Abortion Charters Ready
Mississippi Officially Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade. (Breaking911): The brief continues, “The only workable approach to accommodating the competing interests here is to return the matter to ‘legislators, not judges.’… The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states – where agreement is more common, compromise is more possible, and disagreement can be resolved at the ballot box.”
Another scenario is to leave the matter to judges and they make abortion unconstitutional over the whole territory of the Union. – If you return abortion to the states, abortion will be a matter of two-day trips to the right state.
They think returning abortion to the states will guarantee the prohibition in red states. They do not even look for a federal bill, which would be repealed and then revoted and then repealed again and then voted again and then canceled and so on, they want such legislation for red states that have remained red from time immemorial (you know what I mean). But the problem is the blue states will remain open for “abortion charters” from red states year in year out unless the Supreme Court declares abortion unconstitutional.
One may say the difference between criminalization in some states and criminalization at federal level is only one of scope since charters can cross national borders same as they can make interstate flights. However, the difference is more substantial than that as it is more difficult to plan an abortion abroad and this guarantees that the legislation will yield some results in terms of diminishing abortion figures (whereas the possibility of interstate flight would greatly hamper the legislation’s purpose).
Another possibility is to explore legal sanctions against people traveling to other states or countries in order to commit felonies according to state or federal legislation.
Back to the Future Legislation
You’ve got those state bills passed (Texas to name one state [perhaps the first and only so far]) that declare abortion will be banned in the state no sooner than Roe v. Wade is overturned.
What is this? It is either mere incantation (not proper lawmaking) or something I can’t believe. Imagine Roe v. Wade is overturned at a time when the legislative houses of Texas support abortion, I can’t believe the incantatory bill can be set in motion, it’s as if it never existed.
Now that I have said this, I will think about it and tell you later why this is so.
Imagine the state legislature is for abortion and the governor is against it when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
As head of the executive the governor says it is his duty to implement the bill that was passed years ago, which says something like “As soon as Roe v. Wade is reversed, without further ado abortion is banned in Texas.” He says it is his duty to implement the law like any other standing law and the fact that the present legislature did not adopt it is completely immaterial; after all the present legislature did not adopt all currently standing laws.
But the legislature says: “The governor is bound to implement standing laws but the bill in question cannot be standing because it is a mere incantation. The past legislature had no constitutional power to bind in back to the future fashion the present legislature against our will. The bill is void.”
It is important that the legislators do not concede the law is standing because then they would have to repeal it by a legislative act but the governor would veto their act (the lawmakers would have to override the veto, which might be out of their reach).
The principle to bear in mind is that a legislative act must be binding for the legislature that passes it in order to bind future legislatures too (by binding I mean that the act is normative at the time the legislature passes it). Otherwise it is an incantatory act and must remain so forever, that is, it never stands. If such a law could stand, that would mean the legislature can decide what others’ will is, but actual lawmakers can only express what their will is. With the statutes in question the legislature says, in fact, “Were Roe v. Wade overturned today, we would ban abortion without further ado” but it must leave it to the actual legislature that lives a reversal to decide what it wants to do.
To avoid any confusion, the words present and actual can be synonyms but here I use them as opposites. These laws claim present lawmakers are actual lawmakers in the future too but this is not to be assumed in any circumstance (even if, as a historical fact, which is on an altogether different plane, Texas has been an uncontested red state). Lawmakers pass either acts that are normative, that is, binding at the time they pass it, or unbinding resolutions and declarations that cannot bind a future legislature either without an express act of the latter to that effect.
“Petit larceny, as a hate crime.” This is nuts and you know it. (See my indictment of hate crime legislation in Law 20.)
All countries except the USA must be inhabited by apes, otherwise why would they need Ape Speech Laws?
It’s true the European Court of Human Rights says free speech is not an absolute human right, but to be honest the ECHR is not an absolute court either.
Chicanos and the Inconsistencies of U.S. Law
In Hernandez v. State of Texas (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied not only to the concept of races, namely blacks as opposed to whites, but also to nationalities, i.e. classes, and that Mexican Americans (whom I hereafter call Chicanos as they themselves call today if I am not mistaken) are such a nationality or class.
The Texas courts had ruled that Chicanos are whites and that the Fourteenth Amendment is aimed at protecting not whites but the former slaves, blacks. (The special issue of the case was jury trial but here I will leave that aside.)
Chicanos are whites under U.S. law although most of them are mestizos in their countries of origin. Obviously they are not blacks (most of them – but there are a few blacks in Mexico) and the Texan courts, narrowly looking at the 14th Amendment, claimed to know two races only, blacks and whites.
I believe this could also be the result of the Immigration Act of 1924 or Johnson-Reed Act. Notwithstanding the fact, scorned time and again by scholars of the liberal and neoconservative veins alike, that Congress made extensive use of eugenics expertise to create national quotas adverse to the coming of Southern and Eastern Europeans, migrants from Mexico and other Latin-American countries were untouched by the law. This is evidence that private interests prevailed on said expertise. South-Western states wanted to continue using cheap agricultural labor (including children) and in the nineteen-twenties had started to set up maquiladoras north of the border (for instance Farah Clothing in El Paso, Texas). From a eugenicist’s point of view, the very expert standpoint called by Congress, mestizos in no way could have been viewed as less detrimental to the genetic make-up of the nation than, say, Italians, which coming was restricted by the Act.
Thus, while Congress limited immigration from large parts of Europe for the good of the United States on racial grounds, it set no limitation on mestizos from south of the border. How could courts see mestizos otherwise than as whites then? (The 1924 Act remained in vigor until 1965.)
In Hernandez v. State of Texas the Supreme Court found ample evidence that there existed a form of segregation of Chicanos on the ground: “They discovered a county-wide distinction between ‘white’ and ‘Mexican’ persons. At least one restaurant prominently displayed a sign that declared, ‘No Mexicans Served.’ Additionally, until a few years earlier, some Mexican American children attended segregated schools and were forced to drop out by fifth or sixth grade.” (Oboler S., 2005, via Wkpd) Although I find the words “at least one restaurant” unsupportive of the conclusion, because if the Court had found more than one restaurant would it not have said what number it was rather than the vague “at least one”? and on the other hand one restaurant county-wide refusing to serve Mexicans is evidence of the owner’s idiosyncrasy rather than of institutionalized discrimination, I believe the Court’s findings are true, because as Texas had its own Jim Crow laws I assume Texans would not make much difference between Negroes and Chicanos even though the 1924 Act said (at least en creux [in hollow]) the latter were whites† – said so under obvious lobbying of plantation and maquiladora owners in need of cheap labor, and in disregard of congressional expertise (eugenics).
Hernandez v. State of Texas “was a major triumph for the ‘other White’ concept, the legal strategy of Mexican-American civil-rights activists from 1930 to 1970. … It was replaced in 1971 by Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD, which recognized Hispanics as an identifiable minority group.” (Texas State Historical Association [TSHA])
Note that Chicanos being whites was for Texan courts an argument against, in the current interpretation since Hernandez, full acknowledgment of their rights. As the solution of the Supreme Court in Hernandez and Cisneros is that Hispanics’ rights must be specially protected because they are an identifiable minority (‘the other whites’), the two combined does not bode well for non-Hispanic whites in the foreseeable future as their majority becomes thinner, for it is this majority status that is thought to call for special legal protection of minorities and a time may come when the majority status exists no more de facto while all its de jure consequences are maintained because that is found convenient by a new majority of protected minorities…
†The assertion will seem overstretched to many but in the final analysis the question boils down to this: When were Hispanics first considered whites in the U.S. while a large majority of migrants from Latin America are mestizos, and most mulattoes, on the other hand, were considered blacks (one-drop rule: “any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry –one drop of black blood– is considered black”)? More precisely: Is it since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment or since the exemption of Latin Americans from the quotas in the Johnson-Reed Act or since another date?
US population 328M
July 22, 162k vaccinated people in US.
July 7, 5,208 dead after taking vaccine (VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]: fact checkers claim no causality is proven but we’ll take the figure as a reliable estimate of the so-called, acknowledged “vaccinal risk”)
Covid death toll: 610K. That’s 1 American out of 538.
Vaccine death toll: 162k/5,208 = 1/31,000.
When people focus on the 5,000+ deaths and make an argument against vaccination out of it, the figures don’t really support it. Or do they? Can governments sacrifice individuals for the public good? Even if a compulsory vaccination campaign’s death toll were known beforehand to be 1/31,000 or fewer, can it be adopted? I thought the government could not sacrifice even one individual save in time of war.
Does the French government, by instituting a sanitary pass (a vaccination certificate compulsory for all kinds of social activities), try to eschew its responsibility for the vaccine death toll? As several vaccines are already compulsory for newborns, why is the state’s responsibility not acknowledged in those vaccine’s death toll? (All vaccines must have a death toll as “vaccinal risk” is something real for all vaccines and who but the state that makes vaccination compulsory for the sake of public welfare is responsible for the death of individuals from vaccination?)
Were the US government to pass a compulsory vaccination bill, it would allow for the death of 1 person out of 31,000 in order to stop a 1 out of 538 virus death toll. Mathematically that would make the eventual death toll 57 times fewer.
The vaccine death toll, however, is random (as far as I know we cannot predict who will die), whereas the covid death toll is more predictable (the old and unhealthy will die in large proportions). With vaccination you are replacing Darwinian selection (the old and unhealthy will die from covid) by randomness (less people will die from vaccination but at random).
Je suis opposé à la vaccination forcée car c’est antidarwinien.
Selon mes calculs, à partir de statistiques officielles (5.208 morts déclarés au VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] sur 162.000 vaccinés), le taux de léthalité du vaccin aux États-Unis est d’environ 1/31.000 (un mort à la suite du vaccin sur 31.000 vaccinés).
Le taux de mortalité dû au vaccin aux US est un lourd 1/538 (plus de 610.000 morts selon les autorités).
En comparant les deux taux de léthalité, covid et vaccin, la mortalité par le covid (1/538) est certes bien plus importante que celle par le vaccin (1/31.000) : 57 fois plus élevée. Cependant, la léthalité de la vaccination est, à ma connaissance, imprévisible, tandis que la léthalité du covid l’est bien plus : on sait qu’elle touche surtout les personnes âgées et « à risque » (en raison d’un mauvais état de santé).
On peut voir le covid comme une réaction naturelle à la surpopulation. En rendant la vaccination obligatoire, on remplace une morbidité naturelle et darwinienne (élimination des vieux et des faibles) par une morbidité, certes théoriquement moins élevée, mais complètement aléatoire. (Je dis théoriquement car d’autres moyens de prophylaxie existent à côté de la vaccination.)
La vaccination doit donc rester un choix. Ceux qui se vaccinent sont immunisés par le vaccin, ceux qui refusent de l’être tomberont peut-être malades et, s’ils survivent (avec de bonnes chances de leur côté s’ils sont en bonne santé), ils seront immunisés contre la maladie par la maladie elle-même.
N.B. Ce raisonnement ne tient pas compte d’éventuelles séquelles de la maladie qui pourraient en soi, même en l’absence de léthalité, justifier la prophylaxie vaccinale. Perdre le sens du goût, par exemple, dans certains cas de covid, est sans doute assez préoccupant pour entrer dans ce cadre, même si c’est peu comparable aux séquelles de la poliomyélite. D’un autre côté, ce raisonnement ne tient pas non plus compte des autres effets indésirables possibles du vaccin, des autres « adverse events » du VAERS, dont certains peuvent être graves sans, je suppose, être davantage prévisibles que les cas de mort subite.
« Ce sont des criminels », dit à la télé M. le professeur en parlant des « personnes qui propagent la désinformation sur les réseaux sociaux ». Soit. Quel est le mobile du crime ?
April-May 2017. Others’ tweets are in italics.
A Fascist is anyone with the wrong shoes.
Imagine calling yourself grand dragon, cyclops, wizard &c straight from the books of the kiddies’ room. What would people think of you?
KKK’s Emperor W.J. Simmons on the Jew (1923): “His people is the chosen of Almighty God.”
Kool Kwality Klothes at Harry Karp’s; Kohn’s Korrect Klothes (advertisement posters, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews vol. 2, NOI Research Department, 2010, p. 418)
The Birth of a Movement: How Birth of a Nation Ignited the Battle for Civil Rights, by Dick Lehr (United Black Books)
“The greatest of the Hollywood movie studios, Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM), was started by Jewish mogul Louis B. Mayer with the profits he earned from distributing the film.” (The Secret Relationship vol.2, p. 414)
[I also comment on The Secret Relationship vol. 1, 1st ed., 7th printing, pp. 203-4. Slavery among ancient Hebrews was not always as lenient as stated by the Jewish scholars quoted, for instance 1 Kings 4:6 “Adoniram son of Abda—in charge of forced labor” was Solomon’s overseer of the hosts of slaves who built the Temple of Jerusalem, quite Pharaoh-like. (One of the scholars quoted is a Dr Feingold claiming that Biblical slavery ‘’was of a precapitalist variety and had virtually no commerce connected with it. Unlike the situation in the plantation South, it did not shape the pastoral economy of ancient Israel which in any case found little use for masses of slaves.’’ So much for the little use.)
Intriguingly, on p. 220, one reads that white abolitionist senator Benjamin F. Wade called Jewish Confederate Judah Phillip Benjamin ‘’an Israelite with the principles of an Egyptian,’’ thus overlooking himself the Pharaoh-like slavery in vigor under Solomon for the latter’s monumental, pyramide-like projects. It is a little disappointing that people –Puritans– who seem to have read but one book do not even know it well.]
AJUpFront talks to a former Trump campaigner about why the majority of evangelical Christians voted for Trump. (Al Jazeera English)
Because they think he’s a Jew.
If you’re a woman on birth control, stop taking them. Embrace femininity and reject feminism. Have beautiful children and find true love. (David Duke)
Students are led to believe there are no jobs with a liberal arts education and that employment is the sole purpose of education. (Historian Andy Hernandez)
There are no jobs for liberal arts degrees as “culture is the occupation of the leisure class.” (Economist Tibor Scitovsky, in The Joyless Economy)
While I take your point, there are a growing number of employers wanting adaptability and critical thinking–hallmarks of the liberal arts.
Employers were already saying that in the 1950s: cf The Organization Man, by William H. Whyte. People take liberal arts degrees because they hate the idea of working for business.
Read Does Altruism Exist? (2015) by David Sloan Wilson if only to understand Ayn Rand’s both success and intellectual mediocrity.
Was Darwin an altruist (High-PRO), or would have mankind lost big if Darwin had spent his time helping others in his neighborhood? – Was deaf loner Beethoven prosocial?
Will the global village, i.e. the end of all subgroups, be the end of between-group competition–and altruism?
You [D.S. Wilson] have made an eloquent demonstration that altruism is the tool of supremacy–if there are to be several groups–, as individual altruism is the way one group becomes dominant among other groups.
You and I are no different. As a biologist you’ve studied worms, as an historian I’ve done the same.
If I’m a slave with no prospects of mating, shall I sacrifice my life for a chimp knowing he’ll reproduce and possesses 98.5% of my genes?
The Red Queen
“There is nothing inevitable about human nature.” (The Red Queen, by Matt Ridley) A fact often stressed by evolutionists and never accounted for by them.
Is there anything inevitable about chimpanzee nature?
As, at the same time, evolutionists call such isolating of humans from other animals ‘’hubristic,’’ they deprecate themselves (as evolutionists).
Environment pressures allow win-win situations but the Red Queen [sexual selection seen as an ‘’arms race’’] discards them. Your optimism does not seem rational, in fact. [Matt Ridley calls himself a ‘’rational optimist,’’ which is the title of one of his books, The Rational Optimist.]
The figures that you showcase [in The Evolution of Everything], global wealth, life expectancy, etc, are fundamentally immaterial because… of the Red Queen.
It’s fascinating that my hair receding is a good argument against my facts. (Matt Ridley, in reply to being called a ‘’balding old Lord.’’)
You could also try to be above quoting the silly and to reply to reasoned objections. [Earlier, in February, I had quoted Ridley’s book The Evolution of Everything (2015); the quotes are in order here now: “The police have come to resemble an occupying army who see the citizenry as the enemy.” (p. 241) Yet our times have their Robin Hoods: “One of the reasons of the recent decline of violence in the U.S. may be that gangs have managed to impose slightly more order on the drug trade.” (p.238) & P. 199: Mendel’s laws “ought to have killed eugenics stone dead. Particulate inheritance and recessive genes made the idea of preventing the deterioration of the human race by selective breeding greatly more difficult and impractical.”
‘Tis strange, therefore, that selective breeding gives results with animals at all. Your views on eugenics are based on an ‘’exogenous’’ moral viewpoint, of which I suggest you try to account for ‘’endogenously’’ in a next book.
To the first sentence Matt Ridley replied:
No. Domestic animals have shorter life cycles and start with smaller populations. I carefully did not say “impossible”.
Beyond the number of people sterilized, there exist no assessments of the eugenic policies that were conducted, of their effects on the populations. Taboo. You endorse the taboo with all your heart, like a salvation-army major parading as a scientist.
(He did not say ‘’impossible,’’ as he stresses it, yet it is the impossibility, not the difficulty of a thing that kills that thing ‘’stone dead.’’ Rereading the sentence, ‘’greatly more difficult’’ seems to hint at something stated before, and in the light of his reply it would make sense that it means that eugenics is greatly more difficult than animal breeding; thus Ridley would in fact have prevented my remark, had I read more carefully, but then I have perused the whole passage again and found no object of comparison whatever.)]
Could Bolivia become the ‘Saudi Arabia of lithium’? (Al Jazeera English)
Bolivia was the Saudi Arabia of silver in colonial times, and then the Saudi Arabia of tin, but the country has remained poor.
Dear journalists worldwide, I wish to create a “Change for the Sake of Change Award” to help you sell paper. Help me help you.
Rape in India
Explain to me why mass media only report rapes when they happen in India.
Interestingly in India there are 1.8 rapes per one lakh population. USA 23.3 per lakh. European countries on an average 24 per lakh.
Yes, that makes this media practice even more questionable. Perhaps it means rape is so rare in India that India is the only country where rapes make news…
But these stats are from women who actually report rape, Asian countries are lower because the women are afraid to actually report it?
We could also imagine it’s because Asian women are consenting more… [Not to exclude first off, unless with good reasons.]
The reason why people in the U.S. smile more than people in other countries. (The Science of Us: link)
Because Americans are closer than others to chimps, for which smiling is a threat and, as capitalists, Americans like to threat one another all the time.
Some psychologists now argue it’s irresponsible to suggest a link between violent video games and mass shootings. (The Science of Us)
It’s always irresponsible to fingerpoint a lucrative business, we all know that, don’t we?
Media violence and gore exposure shifts the acting-out borderline toward the middle of the psychoticism bell curve (Eysenck). For all others, it turns them into… cowards (Kenrick & Griskevicius).
[I don’t even know why I defend these views publicly since I still watch horror movies in my fourties and I consider horror movies to be art for art’s sake…]
Are the US and France fighting the ‘War on Terror’ in Africa, or simply competing for natural resources? (Al Jazeera English)
The answer is different for each. 1/US wants the resources. 2/France has no clue whatever.
Buddhists are atheists and clerical, just as Puritans are theists and anticlerical.
One can be fleeced by a religious organization and still get more net money than others. Devout Freemasons will tell you, if you can have them speak.
The best way to silence a chicken: talk about freemasons. Hush hush…
Unite against secret societies! #RiyadhSummit May 2017
“Freemasonry is illegal in all Arab countries except Lebanon and Morocco” (Wkpd)
Freemasonry historically has been banned in authoritarian governments. @KsigMason
Secret societies have no place in transparent societies.
What, a university in Tasmania! There are universities in every backwater hole and I couldn’t get a chair!
Reading this article [by Matt Ridley–again] about obesity on The Times online, you may find it interspersed with juicy ads for junk food–depending on your cookies.
About 200 mothers breastfeed their babies at Beach Park in Fuzhou, Fujian province on Saturday to advocate the importance of breastfeeding. (People’s Daily, China)
Read Dr Robin Baker about the constitution and health losses that a bottlefed baby incurs (compared to a breastfed one), and curse the West. [See here]
What Was That Glowing Orb Trump Touched in Saudi Arabia? (SMHub News)
As the Kaaba’s Black Stone comes from outer space, perhaps the Saudis salvaged more parts from the spacecraft, like that eerie orb…
Pre-programmed likes and retweets, pre-defined welcome messages: Amazing the amount of interactions I’ve got with actual machines on Twitter.
Not to mention the machines that offer to tweet garbage, usually shallow quotes, for you.
Among other things, AI means millions of tweets that are bot-generated, and millions of users accepting that bots tweet in their name. [They must be millions, as one provider of such services boasts over a million customers.]
How to program your tweeting AI bot to send your prayers to future terror attack victims. Follow to know more.
Saudis take to social media to thank King Salman for successfully hosting two big summits. #RiyadhSummit (Saudi Gazette)
How to program your tweeting bot to send your deepest appreciations to King Salman for Riyadh Summit and future events. Follow to know more.
10,000 prayers a day by our AI Internet bot for your departed beloved–one month: $10, two months: $18. Feel free to ask our brochure.
Already one bot liked this tweet!
How do you know you’re not dealing with an AI tweeting bot? Answer: The guy sounds so weird.
It is good form to overlook that your interlocutor is an AI bot.
The fascinating world of Twitter Turing Test LIVE!
Make no mistake, already people are learning the practice and art of tweeting from AI tweeting bots.
Sometimes you think you’re being harassed by an otaku pervert and it’s an upbeat AI tweeting bot.
Already people are imitating AI bots on Twitter. They think like bots already!
The pronoun for a man-of-war is she.
Unless it’s a Portuguese man-of-war, in which case the pronoun is it.
The 7 Most Awkward Moments From Trump’s Israel Trip.
My favorite moment is when Trump said nothing about moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.
Lazy politicians must stop telling people to work.
For previous entries in the series, see Index. May 24, 2017