A resurgence perhaps?

Gun Control is the issue, ladies and gentlemen.  The article is not yet written, though.  Until then, I just had to share this quote:

"To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state." - A Nation of Cowards by Jeffrey Snyder.

Animal Rights is an oxymoron.

The concept and the movement are both ludicris extensions of a fuzzy-at-first philosophy.  That philosophy being: "Don't cause more harm to animals than need be".  Beleive it or not, I agree with that sentiment, so long as human interests and welfare do not suffer as a result. 

I think the ASPCA (American Socioty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is an ok oranization, not my thing, but still entitled to esist.  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is an extremist organization with no regard for law, and should not be alowed to keep it's "tax-exempt" status because of it.  Then you have the ALF (Animal Liberation Front), domestic terrorists who should be hunted down and executed in the same manner as we're hunting down the islamic terrorists now.

Many of these idiots labor under the beleif that animals have the same rights as humans (life, liberty, etc...  not voting and the like).  That of course isn't true.  Animals have no rights but what we give them.  I agree that if you don't have to hurt an animal, then you shouldn't, but extending to them the same protections that humans enjoy would not only be a mistake, but also patently assinine. 

Animal rights activists say that animals should have rights because they can feel pain.  For some reason, they think that since animals can feel pain (which of course they can) and humans can feel pain, the two are equal.  Umm...nope.  Not even close.  The reason that humans have rights but animals shouldn't has nothing to do with the capacity to feel pain, nor intelligence, even.  It has to do with the fact that (as a species, although I know of some exceptions...) we are self-aware.  Granted, that is a product of intelligence, and so I feel that dolphins and the great apes and other animals that approach our intelligence should deserve more consideration that rats, chickens, and fish.  But the general rule of thumb is: Humans are more important.  I'm a dog person, and I really like them, but I would slaughter a hundred thousand or a million personally and by hand in order to save the life of a single (worthwhile) human.

Guys, being kind to animals is more a moral choice than anything else.  And, as i've said many times before, morals are up to you, they are not to be legislated.  The only animal cruelty laws that should exist are those which protect the health of humans.  Basicly, animals are our property, our slaves.  I think it's moral not to inflict more pain and suffering than need be, but it is certainly immoral to curtail the freedom of a (human) citizen in favor of an animal.

It's the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor today.  Take some time to reflect on the people who disagree with you, and yet, are prepared to die so that you can continue your stupidity...go figure, I guess some of us are just plain nuts.

Also, the X-Prize (http://www.xprize.org)  was won as I would hope you all know, and so they're out of cash.  The foundation needs fresh donations in order to continue its vital work.  I set up a mini-page to facilitate donations, help get up to $100, even if just a buck at a time.

Donate Here http://www.active.com/donate/xprizefoundation/enigma 

Adueago Libertas

It's latin for "greater freedom" (by the way, I translated it off of google, so if that's conjugated wrong or something, let me know.  The less I look like a moron, the better).  It pretty much sums up my philosophy of life.  It can also work as a domestic political philosophy, but that's not the sense i'm thinking of right now.

It boils dow to a quote from "pagan" spirituality: "An it hurt no one, do as ye will."  It means that freedom is paramount.  The only "morals" that dictate social interactions are the wills of the participants.  The only moral "right" that should be considered is the freedom of the individuals.  The only restrictions should be those which protect an unwilling person from harm or destruction of property.  Notice that I said "unwilling", that's an important part.  It differs from how most people think today. 

People beleive that it is morally imperative to protect a person from harming themself.  This is insane.  Any adult who has the facts, the knowlege of what the consequenses of his actions are likely to be, should be free to hurt themselves to their heart's desire.  To restrict a person from harming themself, is to restrict their freedom. 

And freedom, my friends, is paramount.