Europe has far less excuse having already had years of conflict with and invasions by Muslims. Of course, part of the European problem is that a number of European nations colonized Muslim nations then allowed the citizens of those colonized nations to automatically become citizens of the colonizing nations. Another classic case of dumb being followed by dumber.
I have lately been reviewing the writings of John Stuart Mill, particularly On Liberty.
Mill proposes that a primary purpose of government is to prevent individuals from harming other individuals, and, when prevention fails, to impose appropriate punishment.
IMHO, our founding documents are totally compatible with this notion, even though common implementation often falls short of the stated goals.
Stated simply, each individual should be allowed, indeed, has a natural right, to live their life as they personally see fit, doing (or not doing) whatever they think best for their own purposes – so long as they are not harming others in the process.
Do any of you disagree with this concept? Do any of you think that this should NOT be a central tenant of our laws?
Assuming that you agree, then please allow me to raise my “Interesting Question”.
When I mention the notion of “harming others”, our first instinct is to think of overt actions intended to cause harm. Yet, there are myriad ways of causing harm, many of them resulting from things that were not done, from actions that were not taken.
In particular, I am thinking of the harm done to the young by those who caused them to be born and/or established themselves as their “official caretaker” (parent).
We have a large and very vocal group among us who insist on certain rights for those who have been conceived but are not yet born (the so called “abortion issue”). But, what about those who have been born? Do not those who caused their conception and birth (or who have voluntarily assumed parental status over them) have some very clear legal responsibilities toward these young lives?
I imagine most of you will agree that the young have a right to be physically cared for: fed, clothed, housed, etc. I submit that these young have an equal right to be emotionally and mentally cared for as well. Is it not a harm to fail to provide these young with the basic skills and knowledge required to function, at least minimally, in the society in which they will live as supposedly free adult individuals?
It is my firm opinion that those who assume parental duties, especially through the act of reproduction, have a legal responsibility to provide the minimal physical, emotional and mental support necessary to produce an adult person who is able to enjoy the fruits of individual freedom (obviously baring some unavoidable disability).
To be more clear, I think society in general has a legal responsibility to demand that such parenting be done and such needs be met, with appropriate punishments inflicted when it is not.
Further, I think that the current policy of rewarding people for producing offspring that they have no intention of properly parenting makes criminals of us all because we are accessories to repeated criminal acts.
How about this instead: if you bring children into the world then neglect them, the children are put into foster care and you are forced to labor, the fruits of which are then seized and used in support of the children?
The notion that we humans have the right to reproduce willy-nilly then leave the results to be seen to by society in general – or not seen to at all – is beyond inhumane.
Think about it – then offer your own thoughts in response.
Troy L Robinson
So, the totally predictable, indeed, the inevitable has happened yet again. This time in Paris. Next time ?? And we (or, at least our “leaders”) still try to act surprised.
The one terrorist captured alive now claims, not only to having been recruited by ISIS/ISIL but also to being a “Syrian refugee”. Who’d-a-thunk-it.
The latest proposal I am aware of is to allow 50,000 of these “refugees” into the USA. Now, let us be optimistic and suppose that only 1% of these “refugees” is actually an ISIS/ISIL convert bent on destruction. That would mean the intentional importation of 500 terrorists into our country. Now, consider the mayhem that 8 such just caused in Paris then multiply that by 60 and you begin to get some idea of the Obamanation’s latest proposed “gift” to America.
I realize that this monster’s term is supposedly coming to an end. Yet, seeing the amount of damage that can be done in a single day, then compounding that by the 600 or so days he has left in office, and…
He needs to be stopped immediately! We sent a GOP majority to the Congress to do just that. Now, let us demand that they get to it NOW or risk being replaced in the coming election. We have gotten rid of Boehner, which is a step in the right direction – but only a step, not a journey.
Think about it. Then please start a campaign to bombard your congressmen and senators with your demands for action.
Troy L Robinson
In a previous article, I mentioned that, while Donald Trump seems to say the right things, there was still something about his candidacy that bothers me. After hearing segments of his rant last evening, I clearly remember what it is.
Back in the 90’s, when Bill Clinton was running in opposition to incumbent president George H W Bush, my then wife and I both worked our tails off in support of H Ross Perot – as did many others who were equally taken in. Why? Because he seemed to be saying all the right things, making us believe he was just what the country needed. And, it seemed to be working. Indeed, his candidacy became so strong that he himself had to intentionally screw it up for apparent fear that he might actually win!
At that moment, we (and a lot of others) realized that we had been had. We had spent our time, our energy and our resources supporting a man who had no wish whatever to be president. In retrospect, it seems that all he wanted was to keep G H W Bush from being re-elected, because of some personal spat that should have concerned only them. However, H Ross Perot willingly did damage to our entire nation in pursuit of personal revenge.
My attitude toward Perot today is such that, were I walking down the road literally bursting from the need to urinate and I came across Perot sitting in the road engulfed in flames, I would hold it in a bit longer and walk right on by.
Hearing Trump ranting about Ben Carson in such an irrational manner brought all this immediately back to mind. Here is a candidate that sounds like he is trying to damage his own candidacy while, ostensibly, trying to take down his closest competitor – a competitor that, according to most polls, would handily beat Hillary Clinton in a national election. Indeed, a candidate whose reputation, manner of speaking and personal conduct would combine to make Hillary look like the piece of human waste that she actually is.
So, I cannot help but wonder if history is repeating itself in a way. That is: Is Donald Trump in the GOP primary for the express purpose of taking down other GOP candidates best positioned to beat Hillary (rather than actually seeking the presidency for himself)? The more I ponder this, the more comfortable it feels to my mind. After all, was not Trump a progressive Democrat until just recently? Don’t many of his current proposals still seem more progressive than conservative? Yes, I understand that Ronald Reagan is clear proof that such a change in political attitude and intent is entirely possible. But, unlike Trump, Reagan offered clear, simple to understand policies for fixing America where Trump, so far, offers only unlikely pie-in-the-sky promises delivered with an excess of bombast and almost no supporting substance.
My friends, our national condition is far too fragile to be the subject people who are simply playing games with us.
Yet, the idea of another GOP establishment wonk (like Romney or Rubio) at the helm is also fraught with danger.
What to think, what to do??? Will someone please tell me?
Troy L Robinson
As one can easily tell from the dates on the articles I have posted here, I have pretty much stopped contributing due to the obvious lack of interest.
Now, quite suddenly, this burst of comments, mostly on rather old articles. Why the sudden interest (or, if not interest, then why the sudden burst of activity)?
Some months ago, I opined in this forum that our president may well be a traitor. I offered several bits of evidence in support of this notion. Few of you responded, suggesting to me that the idea was not really taken seriously.
Now, this same president is closing a “deal” with the world’s primary supporter of Islamic terrorism that would guarantee that they obtain nuclear weapons along with intercontinental ballistic missile systems capable to delivering said nuclear weapons anywhere on Earth – including to your and my backyards.
What does the USA get out of this “deal” (other than a probable nuclear attack)? Nothing beneficial.
Even during the “negotiations” that led to this “deal”, Iran’s leaders loudly proclaimed their intent to “remove Israel from the face of the Earth”. They continued to refer to the United States as “the great Satan” and promised our eventual demise as well.
How can any sane person interpret this “deal” as anything other than treachery of the highest order. Indeed, a form of treachery that can only be called traitorous.
And, there are aspects of this “deal” that are beyond my admittedly limited comprehension. President Obama is no mystery. He is acting as nothing more or less than what he has been groomed to be, almost from birth (wherever that may have occurred). In other words, he was raised to despise this country and everything it has ever stood for. OK, I get that.
What I don’t get is the Secretary of State and those 40+ Democrat Senators who are openly willing to help this disastrous “deal” go through. Surely they cannot all be traitors. If not, then what are they? Are they so stupid and short-sighted that they cannot see where this is bound to lead? Do they simply not care? Are they so corrupt and self-centered that they put their short-term hold on power above the longer term consequences to the nation?
Or (and this is my personal theory), are they afraid? That is, afraid not to support Obama no matter what he does. If so, whence does this fear originate? Even though it must seem that I have an opinion about any and every thing, I admit to be totally in the dark here.
Folks, this is not a joke. Obama is about to release $150 BILLION dollars to the Iranians that, even supporters of the “deal” admit will be spent furthering the cause of Islamic terrorism. At the expense of the United States and its supposed allies. In addition, and as alluded to above, WE are virtually guaranteeing that Iran will become a deadly threat to the entire world in a very short time. Indeed, even other Muslim nations fear this “deal”. Yet, a number of powerful people in Washington DC claim to believe it is to path to world peace.
What can be seen here is horrible. Yet, what remains unseen is, no doubt, far more horrible.
Why are we-the-sheeple not marching on Washington DC with ropes and pitchforks?
I once thought Obama aspired to be dictator of the United States. I now realize that he will be content merely to destroy it.
Think about it. Then cringe.
Troy L Robinson
I admit to being totally conflicted and confused over the apparent success of the Donald Trump campaign for POTUS.
For instance, I find very little that Trump says or promises that I disagree with. However, in many cases, common sense tells me there is no way he could actually bring off what he promises. Even were he to win the election with the largest margin in history, the sold-out Congress will still be there, the ultra corrupt bureaucracy will still be there, the partisan court system will still be there, the appallingly ignorant population will still be there.
Yet, I reason, why not at least try?
Then there is that other thing. That thing that I cannon explain in rational terms. It is a creepy feeling skulking around in the shadows of my mind that there is something all wrong about all this. That Trump surging onto the scene may somehow be too good to be true. That he may be some sort of siren-song, poised to lead us to our ultimate destruction.
Truth is, I just can’t come to an attitude, a feeling about all this that sits easily upon my being.
Several things I know for sure: As noted above, I agree with much of what Trump suggests. Without a doubt, he has made most of the other candidates look and sound like warmed over spit – the possible exceptions being Cruz, Carson and Fiorina. I like the fact that The Donald says what he says without much concern for Political Correctness or what the Media might think or say in response. I also like the fact that he will attempt to answer any and all questions thrown at him, even if the answers are sometimes more wishful thinking than realistic plan.
I think that the first debate on Fox was an ambush from the word go and that The Donald handled it as well as anyone could have been expected to. As a side note, Megan Kelley’s part in said ambush was, IMHO, disgraceful. Not just the questions asked but the obvious venom with which they were hurled made me forever distrust and even dislike her. Chris Wallace was almost as bad but I already had categorized him as as weasel.
As for Fox in general, I can’t quite figure that out either, One the one hand, they seem to be anti-Donald while, at the same time, turning Fox News into The Donald Show. I am surprised that other candidates do not charge Fox with making a major contribution to the Trump campaign.
One area in which I vehemently disagree with Trump is his proposed way of dealing with China. I agree fully that China has taken much business away from the United States. However, I think it was and still is our own fault. Our corporate taxes are insane and we seem to think our regulatory system exists for the sole purpose of destroying any business that dares try to succeed within our system. It is also true that Asia, primarily China and Japan own a huge amount of United States debt. Again, whose fault is that? They certainly did not insist that we borrow such that we can live beyond our means.
Finally, a trade war, brought on by tariffs, would be insane. Can none of us remember that similar actions nearly a century ago helped turn a short-term economic glitch into the most devastating economic depression in modern history? We certainly do not need THAT again.
So, I have rambled and ambled about without any clear answer re: The Donald and whether I should support him. I guess a large part of my distress is this – I pride myself on using rational thought rather than emotion to guide my life. Yet, with The Donald, I have to be honest enough to admit that my reactions to him have, so far, been dominated by emotion rather than rationality.
I like most of what he proposes (emotion) while a rational analysis tells me that there is no way he can do most of what he says. Still, I like that he is saying it – I insist that it needs to be said (emotion). Could it actually be that, Reagan like, merely getting us emotionally involved with our nation’s wounds and its needs is, by itself, of sufficient value to support this curiosity of a candidate? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, it would be great to know what some of you folk think about all this.
Please respond. Perhaps, together, we can find something rational in all this.
Troy L Robinson
For some time, I have been amazed that, in spite of all the revelations of dishonest behavior, around 40% of Americans seem to believe that Hillary Clinton is honest.
Then I remembered that around 80% of them believe there is a god.
Maybe not so amazing after all.
Think about it.
Troy L Robinson
The tempest of the day/week seems to be the Planned Parenthood situation.
Before getting into that, a bit of a disclaimer – as I have written elsewhere in this forum, I am a bit conflicted on the abortion issue. For starters, I do not think it is a simple thing. That is to say, there is no way a blanket rule can effectively address all the possible wrinkles in any given abortion decision. For this reason, I consider the decision to be one that belongs to the individuals directly involved, hopefully with professional input to help them come to the best decision circumstances will allow.
That said, there are several aspects of the abortion issue that I am flatly against. First, I do not think abortion should be used as a sort of after-the-fact birth control method for the convenience of the irresponsible. There are simply too many effective ways to prevent pregnancy, many of them freely available to any and all who want or need them. Second, I object to the killing of any fetus that is developed to the point where it might well be able to exist outside the womb. Third, I think that the so-called “partial birth abortion” is simply a socially acceptable term for what is actually infanticide.
Now, the Planned Parenthood (PP) fiasco… Is there any thinking person in this country that does not understand that PP is primarily a collection of abortion clinics? And further, do any of us fail to understand that their operations have been considered legal by both the states and the federal government? Sorry, no mystery there and no news either.
This leaves us with only 3 valid points of contention in this matter:
First, should taxpayer funds be used to help support the operation of PP, and,
Second, should the byproducts of the abortion process be used to harvest potentially usable cellular material, and,
Third, should PP be allowed to sell said cellular material to help fund their operation?
IMHO, the first point is the simplest to consider. A large number of the women who want and/or need abortions are from the lowest income brackets in our nation. Callous though this may sound, it is much more cost effective for the taxpayer to fund such abortions than it is to fund the many expenses associated with unwanted babies born into poverty. Given the crime that almost always results as these unwanted, uneducated, un-cared-for babies mature, it is also, again IMHO, more moral in that it very likely results in less pain and harm to fewer people – over the long run.
The second point – the harvesting of potentially usable material from the aborted fetal remains – is, to me, the most interesting of the issues we are confronted with. Given that the fetus has already been rendered dead by the process, it seems to me that primary thing to which many might object to on moral grounds has already been done (the extinguishing of life). I fail to see how wasting material that potentially has great potential to help the living makes any moral sense. However could burning or even burying the remains add any moral value for anyone? It seems obvious, to me, that finding some potential value in an otherwise unfortunate situation is more moral than rendering the entire transaction a total waste.
The third point – the selling of the material in question – strikes me as an odd thing over which to find a point of contention at all, especially for those who wish to withhold taxpayer funds from PP. If the material can be sold, why not do so, thereby reducing the funding needed from taxpayers? After all, huge industries are based on the sale of dead animal parts for human consumption. Doesn’t the sale of dead animal parts for scientific/medical purposes seem more moral than wholesale slaughter simply for our dining enjoyment?
Of course, my answers to these questions are based on what I hope is a rational thought process whereas the tempest in this matter seems to be nothing more or less than conclusions reached through an emotional process devoid of rational thought. Sadly, this seems to be the way almost all of the issues of the day are addressed. But, what else might we expect from a population that has been intentionally “dumbed down”?
I still remember a conversation held some years ago where a quite sincere lady sitting across a dinner table from me tried to explain how it was an absolute sin to kill innocent creatures. This between bites of medium-rare cow flesh.
Just for the change, why not try thinking about these things instead of feeling about them? Otherwise, you subject yourselves to emotional herding.
Troy L Robinson