The Obsolete Ideas of Freedom and Democracy

Still thinking about freedom. And about something that Walt wrote:

The question for us– who historically knew freedom as a tangible substance– is will we, as peoples, forget what we knew? And/or, will our children be taught to unlearn it?

I was thinking today that ideas like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and so on might be said to be rather 18th century concepts, which have gradually ceased to mean very much. They’ve become obsolete. They’ve passed their sell-by date.

These days, with the rise of science, our elites tend towards a ‘scientific’ view of human life and human society – even though very few of them have any scientific education.

Our current eugenic social engineering programmes aimed at eradicating tobacco and alcohol and obesity are examples of late 19th century or early 20th century ‘progressive’ scientific thinking.

And notions like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ really have no place at all in scientific thinking. Neither do ‘compassion’ and ‘love’. Or ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Or ‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’. They’re entirely absent, after all, from physics and chemistry and biology. And so they are entirely absent from a ‘scientific’ view of life.

Instead, there seems to be a tendency to see human societies made up of millions of people as being akin to human bodies made up of trillions of cells, all under top-down DNA control, and all being told when to reproduce and when to die. Our modern technocrats are trying to create human societies which are like human cellular societies, and as much under the control of human will as the fingers that are typing these words. Which might explain why they are trying to micro-manage everyone’s lives.

That said, more or less all ‘science’ today seems to be pseudo-science. Eugenics is pseudo-science, much like antismoking ‘science’ is pseudo-science, and climate ‘science’ is also pseudo-science. And pseudo-science, more or less by definition, bears little or no relationship to the real world. It’s bound to be mistaken. And since it’s mistaken, its application will be as disastrous as the application of aeronautical pseudo-science in the design of new aircraft: The planes won’t fly.

So we’re in a situation where a set of useful but ‘outdated’ ideas have been thrown away, and replaced with a new, ‘up-to-date’ – but almost entirely worthless – set of pseudo-scientific ideas and doctrines.

And if you’re a member of the political elite, and privy to the latest ‘scientific’ thinking, it’s not just that you live inside a physical or geographical Westminster or Beltway bubble, but that you also belong in a cultural bubble of shared ideas – e.g. contemporary eugenic thinking – which isn’t shared by the wider population. For the modern emphasis on ‘health’ clearly grows out of some elite, ‘progressive’ culture to which the likes of Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg and David Cameron all belong – but hardly anybody else.

The old values and terminologies of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, of ‘compassion’ and ‘love’, and also of ‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’, linger on only in the unreconstructed wider society, despite attempts to ‘educate’ people about the importance of ‘health’.

Anyway, in respect of Walt’s question, I suppose I believe that we will have to rediscover ideas like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and perhaps even ‘God’, but we will have to rediscover them in the context of genuine science. Because I don’t think any of them are going to go away any time soon. For just because modern science has no terminology to describe some concepts does not mean such concepts are meaningless or valueless.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to The Obsolete Ideas of Freedom and Democracy

  1. jonesherself says:

    “And notions like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ really have no place at all in scientific thinking. Neither do ‘compassion’ and ‘love’. Or ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Or ‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’. They’re entirely absent, after all, from physics and chemistry and biology. And so they are entirely absent from a ‘scientific’ view of life.”

    this is where you ENTIRELY lost it. ok for starters… ‘good and evil’.. or if you ant to just call it ‘bad or good’ absolutely exist in the universe. it is “god” or “heaven” and “hell” have NO place in science, religion/the bible, “god” is not science… god is a fictional character. but it seems like since you are advocating advancements in “real” science calling all other research and developments of the field ,
    pseudo science” which i guess are the posers of the science world follow..?
    there are two things i very much consider to be REAL science are. for one, the “antismoking Science” as you call it.. let me stop here for a second. science IS research to find gain knowledge and find facts to create new, perhaps better alternatives to society and the environment. i mean. smoking DOES cause cancer. it is not a “construct of health” that has to be one of the most LUDICROUS things i’ve heard so far this week. are you a heavy smoker or something and you feel badly about being shamed in all of the anti smoking adds? or upset because you can’t smoke in public establishments? what, since there is no good or bad that must mean you have no sense of consideration for others if you want to subject them to the headache of your own choice to smoke? it is the scientific research that leads to anti smoking campaigns. “antismoking” is not a science… at all. smoke if you want. but you know the dangers because of science.. so, it is NOT false to say that smoking is unhealthy and in many of cases, not all, DO lead to cancer. deal with it.
    the second and maybe more important thing is “climate science.” if you believe in REAL science, how can you deny climate change? how can you deny the devastating impact humans are having on the world? because the changes in climate everyone acknowledges from prehistoric eras most definitely occurred at slower rates. and that has been researched. mean, in our ,lifetime we are watching icebergs melt. we are seeing ecosystems devastated and destroyed. and you are here to dispute climate change??? you need to stop spreading ignorance because there are already too many people ignoring the climate and environment. anyway. please don’t bring science into your BS.

    most importantly, you never once mention what “real” science is to you… which is basically what you need to do when you make such bold statements. what would be real? i don’t think you even know. you are too busy coining pretend terms.

    • Twisted Root says:

      Oh dear.

    • Not a single point in Ms Jones’ opinions (for want of a better word) stands up against the (actual) evidence and Frank wins by a knockout. (Not that he’d hit a broad, I’m sure.)

      Just picking up on the first item of confusion. If you agree that there’s good and evil then that has to come from God – the being who made the RULES (I can do all caps too!).

      Evolution theory does not allow for good and evil (‘bad or good’) to “exist in the universe”. In fact, Dawkins wrote that:

      The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

      In evolutionary terms, it’s every creature and species for itself. The survival of the fittest. “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

      So where does your ‘bad and good’ come from without a Lawmaker?

      Look, Mrs Jones, get with the Agenda. Society is being re-engineered for very BAD reasons. That’s why big BAD lies are being told about most things so that nice, trusting people like yourself believe them because you think it’ll make people more healthy and make the planet a nicer place.

      They’re lulling you into a false sense of security.

      The opposite is what they have in mind. It’s about enslavement, impoverishment, rationing of health services, freezing in the winter when there isn’t enough electricity, depopulation and global government meaning total control over everybody’s life, including yours.

      Finally, Frank mentions real science often, such as the studies which show that SHS causes no harm to making computer simulations of the movements of asteroids and rock clouds relative to the earth.

      I couldn’t do that; could you?

      • jonesherself says:

        Look, i have learned that “good and evil” are usually representative of “god” and the”devil”. that is why i changed the word from “evil” to “bad.” because there most definitely is a “good”.
        A type of good that is talked about within philosophy…look it up.
        also, “good” and “bad” does not have to come from a lawmaker.. yes, in society there are a set of laws. but that does not make them GOOD. and disobeying them is not BAD. yes they try to make citizens think that.
        I do not rely on the government or religion to tell me what is good or bad. i don’t even subscribe to religious beliefs. but anyway, i know the government wants to control the people. i too have discussed it over many forums.. but what am i saying tat you are so strongly disagreeing with? Nothing i said suggests i am oblivious to screwed up things around me… to talk of good and bad would require more of a dialogue and frankly, i don’t feel like being talked down to or having my opinion discredited. if according to you i have no opinion then, screw it. your boxing reference is moronic. instead of trying so hard to be clever, why don’t you go ahead and tell me what the lies you are speaking of..
        because you are probably telling me stuff i already know. i am not oblivious.

        But if you are suggesting that cigarettes are not harmful, or that climate change is not happening then i don’t know what else to tell you. those are the main things i brought up and you tell me those are government constructs to control us? hell, then they wouldn’t be doing a good job at it because most people don’t do anything to do their part. it doesn’t require letting the government control how you live… its about YOU wanting to control how you live. the government doesn’t own the fucking earth. we all inhabit it. when we finally fuck it up then everyone is level. there’s only going to be more chaos.. you’re being paranoid and not seeing that there are things people can do that even if it seems minuscule.. i do read, i do seek to gain knowledge and i do my own research on matters always finding multiple sources. i’m no . , Besides that, and most importantly, my main proof is living on this earth. i see the ruination with my own eyes.

        alright. i’m done here.

        • Mrs J. I’m not going to waste any more of my time reading or replying to your rants. Try the Liberal Conspiracy blog – that’s full of compliant drones.

        • margo says:

          Nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so. Shakespeare said that (or very similar), and there wasn’t a lot he didn’t know.

        • Barry Homan says:

          I wonder if Frank’s Dr. Jekyll is really Jonesie’s Hyde? Come out of that closet Frank, alley alley oxen-free! We’re on to you : )

        • woohoo02 says:

          “The common enemy of humanity is man.
          In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
          with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
          water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
          dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
          changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
          The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
          – Club of Rome

          This Jones is not only the birth of our soon to be government, but also of your religion.Out of this came the basis of your belief that plant food is killing us – verified by “scientists” who threw out the scientific method out of the window in favour of “models” and “peer review” by a small clique of same minded moneygrabbers.

          This new bastardised version of science is also the sand on which all the “Anti Smoking” legislation is based, and on this basis you criticise smokers. I suggest you do your research first.

        • beobrigitte says:

          alright. i’m done here.

          So you keep saying.

          May I kindly ask that, should you change your mind yet again, you start using capital letters at the beginning of a sentence?
          Of course it is your right not to do so. But why using a style of writing which indicates lack of basic writing skills?

      • Frank Davis says:

        The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

        That’s the sort of remark by Darwinists that always has me seeing them as themselves “blind, pitiless, and indifferent”.

        If you agree that there’s good and evil then that has to come from God – the being who made the RULES

        Unfortunately, that’s a top-down authoritarian account of the origin of good and evil. And I’m always looking for bottom-up explanations of everything.

    • Frank J says:

      Sorry, JonesHerself, you are wholly wrong in your first assertion that science shows “smoking DOES cause cancer” There is NO proof, no pathway has EVER been found nor has it been replicated in any laboratory, anywhere. You are confusing a statistical analysis from Doll and Hill, a snapshot in time projected forward, that indicated 1024 of 28,000 smoking Doctors developed lung cancer over a 50 year period, less than 4%. Your assertion is NOT science.

      I do not profess to be any expert in Climates but I do know that climate is ever changing, no doubt sometimes slowly and sometimes quicker. Where most of us differ from you is that we do not see this as any prophesy of doom nor the fact that a rise in average temp. of 1 degree in the last century was ‘man made’ nor do we make the assumption of it never changing and, again, project forward in Malthusian simplicity. There is little ‘science’, simply headlines gained from more snapshots in time with little proper and full analysis.

      You are not guilty of ‘science’ you are guilty of Religion, a belief without proper questioning, hence the legitimate accusation of it being a ‘rant’.

    • Frank Davis says:

      most importantly, you never once mention what “real” science is to you…

      In my view, science entails performing accurately measured experiments from which mathematical conclusions are drawn, and never becoming so convinced of the conclusions as to be unprepared to revise them should further experiments falsify earlier conclusions.

      For example, you measure the pressure P of a volume of a gas, and measure the variation of pressure with temperature T, and draw the conclusion that pressure varies linearly with temperature, and P = K.T where K is a constant. But should further, more accurate experiments show that this isn’t quite true, you adjust the conclusions accordingly.

      By contrast, pseudo-science is the negation of science.

      1. The conclusions are very often drawn first, and then evidence is found to support the conclusions, rigorously excluding all contrary evidence (and very often demonising dissenters).

      2. Nothing is measured accurately.

      3. The conclusions are unfalsifiable.

      4. Pseudo-scientists are usually utterly convinced of their beliefs, and are unable to change their minds.

      5. Very often causality is inverted, and cause is exchanged for effect.

      All these characteristics of pseudo-science are found in antismoking and climate ‘science’.

      In the former, the conclusion (that smoking kills) is the assumption from the outset. And nothing is measured accurately. e.g. numbers of ‘cigarettes’, when some cigarettes are three or four times larger (and perhaps also stronger) than others, who is and who is not a ‘smoker’, whether they actually had cancer when some 50% of diagnoses turn out to be wrong. The ‘data’ is also being gathered from people who have been asked to remember how many cigarettes they smoked last week, or last year, or ten or twenty years previously. And of course antismoking zealots are completely unable to consider the possibility that smoking is a harmless pastime, and the causes of lung cancer (and other diseases) are to be found elsewhere (e.g. HPV infection, inhalation of radioactive fallout, etc). And any dissenters are immediately demonised as being in the pay of (evil) tobacco companies.

      In the latter, the climate scientists draw their conclusions from computer simulation models. They’re not performing genuine physical experiments at all. And, since the Earth hasn’t warmed for the past 18 years, despite their simulation models predicting that it should have, their models have been falsified. However, like most pseudo-scientists they’re unable to admit they were mistaken. Even though it has been shown that past rises in CO2 levels in the atmosphere have come after the temperature had risen, rather than before (so inverting causality).
      Dissenters are demonised as “deniers”, and very often in the pay of (evil) oil companies.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        My concept of science is end point proof! That hasn’t been done since Jonas Salk did polio research that I know of and it seems after his team broke up is when the actual madness of life style disease formulation began………….In whats basically todays JUNK SCIENCE!

    • Radical Rodent says:

      Don’t worry, Jonesherself — you may not believe in God, but take heart that He believes in you.

      By the way, you obviously know how to get higher case letters; why can you not put them in the correct places?

  2. jonesherself says:

    by the by, did not spellcheck. don’t bother telling me about my typos or lack of capitalizations. i was typing quickly trying to get my thoughts out.
    that is all.

    • waltc says:

      What thoughts, dear? What you got “out” there was emotional spew. And weren’t you the girl who told us, only moments ago, that you smoked? Tsk tsk. I also recall that in the same post, you told Frank that he ought to control his erection. No need for such warnings. I imagine erections are constantly controlled within forty feet of you in any direction.

      • jonesherself says:

        i said i use to be a frequent smoker, if you read anything i said. why do you people pick and choose what you want to distort? you’re like a fox news correspondent. lol. and why are you stalking me? i don’t even remember talking about erections. you fucking freak. and okaaay. no erections in my direction… you are really making a point to me.. lol. (by the way, i’m a lesbian. so i don’t like dick) you fuckin’ dick. of you just want to trade insults then i’m not going to be a part of it.
        but can you stop stalking my comments? that would be grrrreeaaaat. and i DO actually actually make valid points. why is everyone being so dense?
        i;m gonna go ahead and stop being notified. you dumb fucks are in the UK. i guess you all are no better than the republicans in america it seems.

        • magnetic01 says:

          You tell them, Jones. These misguided fools are not capable of recognizing the delicate eloquence and intellectual profundity that you’ve brought here. You’re a jaynius way ahead of your time. Your determination to not be bound by the rules of coherent reasoning…. or English grammar, for that matter…. is just another stroke of sheer brilliance. And the sprinkling of vulgarity – “f’ and “d” words embedded here and there – is nothing short of beautiful. Jones, let me be the first to say that your illuminating presence [giggle] has been most edifying.

    • roobeedoo2 says:

      ‘most importantly, you never once mention what “real” science is to you… which is basically what you need to do when you make such bold statements. what would be real? i don’t think you even know. you are too busy coining pretend terms.’

      Have you explored the rest of Frank’s blog for evidence to support this statement, or are you just a casual vomiter of acidic spew?

      If what you consume here doesn’t agree with you, perhaps you should go find something that doesn’t cause you to expelled bile. I hope you remembered to brush your teeth after that.

      • jonesherself says:

        after what? you’re being fucking stupid. what difference does it make how i found such a page that doesn’t understand the concept of discourse.

        and i already stopped following and stopped all notifications from showing up in my e mail. does that answer your fucking question?
        yeah, i didn’t know you fuckers were in the UK and the equivalent to the republican or maybe tea party idiots of america. you guys can continue to suck each others dicks and have no other questions brought up. and no, if this is one of the first things i read, why the fuck would read through the rest of his shit to “find the answer.” whoever this guy is doesn’t know everything.. .are you guys in a cult? is he the leader? i’m not even kidding. if anyone wants to talk about something being poorly written, think about content.. if all you do is ramble and dispute logic but then don’t include the thing you mention a few times throughout (“real science”) then you have not made a point. you’ve just been talking shit with no alternative,…

        • roobeedoo2 says:

          No you’re fucking stupid if you don’t comprehend the importance of spelling, you unmitigating stream of putrescence. Is that why you live on a high horse, so you can cover everyone with foulness? Hmm, reminds me of the cunts that want us to live our lives the they way they dictate we should live our lives.

          Look, maybe it’s feels natural – you have something vile and festing inside of you, that much is obvious. You need the need to purge, and that’s understandable, but you might find it less embarassing (thus lessening the hatred you feel towards yourself), if you find a corner to do it in and stop stinking up the place for everyone else.

          Jones Herself? So far you’re nothing but a wannabe

      • jonesherself says:

        WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE ON? holy shit. i don’t know how i wound up here. i really don’t. i don’t. are you bored? i don’t care if i made a typo. typos happen. especially when being attacked by a bunch of cocksuckers. what are you trying to prove? i have nothing to prove to you. we live in on different continents. FUCK IT! I’m trying to find out how to stop notifications from showing up in my e mail. why am i getting them without the box being checked? i’m sick of it. if you would just shit the fuck up so i can stop receiving e-mails about this article already that would be the best thing ever. i guess i’ll just delete the e mails before i open them to your ignorance.

        fuck yourself.

        • roobeedoo2 says:

          Typos? I’m talking about ‘spelling’ you whore-clad painted strumpet.

          Why are you blaming us for YOUR lack of organisational skills with an inbox? YOUR LACK, YOUR INABILITY, YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM. If you want help, ask nicely.

          I’d tell you to go fuck yourself with a big stick, but your aim is so poor, you’d probably take your eye out, and WE, unlike the cunts you’re aligning yourself with, actually understand term ‘harm reduction’.

          Spanking over – now on your way.

        • Steven simon says:

          I don’t know who you are but when you continually use foul language you have lost the argument.you remind me of a bully who when they can’t get their own way resort to this sort of language.grow up.

    • magnetic01 says:

      jonesherself: “god is a fictional character”

      jones. meAn. What up THAt with? what be tHE basis This statement for. mean. how SAID from ThIs YoU. HUH. please proVIde evi.den.ce,, Let me St.op here for sixty minu.tes –mean.- given the mESs that be your thinking I can. certainly accept that god is only a fictional charater in YOUR mind. meaning…gEt?

      “it is the scientific research that leads to anti smoking campaigns”

      mehtinks you BE, mean. comedian or mayBe .mean. not cOmEdIaN .but nut case.,.,. -BIG nut case jones. speakk with forck tonGUE

      “what would be real?”

      you jones. Tell us what real TO yoU. sOme beleieev. mean. reality an optical illusion caussed by an alcohol deficiency.. mean. is tRUe this?

      “by the by, did not spellcheck”

      you don’t SAY .mean. i Hadn’t noticed :) jones might want to invest in a sanitychecker

  3. waltc says:

    Well, you got me thinking further too, Frank. Yes, I agree that our elites see society as (my own parallel analogy would be) a gigantic machine– one that they design– in which the rest of us are well-behaved cogs and levers and gears. Agree too that they see our “traditional values,” which include individualism, freedom, religion, etc. as impediments to achieving their mechanical utopia. The spanner in their works. And somehow they’ve arranged to made those values seem, at least temporarily, old-fashioned and are therefore succeeding in bringing the fashion-crazed into their camp. Certainly, they’ve won the contemporary media and those who buy into it and yearn to be perceived as politically correct.

    BUT

    We could take a dialectical perspective. The same crowd of early 20th c progressives had the very same thoughts. WIlson, like Obama, saw the constitution as a restraint on “progress.” The eugenicists saw human nature as the same. Mussolini’s vision was a rational society. And the fashion classes intellectually became the fascist classes and were all atwitter at the sheer brilliance of the rational plans, whether they were spawned by the left (“I have seen the future and it works”) or by the right. But the pendulum swung. And those of us born later on in the century still knew freedom– some of it fought-for– and even expanded it, and looked back in horror at the fascist legacy.

    So without being unduly optimistic, and not having a clue about history’s timing, I don’t believe history comes to a standstill; As long as there’s time, the pendulum will swing. Every action has a reaction equal in strength and opposite in direction. It’s a law of physics. Maybe even UKIP’s rise is the first tick of a move in the opposite direction. But, beyond the laws of physics, I don’t really see this as embedded in science but rather in ornery human nature.

    • Frank Davis says:

      So without being unduly optimistic, and not having a clue about history’s timing, I don’t believe history comes to a standstill; As long as there’s time, the pendulum will swing. Every action has a reaction equal in strength and opposite in direction. It’s a law of physics. Maybe even UKIP’s rise is the first tick of a move in the opposite direction.

      That’s exactly how I see it too. And I spend enough time constructing models of bodies revolving around each other, or bouncing off each other, to get an idea of how the laws of physics work. And so when I think about human societies I tend to see them in the same way as I see rock clouds, although we are not actually revolving around each other or bouncing off each other, but instead sending messages to each other which affect our behaviours in similar small ways. A bit like with Jonesherself today.

      So if the modern antismoking campaign is action, then an equal and opposite reaction will inevitably and unstoppably follow. in what seems to have been a 500-year-old ding-dong battle between smokers and antismokers, and between all sorts of other rival convictions.

    • prog says:

      ‘The end of history means liberal democracy is the final form of government for all nations. There can be no progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system’

      Depends on one’s definition of liberal democracy…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        One might simply ask what system supplies mankinds need for goods of his own choosing. It sure isn’t liberalism! Capitalism evolved because it satisfies all those needs thru private enterprise. The only thing government is needed for is to provide essential services like roads,bridges, fire depts.,police service and standing army,navy. Schools and universities can all be done at the state level and on state funding. The Federal level needs its wings clipped and its authoritarian power removed!

  4. Yes, it was another good post by Walt. You can see with the success of political correctness how quickly people a) can disregard the past, b) do not understand how a successful society functions and c) can be rapidly brainwashed, as this graph of the acceptance of same-sex ‘marriage’ shows over half a generation. http://www.pewresearch.org/2010/10/06/gay-marriage-gains-more-acceptance/

    The reduction in smoking rates in the West shows how effective the propaganda has been.

    The success of the climate change lies has given believers such bravado that they call others not of their faith ‘deniers’ and some go as far as to call for this ‘denial’ to be made illegal.

    Since the 1930s, when ‘family planning’ was in its infancy (forgive the pun), it has seemed sensible to a lot of people – people who didn’t understand why it was being promoted (by ‘master race’ proponents like Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger), but now most people would say that it’s a good thing.

    But it’s brought us to dangerously low fertility rates in many Western countries (now the eugenicist Gates’s are doing the same in Africa) and smaller families has made the social engineering side much easier to implement.

    But people accept it because they keep buying into lies, like ‘overpopulation’. I’ve seen umpteen comments about how people are deliberately only having one child ‘for the sake of the planet’.

    If they lived where I do in Scotland, they’d be able to appreciate there is tons of space. My area, Dumfries and Galloway, has a population of 150,000. A city the size of Greater London would take up a quarter of the area. Everyone in Scotland and Jamaica could live in it: the city of reggae and deep-fried pizza. And coincidentally, both flags are St. Andrew’s Crosses/Saltires.

    People believe lie after lie after lie because a comforting lie is better than the awful truth. But only for a short time.

  5. vapingpoint says:

    I vape and read Frank Davis with my morning coffee – that’s my treat. I’m a fan because of the relaxed, beautiful writing, the craftsmanship of every post – they delight me. I don’t know why I wanted to say this today – possibly because my grandmother used to say to me “Its like casting pearls before swine”. I never really understood that comment, but lately, I wondered if it was me she could have been referring to. I was an obnoxious child! But today, it applies as much. Thank you Frank for lighting up my day almost always.

  6. Barry Homan says:

    Ya know…all this makes me think about something that’s been on my mind since blogs like these started: why were the first smoking bans implemented, of all places, in the town of Berkeley – the lez-center of the universe?

    Lesbians, if you’ll forgive the generalization, often give the impression of loving their own sex, yet not without hating the “other”. Why is that?

    Or down deep, do they really hate something else?

    Is this special type of hatred then re-directed to focus on another something and/or someone else? In shrink-jargon: the classic “projection”

    Makes you think.

    Well, it makes me think.

  7. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Hell Im just the redneck from back in the Kentucky hills still growing baccy and spittin in that there fangled spittoon the last prohibitionists forced on us in the 1890s………….The only heirloom Granny left me from a by-gone returned era that she fought too!

    But at least her whiskey still is working fine save the few bullet holes in it from Prohibition.

    That thare still fed a whole generation of us Kentuckians and lept the feudin down to a minimum be- twixt us and the revenooers…………..

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Perhaps Jonesy would like a snort of hooch and some good home grown baccy to get her mood str8 and tounge trained for easy compatibility.

  8. beobrigitte says:

    So we’re in a situation where a set of useful but ‘outdated’ ideas have been thrown away, and replaced with a new, ‘up-to-date’ – but almost entirely worthless – set of pseudo-scientific ideas and doctrines.

    Pseudo-scientific and entirely worthless, indeed. Furthermore, society dividing.

    The old values and terminologies of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, of ‘compassion’ and ‘love’, and also of ‘God’ and ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’, linger on only in the unreconstructed wider society, despite attempts to ‘educate’ people about the importance of ‘health’.

    Anyway, in respect of Walt’s question, I suppose I believe that we will have to rediscover ideas like ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ and perhaps even ‘God’, but we will have to rediscover them in the context of genuine science. Because I don’t think any of them are going to go away any time soon.

    ‘Health’ is the new god. ‘Eternal life on earth’ is the new religion.
    Perhaps people do need to be reminded of this old saying: “Be careful what you wish for. It might come true.”

  9. nisakiman says:

    I must say, Frank, that your latest troll is at least entertaining, in a WTF! sort of way. And impeccable credentials, too. An American ‘liberal’ lesbian, no less! She ticks all the boxes, and does so with the style of a true misandrist and grammatical Hun, riding roughshod over the English language.

    It must be quite comforting to have that socialist mindset – utterly convinced beyond any doubt that you are right about everything. No doubts; no questioning the anomalies in your vision; no need to look at any alternatives. And equally convinced that anyone who doesn’t see the world through your eyes is totally, completely wrong. Even if they can prove they are right.

    The odd thing is, those people never seem very happy with life. Every situation is a battle for them.

    And then there’s people like us, constantly seeking knowledge and truth, always with the doubts inherent in any unproven situation, trying to sift through the layers of lies and half-truths that we are presented with. But we do seem to be more at ease with ourselves, more willing to discuss. And as such, much more relaxed about life.

    It’s a funny old world.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Hey Nisaki Im legendary as the Don Juan of converting lesbian Bulls back into the realm of submissive Wench…………..Of course some Gutter Trash just isn’t worthy of my time.

      But then again Id like to see her pic if anyone has one please just post a link below and I can tell quickly if I should pursue the challenge!

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        Remember my abilities as a plastic surgeon are only qualified for redneck lifo-suction with a buck knife and a Hoover from the 70s!

  10. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Heres a very enjoyable read

    ” All these years that you’ve heard about the deathly dangers of secondhand smoke. How many people have you ever known or heard about who died from secondhand smoke? Ever read it in an obit? A news story? “Death was attributed to secondhand smoke inhalation.”

    Smoke-free Moorestown shows common sense

    Posted: Wednesday, May 7, 2014 1:30 am

    By J.D. Mullane

    Moorestown has done something odd in this era of compulsive government Big Brotherism. It has decided against engineering social behavior for the betterment of society.

    Last week, the Township Council tabled a motion to ban smoking in public parks. This bucks the trend of banning smoking in public parks, a fad as big as the paleo diet.

    So far, over 200 New Jersey municipalities have enacted smoke-free ordinances for public parks. In addition to the county, Beverly, Bordentown Township, Burlington Township, Delran, Edgewater Park, Evesham, Mansfield, Mount Holly, Palmyra and Willingboro (et tu, Willingboro?) have put smokers on notice: Lighting up in a park is a criminal act.

    It is untested, however, if such bans will hold up in a court challenge by the newly empowered stoner community. Stoners could claim such laws are punitive because they are smoking “medical” marijuana. No doubt a judge somewhere will side with the self-medicators. It’s the enlightened thing to do.

    What explains Moorestown’s refreshing show of common sense?

    According to a story by BCT reporter Todd McHale, the smoking ban was raised by Councilman Greg Newcomer, who said he had a friend who died of throat cancer from smoking.

    “I do think it’s a problem and think it should be addressed,” he told the council.

    But then Councilman Phil Garwood countered with an extraordinary statement.

    “I could find zero articles that showed single-source outdoor tobacco smoke to be a health hazard,” he said. “There’s no harm in it. The science isn’t there to back that up.”

    Holy smokes! Facts!

    Think about it. All these years that you’ve heard about the deathly dangers of secondhand smoke. How many people have you ever known or heard about who died from secondhand smoke? Ever read it in an obit? A news story? “Death was attributed to secondhand smoke inhalation.”

    If secondhand smoke kills, most of us who grew up in homes with smokers would be as dead as the careers of the cast of “Jersey Shore.”

    What is key about the debate in Moorestown is what Councilman Newcomer said about a smoking ban: “Most smokers are law-abiding, orderly people, and they would adapt to this culturally.”

    “Adapt to this culturally.” It is the conceit of progressives. Pass a law, dragoon the people, and the people will do as they are told, for the greater good, of course. It’s always for the greater good.

    But progressives misread the times. The culture is atomizing. A culture that caters to hyper-individuality is the reality, from how we consume news and entertainment to how we shop, worship and form families, the cultural and political superstructures and legacies of the last century have fallen.

    The digital age has struck a fatal blow to top-down, government-controlled cultural change. It is so 19th century. It is so New Deal. It’s why “Obamacare” is doomed to fail. We have been told that we will “adapt to this culturally.” Really? Government can’t resist shouting orders at us. It always forgets its place, especially in the hands of progressives.

    Smoking bans in New Jersey started in workplaces, then restaurants; now they are in public parks. Eventually, the bans will move to automobiles, then to your apartment or house.

    Smokers, already stigmatized, won’t put up much of a fight. Which means government will introduce more bans in the, ahem, public interest. I can’t say when the tipping point will come and people say “enough.” Maybe when you are penalized for driving more miles per year than Trenton feels is necessary. Maybe when your Obamacare premiums spike because your supermarket purchases, monitored by the government, show you are eating too many fats, carbs and sugars.

    You will be ordered to “adapt to this culturally,” but you won’t stand for it, and you know it.

    http://www.burlingtoncountytimes.com/news/columnists/jd-mullane/smoke-free-moorestown-shows-common-sense/article_9904d323-1204-5a32-9a29-32e2772d839f.html

  11. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Male smokers less likely to need joint replacement surgery of hip or knee

    High BMI and vigorous physical activity increase risk of arthroplasty in men

    Surprising results from a new study revealed that men who smoke had less risk of undergoing total joint replacement surgery than those who never smoked. Researchers also reported that men who were overweight, or who engaged in vigorous physical activity were more likely to need arthroplasty. Details of this study are now available in Arthritis & Rheumatism,a journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

    Research has shown that total hip and knee replacements, also known as arthroplasty, are among the most common elective surgeries performed in developed countries. According to data from the 2007 National Hospital Discharge Survey an estimated 230,000 Americans had hip replacement surgery and 543,000 received knee replacements, with severe osteoarthritis (OA) cited as the most frequent cause for undergoing the procedure. OA—the most common form of arthritis—causes pain and stiffness in the joints, with studies indicating that older age, female gender, and obesity increase disease risk.

    In the current study, George Mnatzaganian, a PhD student from the University of Adelaide in Australia, and colleagues examined the associations of smoking, body mass index (BMI), and physical activity as they relate to risk of joint replacement surgery in men. Clinical data for the 11,388 male study participants, who were part of the Health in Men Study (HIMS), were integrated with hospital morbidity data and mortality records. During the initial health screening (1996-1999), HIMS subjects were surveyed regarding smoking history and physical activity.

    Researchers analyzed clinical data from baseline through March 2007, identifying 857 men who had joint replacement surgery following the screening. Of those having surgery, 59% had total knee replacement and 41% had total hip replacement. Subjects were categorized into three age groups: 65-69 years, 70-74 years, and 75 or more years of age.

    Analysis showed that being overweight independently increased total joint replacement risk, while smoking lowered the risk, which was most evident after 23 years of smoking exposure. In fact, men who smoked 48 years or more were up to 51% less likely to undergo total joint replacements than those who never smoked. The team also reported that vigorous exercise increased risk of joint replacement in men in the 70-74 year age group.

    “Our study is the first to demonstrate a strong inverse correlation between smoking duration and risk of total joint replacement. The independent inverse associations of smoking with risk of total joint replacement were evident also after adjusting for major confounders and after accounting for the competing mortality risk in this elderly cohort of men,” Mnatzaganian confirmed. “Further investigation is needed to determine how smoking impacts the development of OA.”

    ###
    This study is published in Arthritis & Rheumatism. Media wishing to receive a PDF of the article may contact healthnews@wiley.com.

    Full citation: “Smoking, Body Weight, Physical Exercise and Risk of Lower Limb Total Joint Replacement in a Population-Based Cohort of Men.” George Mnatzaganian, Philip Ryan, Paul E. Norman, David C. Davidson, Janet E. Hiller. Arthritis & Rheumatism; Published Online: July 8, 2011 (DOI: 10.1002/art.30400). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/art.30400.

    About the Journal

    Arthritis & Rheumatism is an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP), a division of the College, and covers all aspects of inflammatory disease. The American College of Rheumatology (www.rheumatology.org) is the professional organization who share a dedication to healing, preventing disability, and curing the more than 100 types of arthritis and related disabling and sometimes fatal disorders of the joints, muscles, and bones. Members include practicing physicians, research scientists, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers. For details, please visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1529-0131.

    About Wiley-Blackwell

    Wiley-Blackwell is the international scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publishing business of John Wiley & Sons, with strengths in every major academic and professional field and partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies. Wiley-Blackwell publishes nearly 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols. For more information, please visit http://www.wileyblackwell.com or our new online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/w-msl070611.php

  12. Harleyrider1978 says:

    About the Journal

    Arthritis & Rheumatism is an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (ARHP), a division of the College, and covers all aspects of inflammatory disease. The American College of Rheumatology (www.rheumatology.org) is the professional organization who share a dedication to healing, preventing disability, and curing the more than 100 types of arthritis and related disabling and sometimes fatal disorders of the joints, muscles, and bones. Members include practicing physicians, research scientists, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, psychologists, and social workers. For details, please visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1529-0131.

    About Wiley-Blackwell

    Wiley-Blackwell is the international scientific, technical, medical, and scholarly publishing business of John Wiley & Sons, with strengths in every major academic and professional field and partnerships with many of the world’s leading societies. Wiley-Blackwell publishes nearly 1,500 peer-reviewed journals and 1,500+ new books annually in print and online, as well as databases, major reference works and laboratory protocols. For more information, please visit http://www.wileyblackwell.com or our new online platform, Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), one of the world’s most extensive multidisciplinary collections of online resources, covering life, health, social and physical sciences, and humanities.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/w-msl070611.php

  13. caprizchka says:

    It would seem to me that dialoging with a progressive is an exercise in futility–like a video game. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be fun…at least until she throws a tantrum.

  14. caprizchka says:

    Reblogged this on caprizchka and commented:
    A discussion on privacy, alcohol, tobacco, leaded gas, and breastfeeding leads to epiphanies. Just at the right moment, this article appeared in my feed:

  15. Pingback: Forbidden Freedom and Democracy | Frank Davis

  16. Democracy is obsolete. This is not to say we should get rid of it. We shouldn’t. My fountain pen is obsolete; I love it dearly, and it still writes perfectly well. But like the pen, democracy needs some pretty extensive supplements in the modern world.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.