Bizarro world: toxic slavery

Bizarro World: Parents Terrified Of Chemicals Feed Toxic Supplements To Their Kids. Josh Bloom – “Suffice it to say that most people are genuinely clueless when it comes to chemistry, let alone, evaluation of the risks and/or benefits of different chemicals.

“Many of the same people who want to shove their kids into a lead-lined safe room in the basement when someone walks by with a can of Raid or diet soda are unknowingly feeding them multiple unknown chemicals by giving them dietary supplements, virtually none of which are useful and some are dangerous.

I have to tip my hat to the supplement industry. Just like the organic food industry, it has managed to pull the sustainable wool over the eyes of a whole bunch of Americans by convincing them that what they sell is chemical-free and harmless. It is anything but – something Dr. Henry Miller and I wrote about recently for Issues and Insights (See Will Dangerous Dietary Supplements Finally Be Reined In?)

It is mind-boggling that so many people are terrified of chemicals that they avoid touching cash register receipts, or won’t eat anything not labeled GM-free, blithely feed their kids who-knows-what because they perceive supplements as safe, natural, and chemical-free.

Instapundit: EVOLUTION IN ACTION: Vegan parents whose strict diet left baby ‘severely malnourished’ avoid jail. “Authorities discovered the couple’s child so malnourished that at 19-months she weighed just 4.9 kilograms (10.8 pounds). Further medical tests revealed that her bones had not developed since birth. Her development was so stunted she didn’t even have any teeth, Seven News reported. Her parents said they had kept the girl on a strict vegan diet.”

Slavery In America Did Not Begin In 1619, And Other Things The New York Times Gets Wrong. Lyman Stone – “It began in 1513. Any argument for a 1619 date implicitly suggests that the American project is an inherently Anglo project:” The real problem with this author’s arguments is his view that “Furthermore, a serious accounting for slavery has to wrestle with the experience of Native Americans and Hawaiian islanders, and especially the status of their ancestral lands and sovereign rights.” i.e. much of his basis is that slavery “is an immigrant.” He struggles with the idea that even the ‘native peoples’ of the Americas engaged in slavery as well as those everywhere else, including Africa.

“Slavery was a universal law. While I cannot say for certain, it is possible there was no free soil in the entire world—that is, no society that categorically forbade all slavery.

But then something changed. Revolutionary agitation led to war in 1776, and by 1777, Vermont’s de facto secession from New York and New Hampshire created the first modern polity in the western hemisphere to forbid the keeping of slaves. In 1777, war with Britain was barely begun.

In other words, Americans were early adopters of abolition. We were the first to establish formally abolitionist constitutions and states, the second to ban the trade in slaves, and middle-of-the-pack in achieving uniform abolition of slavery.

The problem is in the presumption “Undoubtedly, we still must atone for much.” This is Biblical Judgment and a path towards repeating history and not learning from it. Such judgment is common among the moral preeners who decry the faults and failures of others as insufficient or deficient.

Why The Case For Reparations Would Be Immediately Thrown Out Of Court. Benjamin R. Dierker – “Tort law seeks to make a harmed party whole and make the wrongdoing party pay. Slavery reparations, it seems, seeks to make an unharmed party “whole” and extract the payment from an innocent party. This is backward on both counts.” The is why Great Britain paid reparations to the slave owners when the abolished slavery as it was the owners who were damaged by having their property taken from them [wikipedia].

“We will never hold the nation together by looking backward at harms we cannot repair, because the wrongdoers and victims are gone. The only thing we can do is strive forward with reasonable care and duties to one another to prevent new harms.

Why There Is No Justification For Forcing Taxpayers To Pay For Art. Noah Diekemper – “An opinion article in The Baltimore Sun last week criticized President Donald Trump’s record of musicians and other artists he’s invited to perform at the White House.

“The article commits a number of digressions and blunders: It engages in remote psychology by speculating on Trump possibly having “musical anhedonia”; its closing charge seems to confound refinement with some degree of moral virtue; and the author grounds the meaningfulness of music in its service of “evolutionary goals.” How sublime.

They want NEA money and where other people to pay it. They try to parade their superiority by flinging moral judgments with flowery words at those who do not agree with them.

Comments are closed.