Logan's Run Or Soylent Green?

Try very hard to think of a way to reduce Earth’s population down to one billion “radically and intelligently”. I’ll wait…


Yeah, I didn’t do too well, either. What a crazy concept. The only problem is, there is actually at least one lunatic out there who has proposed that very thing and considering how he views Humanity, I think he’s serious. We use every means at our disposal to kill viruses that want to kill us and we lose not a moment’s sleep at their demise. Now imagine some fruitcake out there who views you and I in the same manner; we’re the virus!
Eco-Extremist Wants World
Population to Drop below 1 Billion

Sea Shepherd founder says mankind is a ‘virus’ and we need to ‘re-wild the planet.’

You heard me…Paul Watson, founder and president of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society wants you and I, or at least one of us, dead. My guess would be both, though. He considers mankind a virus, a cancer (he even referred to us as “the AIDS”) on the Earth, and we must be erradicated in large numbers.

He’s not very shy about it, either. He wrote an editorial on May 4th in which he said:

“Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.” Yikes! Keep this guy away from the nukes, okay?

Just when you thought this global warming hoopla was a mere annoyance, now we have this guy on the scene and I’m willing to plunk down a few dinar and bet he has a following. Imagine a group of his followers. Imagine a horde of them. Now imagine a legion. Am I the crazy one? Well, let’s take a look at history.

How many science fiction stories from the past have had the most fantasic themes, and how many of those have come to fruition? The bad news is, it works with bad things as well as the good.
Men flying into outer space on rockets. Bah!
Computers right on your desk, with access to everywhere. Bah!
Robots doing daily chores. Bah!
A madman who wants to wipe out 80% of humanity. Preposterous!
Yeah, tell me about it. Don’t we have a bunch of folks up on Capitol Hill working overtime on new hate crimes legislation? Don’t you think they should take a close look at this nut? Oh yeah, and once those of us left standing begin the task of dealing with his version of the “new world”, he has a few rules to dole out.

“Who should have children? Those who are responsible and completely dedicated to the responsibility which is actually a very small percentage of humans. Being a parent should be a career. Whereas some people are engineers, musicians, or lawyers, others with the desire and the skills can be fathers and mothers. Schools can be eliminated if the professional parent is also the educator of the child.” Ay Carumba! Get the butterfly net, quick.

So what do you think, should we get ready for the reality TV show, “Logan’s Run”? I say we just run this Watson fellow off the planet.

But that’s just me.

-Woody

Sphere: Related Content

The Audacity To Argue With God

I have never been accused of being an overtly religious man, though I was raised with the basic tenets of a belief in God and His creation. I have defended His existence in the face of psuedo-science and have been called upon to provide concrete proof that He does exist at all. The proof is all around us everyday if one would only see, but to put it on paper in a mathematical calculation is impossible, to be sure.

Like any good attorney can no more prove the innocence of his client to a skeptical jury, neither can one prove either of the theories of God. He cannot be proved nor dis-proved.

There are many layers of trust that go into both ends of the theological spectrum, both from deep crimson to light purple. One side argues that only a God could have created all that we know while the other claims it all to be some great cosmic accident which we were fortunate enough to stumble upon. What atheists and agnostics fail to comprehend is the question that believers inevitably ask; where did we come from, and how did we "stumble upon anything" if there was once nothing?

Where we have gone horribly wrong has to do with the day when Men began to feel independent enough to leave God's nest and fly on their own. Certainly we have always been given that freedom from God, and we have tested the tethers for ages, but now we've gotten to the "ungrateful teenager" stage in our history. Suddenly, like rebellious youths, we not only feel that we know better than the Father, but we have made the audacious leap to denial of His existance. He's become irrelevant, at least to some.

All I can picture is some self-righteous Liberal standing nose-to-nose with God on his Judgement Day, arguing over his "bed-time" moments before being smitten for his insolence and being denied forever the cozy resting place he once took for granted. I, for one, have never bought into the smug comfort that non-believers have projected. The claim that they know they will languish in a dark hole and yet don't care. Or the claim that they are just "a-okay" with ceasing to exist, for eternity. There may be some hard-core anti-God people out there who believe that they are totally alone, but I feel nothing but pity for them.

The rest will seek His forgiveness on their dying days. Of this, I have no doubt. Will they feel remorse for the way they treated God's believers over the course of their lives? I have no idea, unless God compels them to do so, but the rest of us would never know, anyway. Nevertheless, I'd bet the ranch that they will be grateful for the first, and last, time in their lives.

Scant moments before they close their physical eyes forever, and before they see for the first time, they will know.

-Woody

Sphere: Related Content

Deadly Weapons

I'm...confused, I guess would be the best way to put it. Aside from the fact that we now have a "group" fighting against every conceivable societal ill, these groups also define situations to suit their respective causes, and no one in the media seems to ever notice the contradictions. Perhaps they simply choose to ignore them.

Case in point: MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) has a noble platform, however convoluted it may have become with the ether of power, that is dedicated to eradicating the horrors of losing loved ones to drunken motorists. One of the tenets of their charter is the definition of a motor vehicle as a "deadly weapon". I can understand that; an object somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 pounds that can accelerate to 60 MPH in the span of, say, 10 seconds can be lethal.

Many liberal-minded people would be enthusiastic about this definition. But...when it's not convenient, that is another matter.

In New York City, three police officers were recently acquitted of murder charges in the shooting death of Sean Bell, a young black man who was out with friends, late at night, enjoying his bachelor party. After the acquittal, "civil rights leader" Al Sharpton mobilized a large contingient of family and friends of Mr. Bell and began vociferously protesting the verdict, claiming that New York City police officers don't have the right to "gun down an un-armed man".

Testimony in the trial stated that when police officers identified themselves at the scene, Mr. Bell attempted to either leave the scene in a hurry or tried to run down the officers with his car. Officers felt that their lives were in jeopardy and opened fire on the vehicle.

My question then is, if a motor vehicle can be classified as a deadly weapon in a DWI case, how can the Reverend Sharpton make the claim that Sean Bell was "un-armed" on the night he was killed by police who, ostensibly, were acting in accordance with police procedure in regards to self preservation? I must also wonder that if the police had crashed a speeding cruiser into Mr. Bell's car, killing him, whether they would feel the same outrage.

-Woody

Sphere: Related Content