Hawaii Poised to go Full Purple Wage

Posted on July 6, 2017 by The Political Hat

     Hawaii has declared that “basic financial security” is now a fundamental human right that people are entitled to simply for having a temperature above room temperature…

“Hawaii may trail blaze and become the first to offer guaranteed basic income.

“A bill was recently passed through both the houses and state legislature in a unanimous vote that declares that all Hawaiians ‘deserve basic financial security’ and prompts state agencies to look over ‘universal basic income’ along with other policy.”

     The “universal basic income” is a fantasy that posits that with modern technology, people will be freed by free stuff from the government to elevate themselves into a creative and harmonious utopia. This is just a rehash of the concept of the “Purple Wage”, a concept in the science fiction novel “Riders of the Purple Wage“:

“Riders of the Purple Wage is an extrapolation of the mid-twentieth century’s tendency towards state supervision and consumer-oriented economic planning. In the story, all citizens receive a basic income (the purple wage) from the government, to which everyone is entitled just by being born. The population is self-segregated into relatively small communities, with a controlled environment, and keeps in contact with the rest of the world through the Fido, a combination television and videophone.”

     While Alaska gives people free money via the Alaska Permanent Fund, Alaska’s fund is funded by oil revenues. Further, unlike Hawaii, Alaska doesn’t have, rather steep, income and sales taxes. Free money for those who don’t produce and high taxes on those who do? Yup, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. This is how the Left plans for a radical equalization of income:

“[N]ow the left has expanded its goals to policies that are far more radical. Instead of a well-meaning (albeit misguided) desire to protect people from risk, they now want coerced equality.

“And this agenda also has two components.

  1. A guaranteed and universal basic income for everyone.
  2. Taxes and/or earnings caps to limit the income of the rich.”

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Quick Takes – You are all victims; unless you refuse to submit to dependency; and are probably also White

Posted on July 6, 2017 by The Political Hat

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: You’re either with them, or against them.

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     Nothing is anyone’s fault anymore. A young girl, who is raped, is oppressed by the Patriarchy™. The two rapists who raped said woman are also victims, according to the principal of the school they went to:

“Two teenage boys who raped a girl remain at the school, while the girl must be taught elsewhere. All three are victims, says the Principal, who did not provide any information to parents that two rapists were among their children – ‘it would have raised a concern.'”

     They would rather children be raped than to challenge the Leftist narrative that the “system” is to blame and must be opposed.

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Quick Takes – You are all victims; unless you refuse to submit to dependency; and are probably also White

Free Speech: A Definition of Terms

Posted on July 5, 2017 by The Political Hat

     To many, the idea that so-called “Hate Speech” isn’t “Free Speech” has been a nonsensical notion. How can one have freedom of speech if the state can censor particular negative utterances?

     Oh, there is no right to yell “fire” in the proverbial crowded theater. But it is not the speech per se that is prohibited, but the chaos and harm it creates. In analogy, it is prohibiting one from bathing another in the head with a hammer, rather than ban swinging a hammer itself. Unless it would create a clear and present danger of an imminent lawless action, it is, and ought to be seen as, a sacrosanct exercise of the inalienable right to free speech.

     What does banning “hate speech” mean in this context? It means that the idea being expressed is prohibited. The restriction of ideas is antithetical to a free society.

     How then, does banning “hate speech” square the circle of “free speech”?

     Simply be redefining the defintion of free speech!

     For a free people used to the protections of the 1st Amendment, free speech means that the government can’t punish you for expressing your opinion. In this brave new world, however, free speech means that the government won’t punish you for expressing an opinion it hasn’t prohibited. As James FitzJames Stephen noted:

“It must be said that there are rights which are not the creatures of law, but which exist apart from and antecedent to it; that a law which violates any of these rights is unjust”.

     In effect is it the difference between considering the right to free speech a negative right vs. a positive right.

     Freedom, then is redefined from what you have an inalienable right to, to what some higher temporal power allows you to enjoy. The recognition of rights serves as a bulwark against the state, and moreover from others. If a right can be dispensed with so easily, even by a democratic majority, than you have to real rights. As Ronald Reagan noted:

“Our natural unalienable rights are now presumed to be a dispensation of government, divisible by a vote of the majority. The greatest good for the greatest number is a high-sounding phrase but contrary to the very basis of our Nation, unless it is accompanied by the recognition that we have certain rights which cannot be infringed upon, even if the individual stands outvoted by all of his fellow citizens. Without this recognition, majority rule is nothing more then mob rule.”

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

When in the Course of Human Events…

Posted on July 4, 2017 by The Political Hat

Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great- Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments Off on When in the Course of Human Events…

Teaching the Bible in a Christian School Now Illegal in Canada

Posted on July 3, 2017 by The Political Hat

     Apparently in the Canadian Province of Alberta, the Bible is considered illegal H8 speech and Christian schools are being told that they may no longer teach the Bible… or at least the portions the state considers to be doubleplusungood:

“A Christian school in Canada has been ordered by authorities to stop teaching parts of the Bible — specifically, those parts deemed to be ‘offensive’ and, therefore, in violation of the Alberta ‘human rights’ act.

“…

“The troubles formally began when the K-12 school in question, based in Alberta province and known as Cornerstone Christian Academy (CCA), published a number of Bible Scriptures in its school handbook and its statement of faith.

“Among the supposedly illegal verses was Corinthians 6:9-10. It reads: ‘Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.'”

     Above all else, it is the repression of actual inalienable human rights under the guise of protecting fantasy “human rights”.

Continue reading →

Posted in Education, Progressives | Tagged , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (July 2nd, 2017)

Posted on July 2, 2017 by The Political Hat

 

News of the Week for July 2nd, 2017


Continue reading →

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (July 2nd, 2017)

Bake The Musical Cake

Posted on June 30, 2017 by The Political Hat

     When a baker (or a florist or photographer) refuse to use their personal creative abilities to promote and endorse a same-sex wedding, we are told that the baker has surrendered their 1st Amendment rights because they are making money off of providing their services. Who is being served, and what is being served, is conflated, and incorrectly so.

     But if a business has no 1st Amendment rights to refuse to facilitate a message they disagree with, then by what moral right do they claim to punish people for stating unapproved beliefs outside of the service and message they had already happily agreed to?

     None, of course. But that didn’t stop Castle Face Records from dropping the band Dream Machine from the label despite happily releasing their debut record!

“Matt Jones of Castle Face Records, announced via Facebook today that the label he co-founded with John Dwyer of Thee Oh Sees is discontinuing its relationship with the loosely Austin-based band Dream Machine following comments made by the band’s core duo Matthew and Doris Melton in an interview with the Brooklyn-based website Still in Rock.

“Last month, the California-based label released the band’s debut album “The Illusion.” On Thursday, label reps said they will no longer be working with the band after reading about “some ugly opinions” the band members expressed about immigration, feminism and sexual assault.”

     And what the problematic message? A blunt statement by a legal immigrant:

“Doris Melton, who came to the United States from Bosnia told the website she was ‘glad they’re finally starting to work on deporting criminal illegal aliens too. It took ages for me to get my green card here legally and because there’s so many illegals coming in they make it hard for the people who do want to become part of American society the right way. They’re handing out free money to people who come here illegally, but when you want to work hard to become an American citizen to start a family they make it so hard on you, and expensive!’

“Later in the interview, Doris Melton was asked to name something that bothers her about the music industry. She responded by saying ‘girls have mostly become lazy jellyfish and are starting these horrible feminist bands just to try and “show men what they got”.’

“She went on to say, “The safe space mentality has made them weak. They don’t even know how to play their instruments! They’ll make songs about being ‘sexually assaulted’ or about how ’empowering’ abortions are or some (expletive) and it’s (expletive) retarded, they’re embarrassing themselves. If men did that they would be crucified! You see the longing for a gender supremacy under the guise of ‘equal rights.’ What happened to the incredible female singers from back in the day with real talent, singing about finding true love and wanting to be a good woman?”

     Unlike with the case of the bakers, florists, and photographers, the record label was not even asked to use their resources to spread this message. Like, however, the conflated scenario of who vs. what is being served, the record company refused to deal with people for reasons beyond the scope of the service being provided.

     In this case, by what moral right does the record company have to not bake the “musical” cake, so as to speak?

     As has become obvious, “free speech” means protecting doubleplusgood beliefs, if not outright compelling the same, while denigrating doubleplusungood beliefs… if not outright declaring them “H8” crimes!

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , | 1 Comment

European Court of Human Rights Sentences Baby to Death

Posted on June 29, 2017 by The Political Hat

     Charlie Gard, a baby suffering from a horrible disease in the U.K., had a chance to receive experimental treatment, funded completely by private donations. Rather than allow little Charlie’s parents to fight for the very life of their child a British judge condemned the child to death.

     Now, the European Court of (so-called) Human Rights has condemned the child to die based on the vague and nebulous idea of “dignity”―according to the angles of death members of the court―outweighs a persons inalienable right to life.

“The parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard are ‘utterly distraught’ and facing fresh heartbreak after losing their final appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.

“Chris Gard, 32, and Connie Yates, 31, wanted to take their 10-month-old son – who suffers from a rare genetic condition and has brain damage – to the US to undergo a therapy trial.

“Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London, where Charlie is being cared for, said they wanted him to be able to ‘die with dignity’.

“But the couple, from Bedfont, west London, raised almost £1.4million so they could take their son to America but a series of courts ruled in favour of the British doctors.

“…

“[O]n Tuesday afternoon, the ECHR rejected a last-ditch plea and their ‘final’ decision means the baby’s life support machine will be switched off.

“The ECHR announced the application to the court by the parents was ‘inadmissible’ and added that their decision was ‘final’.”

     The experimental treatment was, in the judgement of the court, would not help. It is experimental treatment. It is a long shot at best, but what reason is there to deny a long-shot at living, particularly when that long shot is already funded, and by private donations at that?

     The excuse is the vague and nebulous term “dignity”. According to the court, the child’s life was worth less than zero because the perceived pain of the child was too great to bear, not for the child to bear (of course) but for the court to bear. No, this idea of “dignity” allows that state to strip a person of all rights, even the right to live, because of the detached and high-minded mewlings of human rights denying members of the European Court for Human Rights.

Continue reading →

Posted in Healthcare, Progressives | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Biological Reality is Now Unconstitutional

Posted on June 29, 2017 by The Political Hat

     A birth certificate is a record and statement of accurate fact. Statements of accurate fact are now Unconstitutional.

     On birth certificates, there are places to state a child’s father and a child’s mother. Why? Because a child is conceived from their father’s sperm uniting with their mother’s egg. Marriage arose as a way to channel the normal heterosexual activity between the two sexes into a stable monogamous relationship that would serve as a societal pillar and optimal environment for offspring resultant from such normal heterosexual inclinations. Married couples were listed as a child’s natural and thus biological parents because the law presumed that a child was the product of the marriage, that insurance being why men had a reason to enter unto. This is common sense, unless you think that children come to parents via a stork…

     The Supreme Court, in all its derision sanity, has decided that the plausible biological presumption, that a married couple are the natural and biological parents of a child, somehow impossibly applies to same-sex couples:

“Arkansas had resisted, arguing that the birth certificate was a record of parentage for the child, rather than a document about the marriage.

“But the high court rejected that argument, saying that in situations where a child is conceived from an anonymous sperm donor, the mother’s husband is still required to be listed. Denying that same accommodation to same-sex couples violates the 2015 Obergefell ruling that established a national right to same-sex marriages.”

     The Supreme Court, in Obergefell rules that there was no distinction between opposite sex marriages and so-called same-sex marriages beyond “irrational animus”. Apparently objective and obvious biological reality is not “irrational”.

     There are physical and actual physiological differences between the two sexes. We are a dimorphic species that reproduces sexually via coupling between males and females. It can pre presumed, according to social dictates, that a child of an opposite sex marriage is the product of such coupling.

     In contrast, it is biologically impossible for a child to have two natural and biological parents of the same biological sex.

     This is as insane as when California declared that a gay couple not being able to produce a child between them were infertile because a straight couple not being able to do so either is considered proof of infertility. Of course, that a straight couple attempt to reproduce through the normal means of coitus is something that a same-sex couple are biologically incapable of, is irrelevant to the revealed truth of social justice that asks not what scientifically is or is not, but how many queer genderfluid snowflakes can twerk at the end of a pins…

Continue reading →

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Euthanasia of the Hippocratic Oath

Posted on June 28, 2017 by The Political Hat

     An online poll by Medscape suggests a disturbing trend: The Hippocratic Oath is increasingly been seen by younger doctors as not very meaningful:

“According to the poll, to which readers began responding November 22, of those under age 34, 39% said it was very meaningful, compared with 70% of those 65 and older. Conversely, of those in the under-34 group (which had 267 respondents), 18% said it was not at all meaningful vs 10% of those in the oldest age group (836 respondents).”

Death, Rx

     Further, in increasing number have never taken the oath. Specifically less than half under the age of 34.

     This is a self-reporting poll, and not necessarily statistically accurate, but it ought to give people pause. This is particularly disturbing in light of the growing acceptance of euthanasia, including cases where it is no longer even a matter of choice!

Continue reading →

Posted in Healthcare | Tagged | 1 Comment