What about the children? Are they the property of their parents, or are they to be considered as self-owners?

Can we trust them with responsibility for their actions? Can we trust them with rights?

Well, this is kind of a sappy subject. I really don't believe all that Randian crap they're trying to shove down my throat everytime I try to debate issues concerning children and their rights.

"They aren't rational enough" they say and I fiercely, yet smoothly, ask them: "So...?"

This conversation never leads to anything but to some more randroid nonsense:

"Rights are determined by the conduct necessary amongst rational men in order to maintain a rational society."

Well, I have had enough. I have finally accepted that there are no rights. There is no non-aggression axiom, it's all bullshit the randroids are trying to shove down our throats.

I am going to show you that there is not a single proof for natural law, Randian quasi-religious nonsense, or the allmighty NAP.

Natural law theories have been crap all along, it is just something easy to invent, easy to espouse and easy to explain:

God/nature/reason gave us rights, so we can make society better

I still haven't heard a convincing argument that proves the axiom of self-ownership, or the axiom of anything. We must get rid of these proto-religious concepts we call rights.

I challenge everyone to try to prove me wrong, try to prove the existence of rights, try to prove the axiom of the non-aggression axiom or the axiom of self-ownership.

A friend just sent me this neat little interview with Wendell Berry in Sun Magazine. Though not everything in it will be lauded on ASC, I think many of the gems offered, by the always eloquent and insightful Berry, will resonate. The interview touches on a wide range of topics including agriculture, ecology, the good life, science, art, culture, faith, intellectual property, politics, economy, academia, writing, war and love.

One of the unique strengths of Berry's agrarian conservationism is that, similar to the distributist thought of G.K. Chesterton; Hilaire Belloc; or Dorothy Day, it defies convention and cannot be easily pigeonholed as liberal; conservative; leftist; rightist; centrist; libertarian or any of the other more common -ians; -ists or -isms. He offers refreshing third-way commentary that should be attractive to anyone dissatisfied with the state capitalism vs. state socialism - either way we get large scale nationalism, government and industry - debate that seems to mark our current socio-political discourse.

Some highlights:

Art is a way of making, and science is a way of knowing. You’re never going to escape the need for either one; you’ve got to have a certain amount of knowledge, and you’ve got to have a certain amount of art. You’ve got to know how to make a thing — whether it’s a crop or a novel — and you’ve got to have a way of making it...

The human definition of the natural world is always going to be too small, because the world’s more diverse and complex than we can ever know. We’re not going to comprehend it; it comprehends us. The question is whether we can use it with respect. Some people in the past who knew very little biology were able to use the land without destroying it. We, who know a great deal of biology, are destroying our land in order to use it...

The real limit on government would be reasonably independent, self-sustaining localities and communities. But if there is no local independence, then governments and other organizations have a kind of freedom that they wouldn’t have otherwise...

I’m not going to subscribe to anybody’s excuse for coldblooded killing. There’s no such thing as a “just” war anymore, if there ever was. You can’t defend bombing children and innocent people. It isn’t right to teach people how to torture and kill each other. Wars never end, really. The Crusades aren’t quite over yet. Our Civil War certainly isn’t over yet. I don’t think we can afford this kind of behavior anymore. Nobody’s talking about the ecological damage of war.

Well, the kids are back in school again and it's always just a matter of time before my wife and I are approached by one of their teachers asking why our child won't say the pledge of allegiance. Usually it takes a couple weeks and in the past there have been a few struggles of wills between teacher and student but we always simply explain that we aren't into it and that is that.

This year we made it to day two. My daughter started Kindergarten. She remembered the drill from preschool and she refused to take the pledge. After school, her teacher came to my wife with a timid inquisitiveness to get the scoop. Here is how the hilarious conversation went:

Teacher: So, are you atheists?
Wife: Ummm, no. Why?
Teacher: Well, because your daughter told me that she doesn't say the pledge of allegiance.
Wife: That's right but I'm not an atheist.
Teacher: Oh, then why do you not want your child to say the pledge?
Wife: Because we're anarchists and we don't appreciate much of what the government does.
Teacher: OK, I see. So, what about Christmas and other holidays?
Wife: Oh yeah, we do Christmas.
Teacher: Oh good because I like to decorate my class and have parties.

So, to review: Only atheists don't say the pledge and anarchists don't like Christmas.

I guess it was about a month ago (time goes by too damn quickly these days) that I was sitting on the couch with the old lady while she was flipping channels. She rarely even pauses for a blink as she passes by the cable news networks but this time she stopped on Fox to see the breaking news that an arrest had been made in connection with the death of pregnant soldier, Megan Touma. I was looking down reading my book but I kept hearing the name Edgar Patino, Edgar Patino, Edgar Patino. I looked up at my wife and said "I wonder if he's a soldier. It seems like if he was, they'd be calling him Sgt. Patino or Spec. Patino or something like that."

I went to bed. About an hour later wifey joined me and reported that after my remark she flipped to CNN to see what they were saying and, sure enough, they were reporting that Sgt. Edgar Patino had been arrested in connection with the murder. I just chuckled. I knew that the next day the folks at Fox News would also be calling him Sgt. Patino, so why make the omission? Maybe Fox News didn't have the details yet as the story was just breaking. But, it does seem like a rather relevant detail and one you would want to include in your breaking news coverage. Oh well.

Then, last night, the ball and chain and I were watching one of those unbelievable real life video shows on truTV, formerly known as CourtTV. One of the videos was of some liquor store security footage showing a botched robbery in Oceanside, California.

I watched as the they interviewed the store owner, as they mentioned that this was just one of a series of robberies by the same suspect, as they showed the suspect being shot (unfortunately it was not a fatal wound) in the act, and I listened as they named the crook, McKenzie Smith. Now, anyone who knows Oceanside knows that it borders on Camp Pendleton and thus it is crawling with Marines. So, my first reaction was to turn to wifey again and say "I wonder if he's a Marine." They made no mention of it on truTV but, if so, it seems like it would be a relevant or at least a very interesting detail. A quick Google search was fruitful. It turns out that McKenzie Smith also goes by Lance Corporal and, totally unmentioned on truTV, he was aided in his crime spree by Navy Corpsman Quintel Brooks. Again, I just laughed.

I know it's not a shocker that these omissions are made and maybe it's not even a big deal but it makes me wonder: In high profile cases, like that of Edgar Patino, such details can't be hidden but where they can be ignored, I wonder how common a practice it is, or how common a desire it is, to ignore the military membership of criminals.

From the New York Times comes an interesting story about how the market liberalization of India is benefiting the lower castes, who have been spat on for countless generations.

When Chandra Bhan Prasad visits his ancestral village in these feudal badlands of northern India, he dispenses the following advice to his fellow untouchables: Get rid of your cattle, because the care of animals demands children’s labor. Invest in your children’s education instead of in jewelry or land. Cities are good for Dalit outcastes like us, and so is India’s new capitalism.

...

He has the zeal of an ideological convert: he used to be a Maoist revolutionary who, by his own admission, dressed badly, carried a pistol and recruited his people to kill their upper-caste landlords. He claims to have failed in that mission.

Mr. Prasad is a contrarian. He calls government welfare programs patronizing. He dismisses the countryside as a cesspool. Affirmative action is fine, in his view, but only to advance a small slice into the middle class, who can then act as role models. He calls English “the Dalit goddess,” able to liberate Dalits.

Along with India’s economic policies, once grounded in socialist ideals, Mr. Prasad has moved to the right. He is openly and mischievously contemptuous of leftists. “They have a hatred for those who are happy,” he said.

For the rest of the article, not to be accused of being pro-market, the New York Times reporter endeavors to prove that Mr. Prasad is completely full of shit.

From across India still come reports of brutality against untouchables trying to transcend their destiny.

It is a measure of the hardships of rural India that so many Dalits in recent years are migrating to cities for back-breaking, often unregulated jobs, and that those who remain in their villages consider sharecropping a step up from day labor.

Blah blah. Less of you, more of the plucky Prasad, who would probably feel right at home on the ASC forums.

As some of you may know, there is an event going on in the United States called the Democratic National Convention. Occuring every four years, it is a stunning display of banality, stupidity, and money being thrown down a hole by a mixture of rich idiots, special interest groups, and corporations. This is accompanied by breathless coverage in newspapers and on cable TV, desperately searching for "storylines" so that they can actually try and make it interesting, with little success. One really can't blame them, the challenge seems akin to hyping up a game of curling at the Special Olympics. No matter how many interviews you do, they're still retards doing things no one actually cares about.

One of its chief flaws seems to be that it is an event at which nothing actually happens, but the people there go through the motions as if something is actually happening. Most of the people there are from state delegations, which consist of stupid assholes wearing "funny" hats, so that they can bring their inner douche even more strongly to the surface.

These delegates pretend like they're doing important things by voting for the guy that already won. Some of them are butthurt supporters of Hillary Clinton, who care an awful lot about her name being put forward as a Presidential Candidate as a symbolic recognition that she's a really evil bitch who almost got to be President. This was the closest thing yesterday to actual drama, as there was some question whether or not the DNC would actually do this, or just tell her crybaby supporters to shut the fuck up. Though I haven't really checked because I don't care, I think the DNC actually did put her name in. Excitement!

Outside the convention, batshit commie protesters walk around with signs, sing songs, dress up as fucking turtles, and do a bunch of other stupid shit so that they can feel like they're actually accomplishing something. Hey, fucking hippies, want to make your point and entertain me? Quit being a bunch of pussies and actually start a real riot, you fucking suburbanites. You act hardcore, but we all know you're actually too bourgeoisie to light some cars on fire. I'm calling you out, even you "black bloc" types that think you're really scary and dangerous. All I ever see you do is throw some rocks. I bet the cops have a good laugh deflecting your pitiful attacks, before surrounding you in full body armor and riot shields, and beating the fuck out of you as you thrash on the pavement and claw at your tear gassed eyes, crying about police brutality.

For an event that costs over $160 million, I really think there should be more entertainment value than this. I am, however, holding out some hope. Barack Obama is set to give a rousing speech to 80,000 plus packed in to a football stadium, a spectacle which might actually rival the Nazis at Nuremberg.

If you haven't seen Triumph of the Will, go rent it, its an excellent documentary about the best political convention ever. Even it has its boring parts to fast forward through as old, unexciting assholes talk, but Goebells and Hitler are fucking gold.

I'm hoping Obama can summon up some of the same cult of personality fervor in that arena. After all, they did love him in Germany, and since they also liked Adolf and JFK, Barack is in good company among the most charismatic politicians of all time. I can picture women holding up their babies to him, and then probably fainting, sending their soft little heads crashing to the floor before they trod underfoot by the mob rushing forward to just touch Obama's hand as he enters the arena. Oh, that could be beautiful.

But I really doubt it. No one can give a good speech anymore, every word is too carefully calibrated and drained of all strength and vigor. Today's politicians reflect that, they're either effeminate like Obama, or probably too old to actually fuck, like John McCain, who if elected will die from complications of Viagra. I mean, can you actually picture Barack Obama getting an erection and fucking his wife? How were those children produced?

So, tonight, Obama gives his speech in the arena. Maybe tune in for that, it might be worth watching. Get in your best approximation of a fascist uniform, and give Barack a real nice and right arm salute when he takes the stage. Or if fascism isn't your style, go with the messianic angle. Maybe build a shrine and burn some candles. Get in to it! Have fun! Yes you can!

All the luffa sponges in the world won't exfoliate this story:

http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=c-OpIXfXKO8

Apparently Fox News really does get its talking points from the White House. The news network has been the administration's stealth marketer for the past eight years, relaying prefab packages and passing them off as genuine dispatches and opinion.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

LOS ANGELES - Presidential longshot Ron Paul beat the one-day fundraising record Monday afternoon when a special pledge drive yielded over $3 million in an 18-hour period. The record was previously held by fellow Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

Paul, who stands out as the singular opponent of the Iraq War among the major candidates of both parties, rose to prominence following controversial remarks made during the Republican debates regarding the events of September 11th. The Paul campaign has seen a steady rise in popularity in the months following, highlighted most noteably by his frequent victories in online polls. Paul's popularity among the online community gave rise to early accusations of online poll tampering, leading to speculation as to the actual size of his constituency. Supporters hope Monday's fundraising results will put those accusations to rest.

Problem: War in Iraq is fueling terrorism and Islamic radicalism.

Solution: Stay the course.

Translation: We started this fire and, by God, we are going to keep throwing gasoline on it 'til it goes out.