Get Rid of the Dead Weight

20 May

Greetings and Salutations!

I must apologize for my month long absence, but I have been abroad fighting wolverines in the Jungles of Africa. I kid you not. I’ve got the battle scars to prove it. Those mother fuckers have some teeth. Doing the tango with a bear is much easier.

So now that I’m back in action, it’s time to bring you kiddies another post- brought to you by the letter D. D, as in Dead Weight. This week is Energy Conservation Week, so I thought I’d share some ideas for energy conservation.

Just to recap, I’ve already written about how to go green and save money, and how to calculate your energy consumption, so for this week I’ve got a great idea on how to save energy and improve the human race. We start getting rid of the dead weight that drags down society.

Now I’m not talking about Nazi, or even Swedish style eugenics, but I am saying that there are lot of useless assholes out there that don’t contribute anything to society whatsoever, and are a major drain on the taxpayer and our natural resources. Before anyone jumps down my throat bitching to me about how I’m about to say we should get rid of people with Down Syndrome, I say this- think about all of the resources that are put into helping the weak and the invalid. I did a quick google search and there’s over 100 organizations helping these people. A lot of work has been done to help integrate these people these people into society- and that’s cool if you want to spend your life helping someone with an IQ of 50, but all of this time and money could be put into research to prevent this from happening in the first place. Let’s stop kidding ourselves.

Everyone likes to remember that Darwin came up with the theory of Evolution, but people seem to forget that evolution comes out of the survival of the fittest. When elephants have a baby that is deformed, they don’t send it a special elephant tribe where they can be taken care of and be treated with kid gloves the rest of its life, they use it as fodder when the lions come. According to the U.S Census Bureau, the world’s population is going to be around 9.5 billion people by 2050. If we don’t do something now to stem the growth, we are all royally screwed. Think about how scarce our natural resources are now. By 2050, we’re going to have to get ration cards and be allowed a gallon of water a week. Here’s a taste of what the world would be like with 9.5 billion people:

1) Water – Right now our fresh water sources is getting depleted, not only due to consumption, but because of pollution. By 2050, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are wars over water. Not only does water keep us hydrated, but it also affects our food supply.

2) Food – With limited water supplies, farming becomes almost non existent. No water = no food = starving people. Companies that specialize in GMO foods are going to have to get really creative, which will probably lead to a lot of factory farming. Factory farming leads to less nutritional food, which will mean people will have weaker immune systems, die, etc. Even IF we had enough water, there still wouldn’t be enough food to go around. We’d have to cut down every tree to clear land for new crops. The only foreseeable way would be to build some sky scrapers the size of a few acres and do some multi-level farming.

3) Energy Consumption – You think it’s bad now? Well wait till 2050. 2/3rd’s of the world’s population live in Asia right now, and that number is going up every day. We might have peachy clean super efficient energy here, but India and China will most certainly not. Think about how much pollution will come out of these countries.

To give you an idea in numbers of how much crap we consume, check out Worldometers. It’s pretty disturbing, and you can use your imagination of what those numbers be in 50 years.

So what do we do about this mess? Get rid of the dead weight. This world has become a nanny state that fosters failure and everyone wins. Look where that’s gotten us. Without losers we can’t have winners- and in the end, everyone becomes a loser.

It’s time to bring back the Gospel of Wealth and let the doomed fend for themselves. Instead of giving the hopeless false hope and prolonging their misery, how about we all do ourselves a favour and work smart. Instead of helping the weak stay weak, why don’t we prevent them from getting to that point in the first place. Lack of education is poverty’s worst enemy. How about we put the money from welfare into the school system? If you’re thinking to yourself ‘well, even if you have an education, you’re screwed in a recession,’ think again. Read this article today about recent grads getting jobs on Wall Street. Luck has nothing to do with it. It’s called Darwinism.

Here’s some other things we can do to strengthen the gene pool and get our society back on track:

1) Legalize the possession of all drugs and remove all public funding to rehab centers. If you’re going to use and become an addict, that’s cool with me. I don’t see why you should go to jail for that. If you’re going to become an addict and expect me to pay for rehab, you’ve got another thing coming. Also, the money that is being spent on the war on drugs can now be used from something productive, like researching new technology, or improving education so we don’t have drug addicts anymore. We can also sell the drugs like in Holland so we can marginalize the black market and make some money.

2) Legalize gay marriage, worldwide. That’ll cut down on some baby making and we’ll get some sweet tax dollars.

3) Countries should nationalize their natural resources. When the shit hits the fan, you don’t want a corporation in charge of your water. Then we can work with other well endowed countries to improve conditions around the world. It may be blackmail, but it needs to be done.

4) Re-segregate church and state. An atheist government is a rational government. Also, remove tax shelters from organized religion. Peddling Jesus is a billion dollar a year industry and is tax free. I think it’s time we get our cut, considering we let things like, you know, child molestation slide.

5) Gas tax and toll booths. You want to drive your super polluting SUV into the City? Guess what buddy, it’s gonna cost you. There’s too many cars, and the air even has a funky taste to it now. If we put tolls on all the ways into a city, we’ll see less cars and more people riding transit. Add a gas tax into the mix, and people will think twice about buying a Hummer.

6) Outlaw private jets. What kind of rich asshole thinks they can get away with riding around in a private jet nowadays? Seriously. Either outlaw these ozone scars or tax the shit out of them.

This is just a taste of some of the things we are going to need to do in order to survive as a species. The human race is going to have to take some drastic measures soon, and if we don’t, adios muchachos. We’ve gone as far as we can living like this. Don’t take my word for it either. Do yourself a favour and look at the world around you. It’s not going to be a Star Trek world 50 years from now. It’s going to be a Mad Max world the way we’re going. One day you’re going to wake up and this dude is going to be wearing studded football gear trying to steal your gasoline:
deadweight

Survival of the fittest, my friends. Survival of the fittest.

5 Responses to “Get Rid of the Dead Weight”

  1. jeff May 20, 2009 at 6:25 PM #

    I’m going to leave it to one of the masters, P.J. O’Rourke to comment on this one……

    How to Explain Conservatism to Your Squishy Liberal Friends: Individualism ‘R’ Us
    Conservatism and the individual

    The individual is the wellspring of conservatism. The purpose of conservative politics is to defend the liberty of the individual and-lest individualism run riot-insist upon individual responsibility.

    The great religions (and conservatives are known for approving of God) teach salvation as an individual matter. There are no group discounts in the Ten Commandments, Christ was not a committee, and Allah does not welcome believers into Paradise saying, “Y ou weren’t much good yourself, but you were standing near some good people.” That we are individuals-unique, disparate and willful-is something we understand instinctively from an early age. No child ever wrote to Santa: “Bring me-and a bunch of kids I’ve never met-a pony, and we’ll share.”

    Virtue is famously lonely. Also vice, as anyone can testify who ever told his mother, “All the other guys were doing it.” We experience pleasure separately; Ethan Hawke may go out on any number of wild dates, but I’m able to sleep through them. And, altho ugh we may be sorry for people who suffer, we only “feel their pain” when we’re full of baloney and running for office.

    The individual and the state

    The first question of political science is-or should be: “What is good for everyone?” And, by “everyone” we must mean “all individuals.”

    The question can’t be: “What is good for a single individual?” That’s megalomania, which is, like a New Hampshire presidential primary, the art of politics, not political science.

    And the question can’t be: “What is good for some individuals?” Or even: “What is good for the majority of individuals?” That’s partisan politics, which, at best, leads to Newt Gingrich or Pat Schroeder and, at worst, leads to Lebanon or Rwanda.

    Finally, the question can’t be: “What is good for individuals as a whole?” There’s no such thing. Individuals are only available individually.

    By observing the progress of mankind, we can see that the things that are good for everyone are the things that have increased the accountability of the individual, the respect for the individual and the power of the individual to master his own fate. Jud aism gave us laws before which all men, no matter their rank, stood as equals. Christianity taught us that each person has intrinsic worth, Newt Gingrich and Pat Schroeder included. The rise of private enterprise and trade provided a means of achieving we alth and autonomy other than by killing people with broadswords. And the industrial revolution allowed millions of ordinary folks an opportunity to obtain decent houses, food and clothes (albeit with some unfortunate side effects, such as environmental da mage and Albert Gore).

    In order to build a political system that is good for everyone, that ensures a free society based upon the independence, prestige and self-rule of individuals, we have to ask what all these individuals want. And be told to shut up, because there’s no way to know the myriad wants of diverse people. They may not know themselves. And who asked us to stick our nose in, anyway?

    The Bill of Rights tries to protect our freedom not only from bad people and bad laws but also from the vast nets and gooey webs of rules and regulations that even the best governments produce. The Constitution attempts to leave as much of life as possibl e to common sense, or at least to local option. The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Continues the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    It is these suit-yourself, you’re-a-big-boy-now, it’s-a-free-country powers that conservatism seeks to conserve.

    But what about the old, the poor, the disabled, the helpless, the hopeless, the addled and the daft?

    Conservatism is sometimes confused with Social Darwinism or other such me-first dogmas. Sometimes the confusion is deliberate. When those who are against conservative policies don’t have sufficient opposition arguments, they call love of freedom “selfish. ” Of course it is-in the sense that breathing is selfish. But because you want to breathe doesn’t mean you want to suck the breath out of every person you encounter. Conservatives do not believe in the triumph of the large and powerful over the weak and u seless. (Although most conservatives would make an exception to see a fistfight between Norman Schwartzkopf and George Stephanopoulos. If all people are free, George Stephanopoulos must be allowed to run loose, too, however annoying this may be.)

    But some people cannot enjoy the benefits of freedom without assistance from their fellows. This may be a temporary condition-such as childhood or being me when I say I can drive home from a bar, just fine, thank you very much, at three a.m.-or, due to in firmity or affliction, the condition may be permanent. Because conservatives do not generally propose huge government programs to combat the effects of old age, illness, being a kid or drinking 10 martinis on an empty stomach, conservatives are said to be “mean-spirited.”

    In fact, charity is an axiom of conservatism. Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible-and therefore free-that responsibility must be personal.

    Not all needful acts of charity can be accomplished by one person, of course. To the extent that responsibility should be shared and merged, in a free society it should be shared and merged on the same basis as political power, which means starting with t he individual. Responsibility must proceed from the bottom up-never from the top down, with the individual as the squeezed cream filling of the giant Twinkie that is the state.

    There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as “caring” and “sensitive” because he wants to expand the government’s charitable programs is merely saying that he’s willing to try to do good with other people’s money. Well, who isn’t? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he’ll do good with his own money-if a gun is held to his head.

    When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we’re jerks.

    Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don’t have to look after our parents; they’ve got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don’t have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don’t have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there’s methadone, and if they get knocked up, t here’s always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren’t going to get involved; if they step outside, they’ll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.

    Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It’s hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don’t want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government’s power is arbitrary and freedo m is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform.

    The preamble to the Constitution states: “We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare…” It doesn’t say “guarante e the general welfare.” And it certainly doesn’t say “give welfare benefits to all the people in the country who aren’t doing so well even if the reason they aren’t doing so well is because they’re sitting on their butts in front of the TV.”

    A liberal would argue that those people are watching television because they lack opportunities, they’re disadvantaged, uneducated, life is unfair-and a conservative might actually agree. The source of contention between conservatives and liberals, the po int at which the real fight begins, is when liberals say, “Government has enormous power; let’s use that power to make things good.”

    It’s the wrong tool for the job. The liberal is trying to fix my wristwatch with a ball pein hammer.

    Government: Robin Hood or just robbing hoods?

    Government is an abstract entity. It doesn’t produce anything. It isn’t a business, a factory or a farm. Government can’t create wealth; only individuals can. All government is able to do is move wealth around. In the name of fairness government can take wealth from those who produce it and give wealth to those who don’t. But who’s going to be the big Robin Hood? Who grabs all this stuff and hands it back out? (Remember: even in a freely elected system of government, sooner or later that person is going t o be someone you loathe. If you’re a Republican, think about Donna Shalala; if you’re a Democrat, think about Ollie North.)

    When government takes wealth from those who produce it, people become less inclined to produce more of it-or more inclined to hide it. Conversely, when government gives wealth to those who don’t produce it, they too become less productive since they’re al ready getting what they’d produce in return for not producing it.

    If government is supposed to make things good, what kind of good is it supposed to make them? And how good is good enough? And who’s going to decide? What person is so arrogant as to believe he knows what every other person in America deserves to get? (We ll, actually, all of Washington, press and pundits included, is that arrogant. But never mind.)

    We don’t know what people want. By the same token, we don’t know what people need. The government is going to wind up giving midnight basketball to people who don’t have shoes to play in. Then there will be a block grant to provide shoes, which people wil l boil because what they really lack is something to eat. And that brings us to expanding the school lunch program. Pretty soon, it’s not government, it’s shopping. It’s not Congress and the White House, it’s Mall of America-and a bunch of politicians hav e your charge cards.

    Individual liberty is lost when government stops asking “What is good for all individuals?” and starts asking “What is good?” To ask the latter question is to abandon a system in which all people are considered equal and to adopt a system in which all peo ple are considered alike. Collective good replaces individual goodies. Government will make life fair. But since limited government is hardly suitable to a task of this magnitude, the role of government will need to be expanded enormously. Government will have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Government will grow to a laughable size. Or it would be laughable except for our experience in this century.

    Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China and dozens of smaller places around the world did indeed create just such leviathan governmental engines of “good,” and the dreadful history of the 20th century is in large part a history of the terrible result s of these collectivist endeavors. Once respect for the individual is lost, then what do 100 million dead individuals matter-especially if their deaths are for the “collective good”?

    Of course, a liberal would say that a sharing and caring government doesn’t have to turn out this way. It could be something like Sweden. And there you have it-the downside: 100 million people killed; the upside: ABBA, Volvos and suicide.

    Why collectivism doesn’t work

    Why can’t life be more fair? Why can’t Americans take better care of each other? Why can’t we share the tremendous wealth of our nation? Surely if enough safeguards of liberty are written into law and we elect vigorous, committed leaders…

    Have another hit on the bong.

    Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s “fair share” of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.

    Under collectivism, powers of determination rest with the entire citizenry instead of with the specific citizens. Individual decision-making is replaced by the political process. Suddenly, the system that elected the prom queen at your high school is in c harge of your whole life. Besides, individuals are smarter than groups, as anybody who is a member of a committee or of a large Irish family after six in the evening can tell you. The difference between individual intelligence and group intelligence is th e difference between Harvard University and the Harvard University football team.

    Think of all the considerations that go into each decision you make: Is it ethical? Is it good in the long run? Who benefits? Who is harmed? What will it cost? Does it go with the couch? Now imagine a large group-imagine a very large group, say, 250 milli on people-trying to agree on every decision made by every person in the country. The result would be stupid, silly and hugely wasteful-in short, the result would be government.

    Individuals are not only smarter than groups, they are also-and this is one of the best things about them-weaker than groups. To return to Harvard for a moment, it’s the difference between picking a fight with the football team and picking a fight with Mi chael Kinsley.

    Collectivism makes for a very large and, hence, very powerful group. This power is centralized in the government. Any power is open to abuse.

    Government power is not necessarily abused more often than personal power, but when the abuse does come, it’s a lulu. At work, power over the whole supply cabinet is concentrated in the person of the office manager. In government, power over the entire mi litary is concentrated in the person of the commander-in-chief. You steal felt tip pens. Hitler invades Poland.

    Most government abuse of power is practiced openly, and much of it is heartily approved by The Washington Post editorial board and other such proponents of the good and the fair. But any time the government treats one person differently than another becau se of the group to which that person belongs-whether it’s a group of rich, special-interest tax dodgers or a group of impoverished, minority job-seekers-individual equality is lessened and freedom is diminished. Any time the government gives away goods an d services-even if it gives them away to all people equally-individual dependence is increased and freedom is diminished. Any time the government makes rules about people’s behavior when that behavior does not occasion real and provable harm to others-tel ling you to buckle your seat belt or forbidding you to publish pornography on the Internet-respect for the individual is reduced and freedom is diminished.

  2. Dead Weight May 21, 2009 at 1:41 PM #

    You know you are walking a fine line between Darwin and Hitler. You say you aren’t talking about Nazi eugenics, but you go on to talk about an autocratic decision process of who should live and who should die. Sounds familiar.

    In the shoes of the condemned; how would you like it if someone came along and said you didn’t meet the qualifications of a survivor and thus you die. Whatever those qualifications, you didn’t have the opportunity to argue because you were dead? How would it feel if that was your child or parent? Think of it this way.. would your mother make the short list?

    Now take a look at an IQ graph, like this one (http://itickr.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/600px-iq_curvesvg.png). Though you seem to see IQ as an apt basis for your eugenic decision making, you will notice that the vast majority of the population are in the “normal” range. Which means you focusing on “the delayed” for even so much as a paragraph is a waste of time. Live or die, they are not the problem.

    Regardless, you or I need not worry about that. Man has proven, from caveman through to “civilized society”, that it is in our nature to slaughter each other. While the process won’t be as selective as you might like or suggest, a good portion the world’s population will be wiped out. Sooner than later, more than likely. That process in and of itself should kick-start a movement of responsibility.

    On the note of responsibility, don’t have 18 kids. People who do should be arrested and charged with criminal negligence causing Pentecostals.

    While I agree with dealing with dead weight, our methods would differ. I prefer rehabilitation and education. But either way, it’s not the retarded, helpless or innocent that you need to focus on. It’s the evil, the gluttons and the greedy. Who could very well be, and probably are, intelligent.

  3. enviralment May 27, 2009 at 1:34 PM #

    Many good recommendations for a better planet sir Jim. Water is numero uno with respect to climate change, helping the poor etc.
    Perhaps we need another tsunami to remind us of it’s importance.

  4. Rattamahatta June 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM #

    Whoa ? Pollution, is that you in the image posted at the end of your essay ? Nail polish , and hair gel, from a guy complaining about pollution ?
    Utility is perfection, emo boy, ditch the beauty products.

  5. Lizzy February 16, 2011 at 4:01 PM #

    You do realise that you could get hit by a bus tomorrow and become one of those ‘weak and invalid’ people?
    Ignorant twat.

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: