Thoughts on veganism\vegetarians

You know, I don't really care what other people eat. I have a crazy idea that people should be free to eat what they want. If someone wants to eat meat or not that's up to them. I'm not interested in debating which is healthier. What I'm here to talk about is the vegans and vegetarians who want to shame anyone who eats meat.  I'm aware not all vegans/vegetarians are this way, and this is not directed toward them.What I'm talking about are the radical vegans & vegetarians who display an unearned morally superiority against anyone who doesn't eat like them. This extreme form of veganism\vegetarianism is more than a diet, it's an ideology.

The main selling point of the radically veggies is that they are more ethical by eating only vegetables. Okay, let's think about this. Ethics is defined as a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.  When you ascribe something as ethical, you are essentially turning it into quasi-religion. This explains the fervent attitude of treating people like heretics who don't eat like them. Second, what makes it so ethical? What holy writ are they ascribing it to besides their own opinions? By saying it's unethical to eat animals they are elevating animal life on par, and often above, human life. This is akin to pantheism.

I do believe environmentalism has led to an increase the veganism\vegetarianism, but beyond that I think people have become overly sensitive and sheltered from the realities of life. We live in a world where food is prepared behind closed doors. It's a far cry from our ancestors who had to hunt and kill their own food to survive. Nature is a violent and harsh world. It's not the rose colored view they we have today as we go home to our air conditioned houses. As a result we have become squeamish at the thought of killing our own food. If our ancestors thought that way, many of us wouldn't be here today.

As I said before, people should be free to eat what they want. Eating vegetables are fine, But there is no way vegetables alone is going to support a population of 7 billion, there is just not enough good farming land to go around.

Questions\thoughts to ponder:

If its unethical to eat animals why is it okay for animals to eat other animals?
Even if you eat only vegetables are you still not consuming something that is alive to live?
Why is it that so many who refuse to eat meat for ethical reasons have no problems with abortion?
By saying that it is unethical to eat meat they have elevated animals with humans. If animals are elevated with humans then human life is not special. If human life is not special then it is devalued.
If humans are nothing more than animals, the results is people will start treating each other like animals.
There is not enough farming land in the world to feed everyone with vegetables. In fact in order to clear land for farming it results in deforestation in some instances.
Killing in order to eat is the cycle of life. Even animals and bugs do it.
If it is unethical to eat meat then why are we not only physically capable of eating meat, but our bodies need protein to survive? Nothing beats animal protein.

Thoughts on Donald Trump

As it looks more and more likely that Trump will be the Republican nominee, and while I think he would be a better choice than Hilliary, I do have some serious issues with him. Chief among them are:

*He's too crass. He makes personal attacks instead of debating the issues. This including using crude language and sexual innuendos.
*He doesn't have any plans. He says a lot what he's going to do, but doesn't even have a general idea how hes going to do it.
*He's big on bravado and personal insults, but little on substance.
*He's not 100% pro-Israel. He has said Israel would have to "make sacrifices".
*He's not a conservative who believes in limited government and constitutional principles, he's more of a populist\nationalist.
*He flipflops. He's changed parties 5 times. He will say something one week and the next week say something completely different the next.
*It's debatable he's even Republican. He's given money to the Clinton Foundation, he has supported democrats in the past, he was in favor of Obamacare, he supported Obama's campaign in 2008, etc.
*He supports gun control, eminent domain, and Planned Parenthood.
*He was much too slow to disavow David Duke's endorsement. I'm not saying he's racist, but that delay tells me he cared more about losing votes than distancing himself from white supremacists.
*He doesn't encourage unity. I don't place all the blame on Trump for violence at some of his campaigns, I know groups like MoveOn and BLM also share the blame. However, he hasn't exactly dissuaded violence either. He has encouraged people to knock out protesters before.
*Finally, he's not a Christian but claims to be one anyways. Nothing in his personal life indicates he's a Christian, and when asked what his favorite verse he couldn't name one. He said he doesn't like having to ask God for forgiveness from his sins. He's been called a serial adulterer. The Constitution doesn't say someone has to be Christian to be president, however I take issues with someone claiming to be one just to pander to the Evangelicals.

My observation is people are voting for Trump because they are angry, they are tired of political correctness, 8 years of Obama, and the Republican establishment that doesn't fight the democrats on anything. I can understand that, but I'm just not sure Trump is the right man for the job and I'm afraid that 4 years from now, if he is elected, we may find ourselves sorely disappointed. For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong.

Women in Combat

Recently the U.S. Department of Defense announced that it would lift the ban on women in combat. Since Obama became president in 2008, the left has increasingly used the military for social experiments, from allowing gays and Transgenders to openly serve to allowing beards, tattoos, and religious garb to be worn. All in the name of equality of course. They want a society where men and women are equal in every respect, while ignoring important physical and psychological distinctions that makes us different. At the risk of sounding sexist, men and women are not equal. Men are better suited than women at some things, and women are better suited than men at some things. Those are just the facts. These social experiments will ultimately weaken the military and cost more lives.

Historically men have done the hunting and fighting, while women have reared the children. There are always exceptions of course, but that's all they are. Rules should never be based upon the exceptions. In reality very few women could pass the same physical requirements set for men, even fewer could sustain those standards for extended periods of time under battlefield conditions. For this reason, the physical standards for women should not be lowered. The enemy won't discriminate, and bullets don't care if you're male or female. There are good reasons why men have always been the warriors and soldiers of society since time immemorial. The following is a partial comparison of the physical advantages men have over women:

*Men are taller.
*Have 40% more upper body strength and 33% more lower body strength.
*Have higher levels of testosterone, which allows them to have larger skeletal muscles.
*Have more Type 2 muscle fibers, which generate power, strength and speed.
*Have 56% greater lung volume per body mass.
*Have larger hearts, 10% higher red blood count, higher hemoglobin, allowing greater oxygen-carrying capacity.
*Higher circulating clotting factors, leading to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.
*Generally have denser, stronger bones, tendons, and ligaments.
*Convert more calories to muscle and energy reserves.
*Significantly higher hand grip strength.
*More aggressive.

These physical advantages give men an edge over women, which that makes them more suitable for physical combat. To further emphasize this point, the fastest women in the Olympics are still slower than the fastest boys in high school. Just to give you an idea, these are the current track records in the "world" for the women's Olympics compared to the United States records set by boys in high school track:

100 meters: 10.62 for women, 10.00 for boys
200 meters: 21.34 for women, 20.13 for boys
400 meters: 48.26 for women, 44.69 for boys
800 meters: 1:52.43 for women, 1:46.45 for boys
1500 meters: 3:53.96 for women, 3:38.26 for boys

Not only can high school boys outperform Olympic trained women, but the discrepancy becomes greater the distance. This is the reason men and women are segregated in sporting events, yet we feel the need to integrate them into combat, which is anything but a game.

There are other issues that are unique for women, which does not make them ideal for combat roles.  To put it bluntly, women have specific hygiene requirements which could become problematic to maintain on the battlefield. Monthly cycles, while being an annoyance and inconvenience in civilian life, could impact performance, which is crucial on the battlefield. And if a woman is captured on the battlefield, not only are they subject torture like men, but unlike men they are also subject to rape.

With men and women working in such close proximity, romantic relationships are inevitable, thus changing the dynamics and effectiveness of the combat unit. This is also an argument against homosexuals serving in the military. And what happens if someone gets pregnant? In the Navy for instance, where men and women are stuck on a ship most of the time, unplanned pregnancies are higher than in the general population and generally more disruptive. And this despite having access to contraceptives.

Some will point to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), as an example that female combat soldiers are possible. However, that doesn't make it ideal. What is under reported is that female soldiers in the IDF suffer injuries at twice the rate of males.  One study indicated that 46% of female soldiers suffered injuries during their initial training period, as opposed to 25% of men. The injury rate for female soldiers in Karakal (infantry combat battalion) is 40% and a whopping 70% in the Artillery corps. The bone density of female combat soldiers is lower than that of men, which is why they suffer more injuries. In addition, women have 70% to 100% more body fat than men, which makes them slower and consume more energy, their muscle density is 33% is less, so they cannot carry as much weight as their male counterparts. What should also be noted is that Israel has female soldiers out of necessity. They are a small nation with greater immediate threats, so they need as many able-bodied soldiers as possible. This is the reason why men are required to serve a minimum of 3 years in the IDF, while women are required to serve 2 years.

As John Adams once said, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is, men are naturally more suitable for combat roles due to their physical and psychological makeup. I am certainly not opposed to women serving in the military, but for reasons previously stated, just not in ground combat. Men have historically done the fighting and faced the horrors of war so women wouldn't have to. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer it that way.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_high_school_national_records_in_track_and_field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_human_physiology
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/01/29/baby-on-board-us-navy-reacts-to-high-rates-unplanned-pregnancies-among-sailors/
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/198853

Why poltical correctness sucks

Political Correctness sucks because:
It is is cultural Marxism.
It is fascism.
It seeks to control the behavior and thoughts of others.
It stifles freedom of speech.
It seeks to remove offenses but only accomplishes in sensitizing people to offenses, making them more easily offended and creating a vicious cycle.
It puts labels on everyone and breaks them down into categories and creating a polarizing Balkanization.
It doesn't solve anything but creates perpetual conflicts and divisions
It is based on feelings and emotions, devoid of logic and reason

In the end you can have political correctness or you can have freedom, but you can't have both.

Thoughts on Christian Bakeries refusing to bake gay wedding cakes.

Let's pose some hypothetical (and some not-so hypothetical) scenarios involving bakeries:

A Christian baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple.

A Muslim baker refuses to bake a gay wedding cake for a gay couple. (Steven Crowded tested this scenario and was denied service).

A gay baker refuses to bake a pro-marriage cake for a Christian. (Theodore Shoebat tested this scenario and was denied service).

A black baker refuses to bake a pro-KKK cake for a white supremacist.

A Jewish baker refuses to bake a cake that says "Death to all Jews" for a Palestinian.

A baker refuses to bake a cake with pornographic imagery.

Of all these scenarios only one would get media attention for denying service. Can you guess which one this is? Not only is it hypocritical but it proves there is an agenda at work.

The two-state "final" solution

Benjamin Netanyahu created quiet a stir recently when he said that no Palestinian state would be created under his leadership. Many liberals will see Netanyahu as being a mean-spirited hard-liner, but in reality it's a matter of practicality. As the situation currently stands it is not in Israel's best interests for Palestinian state. 

For one, a contiguous Palestinian state would come at the expense of a dis-contiguous Israel. The current proposal of merging Gaza and the West Bank would cut Israel in two. Incidentally this proposal is similar to the 1947 UN partition plan that the Arab's rejected at that time.

Second, such a Palestinian state would set Israel back to pre-1967 borders, nicknamed the Auschwitz borders because they are indefensible. A return to those lines would leave Israel with a waistline just nine miles (15 kilometers) wide at its narrowest point. A "two-state solution” would be a "final solution" for Israel.

Third,  as seen when Israel evacuated Gaza, it has been used as a launching pad for attacks against Israel ever since. This problem would only be compounded with a Palestinian state.

Fourth, PLO Ambassador Maen Areikat and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas have publicly stated that no Jews would be allowed in a Palestinian state. So the half a million Jews living in the West Bank would have to be forcibly relocated elsewhere. In essence it would solve one refugee problem by creating another refugee problem.

In reality a two-state solution won't solve anything, and it certainly won't bring peace. There is a major misconception that the issue is about land, it's not. If it were true then the various proposals over the decades would not have been rejected by the Arabs including:The 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN Partition, the Lausanne Conference of 1949, the 1955 Jordan Valley Unified Water Plan aka Johnston Plan, the 1967 President Johnson's "Five Principles of Peace", the 1969 Rogers Plan, 1978 Camp David Accords, the 1982 Reagan Plan, 1991 Madrid Conference, 1993 Oslo Accords, 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, 2000 Camp David Summit, the December 23 Clinton Parameter plans, 2001 Taba Summit, 2003 Road map for peace, 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (AMA), 2007 Annapolis Conference.
 
 At it's core it's about Jewish hatred. Antisemitism runs deep in Arab culture and has been intertwined with Islam from the start. One of the first thing's Muhammad did when he came to power was to behead 600-900 Jews. The Koran refers to Jews as apes and pigs.

Currently a Palestinian state is not politically or economically viable. As it stands the Palestinians are economically dependent on others to survive, including Israel who is a major employer of Palestinian labor and a main trading partner. Even with financial aid from UNRWA and other countries, about one-fifth of the Palestinian population lives in poverty and has one of the highest unemployment rates in the world. -Source. Then there is the question of territory, even with Gaza and the West Bank combined it would not be able to absorb all the Palestinian Arabs from the surrounding countries.

The Palestinians authorities have been given billions over the years, by the U.S., by Israel, by the E.U., by other Arabs and what have they done with it all? Just one example, they spent millions of dollars over 5 years digging tunnels to launch terrorists attacks on Israel. When Israel turned over Gaza they left the greenhouses intact so the Palestinians could make money off the produce, but the Palestinians ended up destroying them as soon as Israel left.

 According to the 2006 Pew Global, 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. This is unacceptable and the continual contesting of Israel's legitimacy which has led to perpetual conflict "must" be addressed before moving forward. A Palestinian state should be earned through good behavior, not as a reward for bad behavior. Until the Palestinians have shown they are willing to live in peaceful coexistence with a "Jewish" state then they they don't deserve a state of their own. By the way Jordan was actually meant as a Palestinian state and 70% of the population is made up of Palestinians.

I spy

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Israel spied on Obama's nuclear talks with Iran and then shared it with members of Congress, and for what it's worth Israel has denied this allegation. Now let's just assume for a moment that the WSJ article is true.

First of all the "anonymous sources" offered no proof that Israel spied on US rather than Iranian or other allied targets. The only confirmed spying was the US on Israel, which is how they they "allegedly" found out about it in the first place. In fact the NSA has spied on everyone from the Pope, to Angelica Merkel, to former Israeli leaders, and Americans themselves. So it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Second they were sharing the information with congress! You know the guys who are supposed to actually make and ratify treaties. This is something the Obama administration should be doing anyways, but it isn't. So we have a story that tries to paint Israel as the bad guy, but really ends up doing just the opposite.