Libertas Per Adamas

Well if we are falling into the abyſs: At leaſt Europe is fallling faſter ſo when we hit bottom Europe's corpſe will ſoften the blow.

2012-01-17T08:46:00.000-08:00

Last year at this time I wrote an article “The DOOM that came to the United States” where I outlined the risks of uncontrolled sovereign debt: Wherein I warn of a credit downgrade that would result in monetization of debt that would eventually drive inflation to new highs. 6 months later that little scenario took another step closer to being reality when S&P did downgrade the United States’ bond rating.

Well while the first half of last year was focused on our debt woes; another canary was snuffed out in Europe. A couple of months prior to the US’ downgrade while the Kabuki Theater of the debt standoff was in high swing, Greece was downgraded from B to CCC. In the second half of the year, the US busied itself in alternately flooding the M1 with near zero interest from the Fed, recycled straight into the M3 as US bonds to keep the government funded, where only the sluggish speed of the money is insulates us from hyperinflation, during that time Europe was struggling to contain the sovereign debt problem to Greece. With all of their struggles and failed compromises to fix Greece however were predicated on the assumption the sovereign debt problem not spread to other weak nations specifically Portugal, Spain, and Italy. All the efforts to save the EU hinged on keeping the train wreck confined to the somewhat limited economy of Greece and not the larger nations of the EU. On Friday, the EU lost that battle, and came one step closer to losing the war on their currency. S&P based on financial outlook downgraded nine European nations.

France AAA => AA+

Austria AAA => AA+

Italy A => BBB

Spain AA- => A

Portugal BBB- => BB

Malta A => A-

Slovakia A+ => A

Slovenia AA- => A+

Cyprus BBB => BB+

If that wasn’t enough, yesterday the S&P Downgraded the EFSF from AAA to AA+. For those not familiar with the EFSF here is a blurb from their website.

The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) was created by the euro area Member States following the decisions taken on 9 May 2010 within the framework of the Ecofin Council.

The EFSF’s mandate is to safeguard financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance to euro area Member States.

EFSF is authorised to use the following instruments linked to appropriate conditionality:

Provide loans to countries in financial difficulties

Intervene in the debt primary and secondary markets. Intervention in the secondary market will be only on the basis of an ECB analysis recognising the existence of exceptional financial market circumstances and risks to financial stability

Act on the basis of a precautionary programme

Finance recapitalisations of financial institutions through loans to governments

To fulfill its mission, EFSF issues bonds or other debt instruments on the capital markets.

Europe looks to be trying to live out my dire warning way ahead of the US. It makes sense that I append my warning at this point. The two economies, Europe, and the United States, are inherently linked and dependent upon each other. If one goes the other goes with it. If Europe, and their monetary system falls apart, the US will not be far behind. Perhaps this is why we allowed the European Central Bank to join the US Federal Reserve system (That’s right we let the central bank of Europe, join our central bank system) so they could directly auction US dollars into the European financial system to ease the stress on the Euro.

The dollar auctions on Wednesday were the ECB's first since joining the Federal Reserve and other major central banks on Nov. 30 to provide cheap, emergency U.S. dollar loans to banks in Europe and elsewhere, in a coordinated effort to ease strains in the global financial system stemming from the European debt crisis.

But as we buy into the EU to reduce the strain on their currency, propping up a sick and possibly dying currency, with one slightly less sick, we become further impacted if the Euro collapses.

With no credible plan even proposed to grapple with the European debt crisis, the Euro collapse looks to be a matter of time, and not very much time. The DOOM is ON!

The Diſappointment

2012-01-16T14:38:00.000-08:00

With all the time spent in the political sphere in the last couple of years, you would think that I am hopeful for the future given the huge concessions we have gained; In fact though my outlook is drearier than ever. Eventually in a free Republic the rubber must hit the road and what is ideology must manifest in real world leadership in the form of a politician who would in practical terms put legal ideas to paper and forward an ideology not just in the world of laws and writs, but also in the real world of concrete, iron, and lead.

The clock in running out on the massive debt assigned not just to the US, but the whole of the western world, and accumulated not in the most part in war mongering, but vote mongering with entitlements. The collapse of our fiat monetary systems seems at this point almost assured. A guarantee of a generation of suffering that will make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn. The scope of which may include a break down in social order, and perhaps an end to free society here in the US. It depends on a lot of factors, but when faced with a crisis on this scale, it would be hard for those in government to avoid the temptation to use the crisis as a mechanism for dismantling what few restraints they have left, and seizing totalitarian power; and at the same time it will difficult for the people to avoid the temptation of demanding that they do so in order to bring order. Certainly a recipe for tyranny has already been mixed. All we have is it is not yet done cooking.

Now the fact that the crisis has not yet hit, does mean that there is some hope of averting it. With aggressive changes to the spending of government DOOM can be avoided. But all the reasonable options have been passed up in favor of the option to kick the problem down the road to be dealt with later. Legions, of the apathetic, the cowardly, and the sinister, who claim to have led the US have led us to this point, in which only the radical has any hope of success. Very seriously: This country will not survive a mediocre administration

And in the end we have a whole field of challengers produced by our two party system that embody mediocre. Containing at least one fatal flaw, of either excessive cowardice, or recklessness, none of them seem ready to challenge the incumbent president, defeat him, and then….now this is that practical part….and then actually do what is necessary to save the US. Now a huge part of the problem is the American people, whom in the very critical middle, don’t want to hear the truth about our dire position, and would rather the candidates take a non-radical moderated approach with small reasonable change to nudge the US gradually back on the road to prosperity.

But we passed up all those chances to do those reasonable things. Now there is only the extreme and radical that has any hope. And so, we were hoping for a superman, that could convince a middle ground apathetic electorate, that wants a politician to whisper sweet nothings about how it isn’t that bad into their ears, those whom would bury their head in the sand to hide from certain DOOM, convince them that in fact big changes are needed now.

And we are met, with candidates either off-putting to the middle unable to convince them of the crisis and needed changes, or themselves tacit approvers, or even partial architects of the course we are on.

I haven’t lost all hope yet, but at this point I possess little. If America doesn’t come to its senses, right now, then freedom will not see the end of the decade. In the end if we lose our freedom, we will have deserved to have lost it.

Remember some wise words as difficult times and hard decisions bear down upon us.

If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.

A Computer Scientist Remembers Dennis Ritchie

2011-10-13T10:43:00.000-07:00

It seems while still in grief we must bear the loss of another true great in the world of computation. To be quite honest, I know little about the man himself. My acquaintance with him, as I suspect thousands like me, is solely with his work. And his work is hard to describe in terms for the layperson. It is easy to use words to describe it technically, he invented the computer programming language called "C".
In reality, it is like saying he invented cement. Few think of or little note the concrete beneath wheels when a great bridge joins two regions, or the concrete in the walls of a skyscraper, or the mortar between the bricks of their house. But truth in form without that crushed lime invention none of those things would be possible. This is the grand scale of the C language. Beautiful in simplicity, and immensely powerful in application, the language consisted only of the following key words.

auto break case char const continue default do double else enum extern float for goto if int long register return short signed sizeof static struct switch typedef union unsigned void volatile while

And with that, Unix was written, the first TCP stacks were designed, and the concrete was poured on which the internet would be both built on, and built out of. It seems something of a paradox that a language so simple in composition would be heralded as one of the most powerful ever written; one of the key features of the language was that, once a function was built it could be easily re-used in other programs, in other applications by simply making an explicit call to include it. And year after year the functions built in C grew and grew, like a self improving tool that starts as a hammer and evolves on its own until it is an entire industrial facility.

C's greatness would later be used as the blue print for C++, C# and Java.

A great inventor of our age is gone, a man behind the machines, a trailblazer in the computer age when it was young.

RestInPeace(*DennisRitchie);
Me.Mood=Sad;

A Computer Scientist Remembers Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T13:14:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, computer enthusiasts, professionals, and scholars, lost one of their number; Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple Computer, and co-creator of the revolutionary computer of the same name, now called the Apple I, died. While some have taken to diminish Jobs’ contribution to personal computation as simply refining earlier and existing products, I vehemently disagree.

(Full disclosure, I do own an, Iphone and a little Ipod shuffle, however I have never, nor do I ever anticipate owning a Mac, and if someone gave me a Mac I would likely try and trade it for a PC)

Jobs and Wozniak’s first creation the Apple I, or simply the Apple Computer as it was known at the time, was truly a huge step forward in computing, and the actual start of Personal Computing. For the first time we see the three principal components of a personal computer combined; A keyboard for data input, a video monitor for data output, and a microcomputer processing core. In reality, yes all those components already existed, but never before were they combined in form to create that exact mold which would cast the defining features for personal computation for decades to come. (The earlier microcomputers used a clunky teletype, or sometimes switches and LEDs as their interface; user interfaces that made even the cold command line of DOS look positively userphilic.) Below are some pics of the original Apple I along with an original ad. Originally priced at $666.66 ($500 dealer invoice with 1/3 markup) it was within reach for middle class enthusiasts of the day. The fact that Jobs and Wozniak apparently accidentally chose both $666.66 as their market price, along with Eden’s traditional forbidden fruit as their company name and logo, is strangely prophetic on how the Apple I would mark an epoch in humanity’s journey, where we would once again make a trade of innocence for knowledge.

The Apple I did not last long on the market before the much improved Apple II, the first PC which could display in color, was introduced. Then the market space quickly crowded with the introduction of the Tandy TRS80 and the Commodore PET, and the quiet but earth shattering revolution that was the Apple I would be overshadowed by the commercial success of the Commodore 64 and the IBM PC XT.

To the extent that this ground breaker in personal computing was a simple assembly of pre-existing technologies, I would equate that statement with saying Karl Benz, who made the first gasoline powered carriage, what would later be known as the automobile, accomplished little because gasoline engines and carriages both existed prior to his combining them into personal transportation.

Jobs and Wozniak’s first collaborative work was a substantial shift in computation, for the first time the computer was personal. He continued his work in making computers more personal throughout his career, and much of the way we relate to computers today, regardless of what system you may have, was influenced by Jobs’ vision.

And on that note as I have detailed his 1st symphony, I’ll close by letting Apple detail his 9th.

Requiescat In Pace Steve

The Progreſs in Progreſsiviſm

2011-09-13T09:19:00.001-07:00

Detroit is one of the great bastions of progressive society. An example for the whole nation to emulate. Indeed Detroit embraced progressive thought long before it took roots in California, its current defacto capitol.

This colorful photo essay, should leave no doubt in anyone's mind. The great accomplishments of progressive society shown in beautiful splendor. Let no one doubt.
That Progressivism is Progress.

Little musings...

2011-08-17T10:05:00.001-07:00

Strife as it presents in life is itself the foundation of ambition.

Building Babel

2011-06-22T20:03:00.000-07:00

One of the oldest stories in the Bible, is the story of the Tower of Babel. Despite being the first significant postdiluvian event, even chronicled in other histories, it gets a scant 9 verses in The Holy Book. A forgotton lesson lies within. One that has as much bearing on the society of today is it did on the original society of the Postdiluvians.

King James Reads below.
1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

For contrast and comparison of the scholars, Young's Literal
1 And the whole earth is of one pronunciation, and of the same words,
2 and it cometh to pass, in their journeying from the east, that they find a valley in the land of Shinar, and dwell there;
3 and they say each one to his neighbour, `Give help, let us make bricks, and burn [them] thoroughly:' and the brick is to them for stone, and the bitumen hath been to them for mortar.
4 And they say, `Give help, let us build for ourselves a city and tower, and its head in the heavens, and make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of all the earth.'
5 And Jehovah cometh down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men have builded;
6 and Jehovah saith, `Lo, the people [is] one, and one pronunciation [is] to them all, and this it hath dreamed of doing; and now, nothing is restrained from them of that which they have purposed to do.
7 Give help, let us go down, and mingle there their pronunciation, so that a man doth not understand the pronunciation of his companion.'
8 And Jehovah doth scatter them from thence over the face of all the earth, and they cease to build the city;
9 therefore hath [one] called its name Babel, for there hath Jehovah mingled the pronunciation of all the earth, and from thence hath Jehovah scattered them over the face of all the earth.

Here is the central themes as I interpret them.
Postdiluvian society is unified.
They take on the collective project of building a tower to heaven, not simply to be closer to God, but for their own glory as well.
God sees this project, and upon declaring that nothing could be denied from the unified people. . .
He injects differences in the form of language to promote disunity among them.
Disunity causes the project to be abandoned.

Why am I spending time on this. I think that some important philosophical points are clearly presented in Genesis that have fundamental impacts on our understanding of the state of man and society. We learn in Genesis the knowledge of good and evil is a departure from innocence that in one way makes us like God, but in another way sentences us to a life of difficulties and strife. Following the purge of evil that was the deluge, mankind is intent of joining Earth and Heaven, two kingdoms God had created as separate places, and undertakes an epic building project to do so. Heaven represents a perfect state of existence, God's perfect world. Earth on the other hand is what Earth is, full of joy and suffering, love and hate, feast and famine, as God intended it to be.

The arrogance that we here can unify Heaven and Earth, build the perfect unified society on Earth, is sheer folly. Mankind's differences that hinder our unity do not end with our differences in language. Point at any attribute of humanity, and you will find a distribution across mankind, varied as the spectrum itself, expressing that attribute.

Some are motivated, some lazy.
Some are smart, some are dull.
Some heed their fellow man, some are criminal at heart.
Some crave freedom, some find social constructs comforting.
Some are altruistic to a fault, some are selfish.

Throughout history, model after model of the "perfect society" has been proposed. All of these perfect societies suffer from the same flaw, they cannot, even feebly, compensate for the differences that pervade humanity. Every attempt suffers in inequity to some degree and subjection to another. The values of society determining the extent to which they will tolerate either. The folly in the modern world exists mainly on one side of the scales. Those who value freedom and individuality, except for a bare few, understand deeply the inherent limitations of man, and, what role the coercive will of the collective as it manifests as man's law must play in molding a society. We are each cannot be free to do as we please, and we must, to some degree, give over some of the fruits of our labor to the common good. Atheist and Believer see clearly the role of law even in a society that deeply respects the unique nature and will of every human.

The other side of the scale, those that value equity, often times worship a form of egalitarianism that places equality in every fundamental sense as not only an obtainable objective, but one that should be sought at all costs in what they think of as a fair society. They see each step that subjugates the individual to society bringing them ever closer to an egalitarian paradise. But inequity can not be driven from man, our curse from the tower, that we WILL be different in many ways, and those differences will reflect in our society. But the egalitarian continues enslaving the individual to the whole unabated each level of control bringing him closer though as with a hyperbolic function, as much can be gained with a few laws in promoting equity, the more laws made the less that is gained with each one. So the task remains elusive, just beyond the grasp of the egalitarian. And forevermore as they cannot accept the fundamental flaws of societies on God's earth, they will want just a little more control, just a little more, and they can reach it, perfection, Heaven brought to Earth will be achieved. The evils of man finally purged away.

This is why they cannot be humored. They cannot be trusted to measure their approach or moderate their view because they cannot accept that what they want they will never achieve. Because whatever unfairness exists, no matter how small is too much for them, and no amount of freedom lost is too big for the sacrifice at the alter bearing "=". So go warned as you encounter those who talk endlessly about the unfair. Ask them, how much? When can we stop enslaving the individual? When can we say we've done what we need to do to be "fair". Where does their pursuit end? How many laws, how much intrusion, what does the fair society they want look like so that we can stop the subjection? At what point is society fair enough for them? You might get interesting answers but more likely; as someone who values uniqueness, freedom, and individuality, discusses society with those who idolize egalitarianism and fairness, you will likely find that you just talk past each other, as if the words and ideas cannot be understood across the breach of air. As if you were speaking different languages all together. But then again, that is how it is supposed to be.

Ethanol unmasked. Faint of heart need not look.

2011-05-27T09:35:00.000-07:00

A lot of folks have a bunch of opinions about ethanol subsidies. A few candidates on the Presidential campaign trail have recently discussed ethanol subsidies. But let’s focus a little better. Ethanol is not just supported by subsidies it is largely supported by mandates. States mandating that gasoline sold within their borders MUST contain a certain percentage of ethanol, this creates the government sponsored artificial demand for this expensive fuel. Subsidies and tax breaks reduce the cost of production somewhat so that ethanol can have a government sponsored market advantage to help overcome its greater production cost, transferring some of the price seen at the pump to your taxes instead to make ethanol look not quite as expensive as it actually is. Presidential candidates have held various positions on this issue at different times. However, a basic analysis is all that an intelligent person should need to draw an informed opinion about ethanol as a fuel. I will present to you the most basic analysis of the process of rendering corn into ethanol fuel allowing you to draw your own conclusion before I give you mine.

1 Gallon of Ethanol requires 26lbs of corn.

26lbs of corn has 46,000 kcal of nutrition (What a nutritionist calls calories)

Kcal is a metric unit of energy measurement for thermal energy, the English equivalent is BTU.

26lbs of corn has 182,000 BTU of usable nutritional energy.

After you get done processing ethanol, you have products totaling about 30,000 BTU of nutritional energy remaining that can be reintroduced into the food supply.

This is a net nutritional loss of about 150,000 BTU per gallon of fuel produced.

But we get energy right? Yes we do, but remember that high alcohol concentrations kill yeast so getting initial concentration above 20% alcohol to 80% water is impossible. This does not burn. It must be distilled in order to become a usable fuel. The process of boiling off all the alcohol takes 40,000 BTU. Each gallon of ethanol has about 80,000 BTU of energy.

This is a net energy gain of about 40,000 BTU per gallon of fuel produced.

Ok great. We trade a net 150,000 BTU of nutrition for net 40,000 BTU. Not the greatest deal on the planet. But how much corn is really used this way? Thanks to the huge demand from government mandates about 40% of the US crop is consumed in this manner. That is 140 million tons of corn.

The aggregate nutritional loss is about 1.5 quadrillion BTU or about 400 trillion calories; or enough food to feed one of the following for an entire year.

a. 200 Million Cows

b. 200 Million Pigs

c. 2.5 Billion Chickens

d. 500 Million People

Just for reference it is estimated that 800 million is the number of undernourished people on Earth.

But we got the ethanol! Right! It is a great fuel!

Well it costs more $/gal to produce than gasoline meaning simply it is more expensive. Then there is the added cost of blending it with the gasoline. So in general ethanol blends must cost more per gallon because of added cost of ethanol vs gasoline and these blending costs.

OK so it costs more per gallon. I bet you get GREAT millage!

Not so, ethanol per gallon only has about 2/3rds of the thermal energy as gasoline. Meaning simply; if a gallon of gasoline will carry you 200 miles, a tank 100% ethanol would only get you just beyond 130 miles. Blending the fuel in 10% and 20% blends as commonly done has a proportional effect on your mileage.

All the animals I listed above, I listed because all of them are corn fed in significant quantity at some point in their lives to the point that feed becomes the driving cost for bringing the animal to market. This wanton destruction of our feed and food stock is a serious contributor to rising costs associated with foods that rely heavily on corn; such as meat and products from the above animals.

Make your own judgments….

Mine are pretty straight forward, that even the technologically declined with some basic accounting can see the insanity of this process. Even the hard core global warming activist could not support a wasteful process such as this one for simple humanitarian reasons. In fact support of such policy could be thought of as borderline inhumane. The only rational reason to support this in my mind is if you profit from it, or are elected by or receive donations from those who profit from it; one big political kickback.

Some candidates have recently come out decrying ethanol subsidies. But like I said the subsidy is the small part the ethanol mandate is the big part that creates all the artificial demand. Before you take a candidate at face value for their born again revelations against the ethanol subsidies find out their record on ethanol mandates; see if they bought into selling this pig in a poke for political profit. Or more accurately forcing us to buy it for their political profit.

Some references I used in making this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize

http://www.carbohydrateeconomy.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/How_Much_Energy_Does_it_Take_to_Make_a_Gallon_.html

Progressive Humanity?

2011-03-17T08:07:00.000-07:00

22 weeks, born alive with a fighting chance, ignored and allowed to die.

Over at the UK Daily Mail

Holding her newborn son Tom for the first time, Tracy Godwin marvelled at his eyelashes, and counted every precious finger and toe.
...
Forty-six minutes later, and despite her desperate pleas to midwives for assistance, Miss Godwin’s son died as she held him.
...
the hospital has a policy not to resuscitate babies born earlier than 24 weeks into pregnancy

Read the whole story if you can get through it.

This is the logical conclusion of framing the value of human life in terms of convenience while simultaneously designating the caretaker of life to be the State: The care of life defined as a matter of convenience to the State. Noted this baby only had about a 1 in 10 shot, but, that was a life, and I think most of us would give 1 in 10 a shot. But, if you would, that just makes you unenlightened about the good of the whole. All hail the superior morality of progressive humanity.

The DOOM that came to the United States.

2011-02-08T13:46:00.000-08:00

We have the worlds largest and most influential economy of any country. We have a crushing deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars. We have gross debt, of 14 trillion dollars, about the GDP for the whole of the US for a year.

So much debt, and so much deficit: Meaning that the spending habits of those in government must continually be financed by investors and foreign entities like the Chinese. How much can we borrow before our creditors start to question our ability to make good on these bonds? Many of our lenders keep their own counsel and are quite conservative; others rely upon professionals to objectively rate the risk of non-payment. Whichever happens to be the case, it is becomming abundantly clear, the US' credit card is quickly approaching the point where it is maxed out.

What happens then? When the Government can no longer borrow? Well financially governments deal with this different ways. One way is to "print money" to pay for Government. This is accomplished by having the central bank buy the bonds. This balloons the money supply and causes inflation. The other way allow bonds to be auctioned for lower prices in order to encourage their sale, this increases the yield, meaning simply, the interest on our debt goes up. How much interest are we paying right now? Right now the vig on our debt is on track to be 500 billion dollars for FY 11. The increased interest on US public debt, and its consumption of the available loanable funds puts pressure on loaning, causing all interest rates to rise.

So what is the result of all of this? A crushing economic condition where inflation and rising interest rates feed off of each other, exacerbating each other. The rising interest rates make selling bonds unaffordable, government then issuing currency to operate and avoid default causes inflation, inflation adds expected returns on all forms of investment to rise, causing interest rates to climb even higher. (It's hard to believe that just 10 years ago gold wasn't worth $300 an ounce) In the end, investment in the economy is choked, and a strong growing economy will have a whopper of a recession and suffer stagflation, stifling growth for a decade or more. If that sounds familiar it should, that was the 70's, with interest on home loan north of 20%. If this irresponsible monetary and fiscal policy happens to a weak economy, suffering from a recent financial crisis, high unemployment, and economic contraction, well history has only served us one example, some of my family can remember it; How the government promised it could borrow, spend, and tax its way out of an economic downturn. That decade of suffering is burned into the memory of any who suffered through it and its images haunt us to this day.

As we are the largest economy in the world, the pillar that supports the structure, our collapse into severe contraction like that of the 30's would be an ill omen for a world that depends on us economically. The seeds of instability, strife, tyranny, and war would be scattered far and wide as our utter collapse brought down the most power economies in the world and suffering and want spread across the world like a pandemic.

The Citizens of this great country saw the impending DOOM, and used perhaps their last chance to avert it. They voted resoundingly for fiscal sanity and austerity. They voted for a smaller government, less spending, less deficit, and hopefully lower debt. This is still seen in the polls of those in opposition to raising the federal debt limit.

Our President responded with a budget that included cuts to the attune of 750 million dollars. . . into a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit. For those suffering from big number syndrome. Say my family makes $100,000 a year, but we have a spending problem. We are $700,000 dollars in debt and going $60,000 dollars more in debt every year. So we deftly cut our annual spending by .....
Wait for it....
$37.50
That's right we made the supreme sacrifice and cut out one cheap dinner, for the whole year.

It's time to get serious about our fiscal situation folks. We need to cut until it really hurts, then double the cuts. The 500 billion in the Rand Paul plan is a good starting point to make further, more difficult cuts.

The question is no longer "what kind of debt we are giving to our grand kids?" it is now "Will there be anything left to give to them at all?"

The Death of the Elite News Media; The Birth of the American News Media:

2011-01-18T18:28:00.000-08:00

When shots rang out in Tuscon, an unfortunate familiar silence fell across the United States. Tragedy had befallen us again; A Congresswoman shot; others with her dead or wounded; a nation turned again to the elites of news, with one question “What happened?”

The story that ensued was a veritable page turner. A noble member of congress, just trying to do what is best for the nation, opposed by a racist, and now openly violent political movement, all while an opportunistic political party stoked the flames of hate, themselves a culpable accomplice to the violence and tragic slaying of an innocent nine year old girl; A gripping political thriller, worthy of the New York Times Bestseller List. It had only two major flaws. First, it was reported as news instead of being printed as entertaining fiction; second, it didn’t happen that way.

Looking upon it, it went far beyond framing a narrative, a practice common to an ever more politically active media elite. It was an entire storyline, complete with protagonist, antagonist, prologue, struggle, tragedy, conclusion, and an epilogue that concluded that free speech in politics should cease, especially conservative rhetoric, and that those conservative politicians brave enough to speak out against the liberal agenda should be held responsible for the violence. A story written before it was even known who might survive, before the facts, let alone the truth, could be known.

Then the facts came, one by one; each one fitting the story worse than the last. But did the story change? Well there were twists and turns introduced to the story already written to incorporate some early discoveries; then some facts stretched to the breaking point to make them fit the story, then others outright ignored. But that precious conclusion and epilogue never faltered. My favorite stretch: The stretch connection between a belief that the government uses grammar as mind control, stretched to a similar though far from identical belief of a fringe individual, himself only loosely connected with a small independent libertarian movement whose goal is to use legal argument to live under English Common Law, a movement despite anti-corporate beliefs stretched to be the “Far Right” of the political spectrum, the “far right” stretched to be the Tea Party movement, which although unabashedly independent itself is stretched to be under the control of major Republican political figures and conservative commentators, and therefore, the violence was the fault of major commentators and politicians who instigated it by using “heated” political rhetoric. See how that conclusion never falters as it hurdles all the facts in its way?

When the smoke cleared, the people of the US were left with a story that didn’t match the known facts, and known facts left out of the story. In the end Arthur Brisbane, the Public Editor of the New York Times, a position that serves as a retroactive content ombudsman for the Grey Lady, cited that the time pressures driving a need to get news published as soon as possible, and a disposition by reporters, ingrained deeply by their education and culture, to frame all news as a story, rather than an aggregation of relevant facts, is what drove the tall tale that we received.

Two major things about this incident are harbingers to the death of the elitist media as we know it. First, if the story they told sounded familiar. It is because the elitist media has been trying to find facts to fit the story they wanted to tell for a little more than year and half now; you know the one with the heroic Democrats trying to save the world from ignorant violent tea partiers and opportunistic Republicans? It is one thing to strive to make a piece of news into an interesting story, one might at least be able to make an argument for objectivity if the journalists mind was open, it is another thing to take every piece of news, every arbitrary aggregation of facts on a subject, as an opportunity to tell the same story over and over. This tells us that the preconceptions and bias, which even the most respected news sources in our country carry with them, is so strong, that the story that will be told has little to do with those facts, and everything to do with that bias. The heroes, the villains, the story that is so important that it must be written before the facts are known, is so obvious, the informed could tell you what the story outline would be the day before an event as easily as the day after. Ultimately my question back to the media is: what informative value is news framed as a story, if the story is already known and the story is independent of the facts related to the news? Answer: To the media, to ‘shape public opinion’.

This leads me to the second harbinger of death to our elitist media. The public doesn’t believe their stories anymore. They don’t want to know the media’s story, they just want the facts, and then they turn to their favorite bloggers for analysis, and finally they decide for themselves what the story is.

To be certain the traditional media keeps its importance in the discovering and reporting of facts, the job of the reporter; no replacement is possible for feet on the ground investigating critical events. But the elite of media have lost the ability to drive public opinion with their storytelling. We now see emerging the model of future news in America. Where the giants can do little more for the news than provide us with facts, to be aggregated analyzed by a kaleidoscope of critical thinkers and writers, and ultimately framed into a story by the American People themselves.

HT Ace
HT Hot Air

Where is God?

2011-01-17T13:47:00.000-08:00

God and Satan: The question invariably rises as to why such powerful forces, if they are truly part of existence, do not manifest in more tangible ways? I think a good logical answer exists to that question which is usually the ultimate argument for atheistic belief. If truly, as we have been told in essentially every religious belief that man has kept, that our voluntary belief in (faith) and alignment with (virtue) the absolute morality of our creator is itself the absolute good that is the goal of humanities trial in existence, then the ultimate salvation or damnation of humanity lies in an enlightened acceptance of faith and virtue, or denial of it. In this trial, evil wishes to drive us from the creator and his absolute moral law. In a modern society of learned individuals, evil is best served in this regard by disbelief in that absolute moral standard, allowing mankind's animalistic tendencies to combine with nihilistic belief and lead to absolute hedonism; a full collapse of moral virtue and faith that itself is a harbinger for a collapse of society. Any tangible manifestation would be proof of the existence of a higher absolute evil, and therefore by logical extension, a higher absolute good, which would ultimately act to reinforce faith and virtue. So a higher evil is best served in modern society without tangible manifestation.
A more subtle question is why did God, in all of his wisdom, choose to withdraw all tangible manifestation from mankind? I think we can learn much of the answer to this question by observing our own children and their most obvious attribute. They grow and evolve. A child’s need for its parent’s guiding hand goes through an evolution from simple orders of yes and no, rewards and punishment, guiding words of wisdom and advice, to eventually one day, you will have taught them all that you can. For them to continue growing they must do so as adults; armed with the wisdom you have taught them, and their own experiences, they face the world and start their own journey. It is only in this way, stepping out on their own, even if a proud parent still watches lovingly from afar, that our children achieve their potential not only as an individual person but as part of humanity. So too, our relationship with God has grown; from the early covenant of Abraham, to the Ten Commandments and God’s law revealed in the Old Testament, to the wisdom and advice spoken by God’s word made man. Thereafter God has remained in the intangible, and we started our own spiritual adulthood as a people, with a free choice to believe in faith and virtue, or not to believe; We must do so without stone tablets etched by a heavenly hand so holy that the unclean would be struck down for merely standing in their presence, we must do so without God himself standing before us as a man that Satan could not corrupt and that death could not claim. We are now given a choice, not only free of the coercion of such tangible divinity, but also with full knowledge of the implications. We can accept God into our lives, and use his moral wisdom to build a better world, or we can deny him, fill the void in our souls with ever greater amounts of hedonism, and watch our world fall apart. Whichever, we must now go forward; standing only on the wise words and advice we have been given. We have to be adults now to live up to what we could be: what God wants us to be.

John 20:
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

As one of the last conservatives in the State. I am now activating our warning beacon.

2010-11-03T11:36:00.000-07:00

STAY AWAY FROM CALIFORNIA!
All persons are advised to remain clear of The State of California.
The security of your personal assets cannot be guaranteed within the state.
A growing epidemic has caused a loss of sanity in a large segment of the population.
Symptoms include:
Lack of memory regarding previous state leaders.
Inability to comprehend negative numbers preceded by a dollar sign.
A strong conviction that government can solve all problems
A lack of desire to live independently or own property
A belief that cutting harmless gas emissions is a bigger priority than employment.
A desire to give addicted spenders unfettered access to personal assets.
A belief that oversized government has no adverse impacts only positive.
An ability to ignore fiscally crippling non-sustainable financial agreements.

All persons remaining in The State of California not exhibiting the above symptoms are advised to gather their belongings while they still have any, and evacuate the State in an orderly manner.

Extent of epidemic:
Almost all major urban areas are severely affected. Rural areas are less affected. Anecdotal evidence indicates that the epidemic has spread to urban areas in neighboring Nevada.

Recent similar epidemics:
State of Michigan

Area prognosis:
Tightening environmental regulations for both individuals and businesses.
Decreasing employment opportunities.
Persistent High Unemployment.
Higher government fees and taxes.
Rising State debt and possible insolvency.
Decreasing property values.

It's here!

2010-11-02T08:51:00.001-07:00

The big day is here. We face the elitist dream of structured society, a century in the making. We stand at the brink and it has fallen to us; the great trial of our generation. Faced with the malice of a ruling class with a will to dominate all, we shall on this day fight for the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. Beginning this day, we join the battle, and start restoring this last best hope to freedom.

Vote.
Vote Today.
Vote for freedom.
Vote for the Constitution.
Vote for a nation whose best days still lie ahead.

Thanks Ace.

Remember November 2008

2010-10-13T22:42:00.000-07:00

I know that is a quite a downer in what is currently an uplifting time. But I think we need to pause right now and remember. On Saturday November 22, feeling more distraught about our country's future than I ever had, I started this blog, and started participating. America had just elected a socialist, intent to dispense so called social justice; while the US economy sat in a pit of despair. The idea that humans are born and ought to be free was abandoned for the utopian goal of collective society. We looked into the void and a financial crisis of epic proportion, one that would end the capitalist economy of the US and the concept of the entrepreneur, stared back at us with horns and crowns, waiting to ruin the freedom of our way of life and sit upon a throne of necessity and command us for a lifetime and 10 more. On another hand was a reigning body whose prescription for every ill was increasing itself and power. Such majorities were possessed that the will of the collectivist was unstoppable. On the first of December 2008 we were looking at the end of the United States that had been handed to us, hand to hand, life to life, generation to generation since our brave founders risked everything, and gave the best of their souls to birth it. On that day, those that would fight on seemed desperate; the urge to admit defeat and adjust to the new reality, the European America was strong. To assert the power of their new governance, blatantly, the first stimulus, spending that would send us into the abyss, was passed, and signed into law, made a reality over all dissent, all reason from our side: A show of raw power.

It was in that dark hour when all was lost, a single spark was lit. Someone said "tea party"

We arose with resolve to find that we were not alone.

We became involved; Protested for our freedom, many for the first time in our lives.

We stood up as the coup de grace was ready to fall.

We stood up en masse for the first time in a long time.

We awoke to find that we were strong: Strong enough to fight, in earnest, to put a last brave fight for the freedom of the Republic.

Upon the eve that should have been our last we weakened the takeover of American health care to something that could be undone. Our brave stand staved off the loss of freedom allowing us one more day to fight.

Since then our storm has grown. We have become a force to be reckoned with in party politics. A sleeping Titan no more; the strength of those that wish to be free was felt in every corner of America. The very mention of our name strikes fear into the heart of establishment politicians no matter the party or origin. To our allies we have gained their deference, our enemy’s derision and fear; Oh yes, fear. They have watched this storm brewing and inch toward them, the taxers, the regulators, the big spenders. While we will never have their respect we have their fear.

We have accomplished so much, and faced with the possibility of a victorious battle it is easy to forget, that we are little better off than we were two years past. Our finances and economy still lie in ruin, our society still only one small step from socialism. Still only one more major loss away from irreparable damage....While we have fought against all odds to just muster the strength to fight this battle and continue this war, itself a great accomplishment, we must remember, the fighting has yet to be done, the battle yet to be joined. We must remember that....

So here we sit, everything committed just to win enough to keep the dream of freedom alive. We are the storm and the enemies of freedom know that it is here, but we must, we must, be committed to being that storm. No one raindrop creates a flood, but together, we can be that cleansing flood, we can be. "What can I do?" I hear it asked so many times. Find candidates in trouble, candidates you like, give till it hurts. Harness the enthusiasm and call voters ; let the discouraged know hope is not lost, get them to the poles voting for freedom. Volunteer to go door to door and work precincts. Be the raindrop that causes the flood. I know, it sounds so dirty, it sounds like, politics. Yechh, it is like bathing in a swamp........

Generation to generation, father to son, mother to daughter, a nation was passed down, from a lot of brave people who bathed in their own blood to deliver us from tyranny. They secured many rights but their ultimate gift to us, is that we would not be powerless in coming generations to face tyranny in our own government as they were in theirs. They gave us something the world had not seen in more than a thousand years, power, power to stop tyranny from our own government without bathing in our own blood, so long as we had the will to bathe in a little mud; mud that represents the political system they made. This is our calling, to get our hands dirty. The founders look on and wonder what you will do with their gift, politicians slugging it out in the mire, fighting for our freedom are asking for your help. What are you going to do? What are you going to tell generations down the road that you did?

The progressives do not think that this movement will last, that our resolve will stick, that we are ready for the long fight, or that we will get in the political mire and do what is necessary to drive them back.

Remember. The valley of regret is littered with the bones of those who, in sight of victory, stopped to rest, and there died.

Thanks to Ace

Polites Gazette 28

2010-04-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

O: Arizona Governor ſigns immigration bill.
C: This has drawn the lines on the immigration debate. Watch the oppoſition to the law uſe their fighting words of Nazi and raciſm. Alſo look for them to diſtort the bills language to give it as ominous an appearance as they can. My question is. If the federal government refuſes to secure a States boarders, to the point that foreign nationals are becoming an economic, political, and legal problem for the State. Does the State not have a right at that point to ſecure their land themſelves?

O: Second Navy SEAL acquitted.
C: Justice again graces us with her preſence.

O: Obama's motivational primer plays to identity politics. Diſplaying ageiſm, raciſm, and ſexism, he calls out "minorities" by name for ſupport; Notably leaving out white men.
C: Poſt racial America cannot be achieved if we cannot elect poſt racial repreſentatives. Identity politics is of the worſt ſort of raciſm, being not only condeſcending and diſdainful but alſo exploitative and oppreſsive.

O: Financial reform ſtalls in Senate on cloture to open debate.
C: The current bill is poiſon, with both autocratic rule granted to the Preſident in dealing with financial inſtitutions, and unlimited capacity for future bailouts.

O: Health and Human Services report declaring that Obamacare would raiſe the coſt of health care, ſuppreſsed by the White Houſe until after Obamacare became law.
C: Can we claim to live in a Repreſentative Republic, when officials ſuppreſs official reports to derail debates in order to paſs legiſlation which apparently does the oppoſite of it's ſtated purpose? If more affordable care was not the objective, what was? Political victory for victories ſake? Or does this affirm the more ſinister, that the plan all along was to move the US towards ſocialized medicine, never to repair the ſyſtem that we had.

O: Murdoch's Wall Street Journal enterpriſe to ſell advertiſing for local New York busineſs.
C: This aims directly at the Old Gray Lady. The New York Times local advertiſing is a large ſource of income for the gray lady, but, now that WSJ is introducing a NY only edition, the Times may find itſelf even more broke than it already is.

O: New weapon being advertiſed. A miſsile launcher camouflaged as a ſhipping container. Soon to be for ſale to military minded groups world wide.
C: This could make any big rig, or container ſhip, into a medium range aſsualt weapon. Just think of the poſsibilities for Al Qaeda, Iran, Hezbollah, with a neat weapon that looks like an ordinary ſhipping box.

O: Greek bonds downgraded to junk ſtatus.
C: This was a THREE grade drop and likely cauſed the recent ſtock market dip. Portugal lost two grades the ſame day. This could be the first cracks ſtarting to show in the ſocialist debt ſtructure of Europe, and could be a harbinger of a collapſe of government debt in the firſt world. Once one falls the others will find it harder to finance their ſpending, driving up intereſt and inflation which could threaten global economies. It ſurprises me the S&P was willing to take ſuch an aggreſsive ſtance, apparently they ſtill take their job of protecting inveſtors ſeriouſly, or perhaps they did delay, and ſhould have downgraded earlier, inſtead of three grades all at once. Either way the real test of their mettle will be when it comes time to downgrade California to junk, and down grade the US from its AAA rating.

O: Sources indicate that Criſt has made up his mind and will run as an independent.
C: I will ſave commentary for an official announcement.

What's with the funny letter that looks like f without the bar?

2010-04-28T10:12:00.000-07:00

It is called a long s. It looks like ſ in normal type, and ſ in italics.
Long s was part of early roman lettering and in use during the founders time and can be found in many of the founding documents. It fell out of use during the mid 1800's
It is a replacement for lower case s under the following circumstances

ſ is not to be used at the end of a word.
ſ is not to be used before or after the letter f
ſ should not be used before the letter b or k
ſ is used as the first s in any double s (ss -> ſs)

Of note the German ligature ß (eszett) is actually a union of long and short s joined to make a single character for the double ss sound. (ß = ſs)

It is in uſe here as ſort of a mini-revival, and to keep with the blog's antique, founders era feel. Expect to ſee it used more often here.

Polites Gazette 22

2010-04-22T19:33:00.000-07:00

Publick Occurrences and Comment, Both Forreign and Domeſtick

O: US Navy SEAL acquitted from charges of beating a terroriſt.
C: Justice lifts her blindfold to discover herself in a US Courts Martial

O: Cheney endorſes Rubio, excoriates Criſt.
C: See number 19 for the rundown on the current situation. But support for Crist is rapidly waning after his independent trial balloon. This sort of instant solidarity helps reassure conservative voters that the party stands behind primary results, not old boys whose turn is come.

O: Democrats ſeek to end filibuſter.
C: This absolute rule by majority would end over 200 years of protection of the minority coming from filibuster in the Senate. An absolute majority rule would cause swings in policy from right to left and drastically destabilize US Law, to the point where it would by an anarchistic rule of the majority.

O: Preſident Obama may be implicated, and called to teſtify, in the trial of former Illinois Governor Blagojevich.
C: I don't think this is going anywhere, but it might get Blago a sweet plea deal in order to keep embarrassment away from the President on what may be a quid pro quo deal. Expect no special prosecution on this matter. It is now far more likely to just go away.

Polites Gazette 21

2010-04-21T20:21:00.000-07:00

Publick Occurrences and Comment, Both Forreign and Domeſtick

O: US Court of appeals 2nd Circuit Re ſ tores Acorn Funding Ban.
C: As if by accident, justice finds her way into an American court. After the voluntary breakup, this probably spells the end for the Acorn we knew. But rest assured, it shall be resurrected some moons hence in the dark of night, with a new face and name.

O: RNC ſpends $340,000 at a ſemi annual meeting for RNC ſtaff in Hawaii.
C: I don't think the RNC is getting the tea party message. STOP WASTING OUR MONEY ON STUPID STUFF. That includes campaign contributions and group vacations to Hawaii by the way. The already highly criticized Steele is looking weaker and weaker for a second term. In addition, stunts like this do not reinforce the idea of fiscal responsibility and could hurt the GOP in garnering tea party support.

O: Senate conſiders regulating health inſurance premiums.
C: Now that the industry is controlled, regulating their premiums to unprofitability will collapse the private system. And then pray tell, what solution will liberal thought offer to fix the ailing system? My bet is the answer starts with single and ends with ayer.

O: Queſtion why ſhould an African American vote republican? Steele, "You really don’t have a reaſon to, to be honeſt..."
C: Steele's reelection looks bleaker and bleaker.

O: Alexander Snitker joins Florida Senate race and has become the firſt libertarian candidate to get on the ballot for the Senate in Florida.
C: This is shaping up to be a four way race with Kendrick Meek the democrat getting the liberal vote and the conservative vote split three ways between, Rubio, Crist, and now Snitker. As a plurality is victory, this looks to be a very bad combination for conservatism.

O: Half New Jerſey ſchool budgets rejected by voters. Something Chris Chriſtie encouraged voters to do, if teachers refuſed a pay freeze.
C: If New Jersey can show such realism and fortitude in dealing with serious budget problems, we should be able to look the same truths in the eye regarding social security and medicare.

O: Gay rights proteſt at whitehouſe, more importantly, preſs not allowed to film proteſt.
C: Keeping the press away from things that might embarrass the President; Silence, control of information, opaqueness sold as transparency; Controlling you by manipulating what facts you might know. This is the way of despots, not the way of the Republic. The last thing the President wants I can see, is the appearance of his frayed party infighting over liberal issues. Best to keep that quiet, lest the whole card structure of popular support fail. The only problem is, that's not how we do things around here.

EPA Regulation Video Conteſt Entry

2010-04-21T09:11:00.000-07:00

Too good not to share. The EPA has a video contest currently running in a shameless attempt to gain some free advertising material. I doubt Americans for Prosperity 's entry is quite what the EPA had in mind.

Hat Tip to Hot Air

Polites Gazette 20

2010-04-20T19:22:00.000-07:00

Publick Occurrences and Comment, Both Forreign and Domeſtick

O: Government to regulate ſalt in processed foods.
C: A couple of things strike me about this. First, that the FDA has too many people with not enough to do, so some budget cuts could be made without impacting actual vital services of the FDA. Second how long do you think any essential personal freedoms and responsibilities in this country will last, especially Citizen participation in governance, and the right to bear arms, if our betters think that we, when left alone with a salt shaker, will kill ourselves.

O: Goldman Sachs diſ covered to be a top Obama, and Democrat donor.
C: How the administration handles this case will likely determine the relationship between corporate America, and the Obama administration. Does Obama placate the corporate hating left by biting the hand that feeds him, or alienate his very vocal base by not doing so. Only time will tell how the White House will play this one.

O: Google key words "Goldman Sachs SEC" directed toward Obama campaign web page.
C: It looks as if the question above already has an answer. But I am not convinced Obama is willing to go on grassroots alone by betraying corporate donors, so I am still expecting a flea flicker on this play. Watch the ball (money) closely as it unfolds.

O: Charlie Criſt conſiders independent run for Florida's Senate Seat.
C: Florida Governor Charlie Crist lost much of his popular support in the Republican party when he openly supported the first Obama stimulus bill; The über expensive spending disguised as stimulus bill. His bid for US Senate has been hotly contested in primary by Marco Rubio who now holds a strong lead in polls. Crist's flirting with an independent run may be meant to garner official national Republican support on fears of a conservative split vote handing a plurality and win to Democrats. Or he may be planning a party defection a la Specter. He vows that he will listen to Floridians on this matter, but, Democrat supporters have a lot to gain with a third party so undoubtedly they will encourage this. Should he decide to buck the party, Republicans may lose some support of hard line conservatives who have been biting their lip supporting moderate party nominees.

O: New conſervative entertainment channel in the works as a cable offering look for it in the future.
C: Think of Fox as the conservative CNN. Think of this as the conservative MSNBC

O: Third in command Al Qaeda leader Ahmed al-Obeidi killed by joint forces.
C: Yet more progress toward an eventual conclusion of the US occupation of Iraq.

O: Ed Chen Preſident of the White Houſe Correſpondents' Aſsociation "...in my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
C: Apparently they are not happy with the mushroom treatment either. But I have faith the lovers will patch things up, and the adoring relationship will continue unabated.

O: FTC Power to grow in a bill now being conſidered by the Senate. It includes the power to levy fines ahead of (prior to) actual violations of law.
C: It also includes a number of advertising related provisions which will undoubtedly increase litigation costs; Throwing yet more meat to a chief Democrat lobby, trial lawyers. In unrelated news, the tickets for the speed laws you are going to break next week are arriving in the mail tomorrow.

O: SEIU leans on California lawmakers with political threats.
C: Excellent example of how the growing power of public sector unions quickly allows them to muscle elected governments, creating a spiraling budgetary crises of every growing costs of public servants, ever growing government, ever growing taxes, ever growing debt, and ultimately an ever shrinking private sector to hold it all up. Until that day the critical point is reached.

O: Arizona looking to implement tough immigration enforcement.
C: A lot of fuss over this bill is because many believe it will lead to racial profiling. Other issues include preemption by federal law. But it seems Arizona is not happy with federal efforts to protect their southern border. Again notable, is John McCain's support of the measure, having previously supported amnesty.

Polites Gazette 19

2010-04-19T21:43:00.000-07:00

Publick Occurrences and Comment, Both Forreign and Domeſtick

This is the first edition of what I hope to make into a daily news summary. From a writer with no time, aimed at the reader with no time.

O: Time Columniſt: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck "right up close to being ſeditious"
C: Yet another way, outspoken conservative argument and commentary offends the sensibilities of educated progressives. Not only is such banter racist in origin, but now apparently just breaths away from being a crime traditionally punished by death. Just remember free speech and vigorous debates are only topics of discussion when an administration right of center is in office.

O: Senator McCain now openly ſupports the border fence.
C: After the socially conservative voting block long fabled to be associated with Hispanic immigrants did not materialize for McCain with the amnesty meme, it looks as if he is shifting tactics to a different demographic with a secure the border meme.

O: Top Iraq Al-Qaeda leader Al-Maſri declared dead.
C: A joint operation between Iraqi security and US troops hopefully defines the transition point to full autonomous Iraqi governance.

O: Preſident Obama plays a round of golf during the funeral of Poliſh Preſident Lech Kaczynski.
C: It seems clear following the missile shield debacle that despite support in Iraq and the politically dangerous position of opposing Russian political pressures as a stalwart of free society in east Europe, Poland is not high on the Presidents list of friends.

O: Brad Sherman (D-CA) Admits the new financial reform bill is a permanent bail-out bill.
C: First they will back the banks.
Then they will have interest in the banks.
Then they will have directors on the boards of banks.
Then there will be only one bank with one owner.

O: Personal friend of Peloſi confirmed as ambaſsador to Hungary
C: I would feel better if they at least tried to hide the cronyism.

O: Al Gore's Live Earth accepts noted polluter Dow Chemical as a ſponsor of their Live Earth Run for Water events.
C: You can't make this stuff up.

Liberal Q&A The eaſiest quiz ever!

2010-03-01T20:11:00.000-08:00

Global cooling? More government control

Global Warming? More government control

Recession? More government control

Decade of Greed? More government control

Banks too picky in lending? More government control

Banks not picky enough? More government control

Too many crops? More government control

Not enough crops? More government control

To many poor people? More government control

To many rich people? More government control

Overconsumption? More government control

Underconsumption? More government control

Cost of energy to high? More government control

Cost of energy to low? More government control

American industry to profitable? More government control

American industry not profitable? More government control

American standards for medical care to low? More government control

Cost of American health care to high? More government control

Kids to skinny? More government control

Kids to fat? More government control

Schools producing a diverse spread of competence, ability, and interest? More government control

Schools producing a mediocre homogenized student with hardly any competence, ability, and interest? More government control

The Inſatiable Need

2010-02-12T11:33:00.000-08:00

Publiſhed at American Thinker!

Much of the recent debate on health care reform revolved around the cost of the American system of health care and how much of our GDP said system consumes. One of the selling points for the proposed plans was "controlling costs." While I am sure that many inefficiencies exist in the American health care system as currently implemented (particularly in the litigation portion), in the long run, reduction of these inefficiencies is unlikely to lead to any less money actually spent on health care. Instead, it will just improve the quality of care for the price that we pay.

In a free-market system, products and services evolve to serve wants and needs. Some people, like farmers, target needs -- they know that though the need is limited and can be satisfied, people will always get hungry. In this case, demand, while finite, is assured. Other providers focus on wants, and many great entrepreneurs have discovered that the well of wants is far deeper than the well of needs, with one exception. These providers find our desires and produce things to fill them. In this market, products and services will emerge with features we desire balanced against the price we are willing to pay to fill that want.

Health care is unique in that it is an insatiable need of humans. Our most basic instinct is that of survival, and all of us are benefited to that end by health care. The paradox occurs because we all must in fact die at some point. At that point, the health care that would have saved us is either unobtainable for cost reasons or not yet invented. And so our most basic need is unmet at some point in our lives, and though we want to continue to live, we die. While this is not news to anyone, the human desire to live a longer, healthier life is the market-driver in a free health care system.

The market becomes, then, one of an insatiable need: the need to continue living that can never be met. Certainly it can for a while, but the end is never averted. Considering the progress of medicine, imagine a test, performable early in life, that could accurately predict if, when, and where cancer would form in the human body. That knowledge might be worth ten, twenty, thirty years of life, but what's it worth in dollars and cents to the average person? Imagine, then, the life-threatening disease. How much is the treatment worth to the afflicted?

It becomes easy to see that under such a free system, where people are free to decide what care they receive, costs will continue to increase to support more complex tests, procedures, and medicines, which in the end will likely extend life and improve both health and quality of living. But those costs will continue to increase until as a whole, consumers concede that additional quality of care -- i.e., length of life -- is no longer worth the cost. In this way, free-market medicine will always have or evolve to have both superior quality and nearly unbearable price wherever it exists.

This situation of prices ballooning to just shy of the truly unbearable is certainly not desirable, but unfortunately, only one alternative exists to this mode of thinking. Since the crisis of cost is driven by individual decisions to purchase and stop purchasing care, the only way to keep costs down is to allow a third party, someone willing to spend less, control over when to purchase and stop purchasing health care for the masses.

All further debate on the topic is essentially trying to paint the argument in different colors. Nothing changes those underlying truths. Cutting profits to drug companies equates to fewer new medicines developed. Fixing prices to doctors equates to longer lines and less individual attention. Government option insurance equates to government rules on covered and non-covered treatment. Which side does that radical, new, expensive treatment fall on? I'm sure it depends on its cost-benefit analysis, which the bureaucrats will get around to publishing to the appropriate board sometime, someday. The fact that it may be someone's best chance of survival is not a "need" of the state -- perhaps a vague want, if the affected person votes and/or pays taxes.

In the months to come, I am sure that the debate will pick back up, and the discussion of cost is likely to come out again. Once again, I am certain that the system in place has a number of inefficiencies, and vast improvements could likely be made which would reduce the overall costs of the existing treatments. I personally would like to see some reform which allows more cost visibility to the consumer so that when my doctor recommends a test, I'm not surprised to see a bill for $500 for what I thought was routine and simple. It might prime the question, "How bad do I need this?"

Many other areas in our system could be reformed without making government a de facto rationer of care. And if something inspired manages to make its way from the legislature into law, then we might see a reduction in cost for a while until that desire, that need, to live catches back up with us. In the end, though, it becomes a very personal question, and at some point, it will no longer be hypothetical -- it will be ourselves and those we love. The choice again is before us. You can make the call on how much care and for how long, or you can let a statistician with a mandate to save money make the call for you.

No

2010-02-02T20:03:00.000-08:00

I'm not dead, nor have I been drug away for re-education; Still alive and well albeit busy. I have been working on a larger project on the origins of tyranny in a consenting society and the grounding philosophies that allow a popular rise of tyranny, but that work is still only a glimmer of research.

But in the interim I am working on a new work on health care which will hopefully be available to all four of you sometime this week or early next.

A meſsage to a friend.

2009-11-04T10:45:00.000-08:00

I am doing fine. I just got back from a short hunting excursion in the Sierra Nevada's...

Times have been growing more and more hectic as the threat of socialism hangs above the United States more menacingly than it ever has in the monstrous form of that which is now on the house floor. Michelle Bachmann's grim insight into Pelosi's plan unsettled me some yesterday. Not much remains left to be explored, explained, or debated about the topic before the legislators. Both sides have explained what we are doing, and no educated nor open minded person cannot see the beast beneath the mask. The only question that remains is that, does enough opposition exist to this disastrous course that loud voices, and the threat of the ballot box and unemployment can sway the most liberal legislature in American history away from the path of government determinism? One can only hope and lend one more voice.

I have thought in recent weeks of this old argument: Two men long dead, both cordial and contemporaries, had a difference of opinion about the destiny of humanity and society. They were driven to think of and discus this, and I can only imagine that they discussed the issue at length while they lived. Being men of learning they penned their disagreement into two competing books that became two competing philosophies: Plato's Republic, which became the original blueprint for a state structured society ruled by elites, and, Aristotle's Politics, a vision of a free humanity self governing, self determining, free to explore all the potential of the human species. In the subsequent 2000+ years since this original disagreement, both sides of the argument have argued viciously; blood has been spilled both in mass quantities and more than one occasion over this difference in destiny's vision. What arose here on this land, was a people and society dedicated to Aristotle's vision of a free people. And with short time and huge success convinced a world over to sway to freedom for the first time. But, not I fear, for too long, as the warm glow of opportunity and freedom became taken for granted, as the sun on a summer day, the juvenile tendency in the world turned it's attention to the harsher reality in freedom: Responsibility. And in wishing to alleviate all forms of risk, consequence, and ultimately responsibility, they have peace meal traded that warm bright glow of freedom for the bitter cold of soft tyranny, whilst they remain wrapped in their state provided security blankets, now too timid to venture outside. We, here, have remained the last of the free. As Plato's idea's of government determinism eroded every state on our borders, and across our seas, it has also seeped into the soil here, such that you can start to feel the bright sun dim and the cold wind blow, just as it started with so many states that used to be free. We must, as the bitter wind blows first and fresh, resist the urge to take a blanket and stay inside, or we too will be doomed to black skies and darkened horizons, imprisoned in a limited life by meager securities we dare not leave. The sun is low, and perhaps this time it is setting, and we are faced today, you and I, with what may be the extinguishing of the light of freedom, for who knows how many generations to come. I think of critical stands when I think of this fight, Marathon seems appropriate, Athens having been the primary example of Aristotle's philosophy; the forces of oppression now on our beaches, we few have but this critical singular chance to hold their advance on freedom's home, and if they proceed from this shore all will be lost. Eleleu!

2009-08-30T19:54:00.000-07:00

Yours truly got an article published at AT.
You can read it at the American Thinker website. It actually started as an answer to a question. Which was essentially: Barring cost as a separately debatable topic, why not socialize the delivery of health care? The government already provides a number of critical services, such as fire departments, police and national defense. Why not socialize health care?

By constraining my response to not include a discussion of cost, I was actually able to focus on a number of social and philosophical reasons why it is a bad idea. My answer below.

Healthcare is a personal service, not a group service such as National Defense, Law Enforcement, and Fire Suppression. Each of those entities do not serve the individual, they serve the community as a whole. The police are under no obligation to protect you personally; if you need that, you need to hire someone. Fire departments suppress fire for the good of the area; if your building needs to be sacrificed so be it. Should you need better protection, again, you need to have your own equipment and staff. The Armed Forces? Well, 9/11 should tell you that even with their protection from foreign threats you are far from personally protected from harm. And should an armed force actually fight on US soil, you would find quite quickly, the fight is not about protecting you personally or your personal property, but protecting the freedom and sovereignty of the US as a whole.

Health Care as a group service is the horrifying tale where the individual becomes subservient to the greatest good of the state, just as in the above examples. The vexing problem with a socialist system for distributing health care is twofold. First each of us, should we not be killed suddenly, will reach a point in our lives where the health care we need to continue to live is either too costly, or does not yet exist. This establishes the paradox of an impossible question.

Philosophically the health care we need to survive cannot be a right if we all must face not having it and dying. The follow on part of that thinking then establishes a question, in the case where cost is the limiting factor: who determines if the care is too costly?

This is the second aspect of the problem. In the socialized system, eventually, someplace, somewhere, sometime, a government representative apathetic to your individual fight for life, will with a rigid budget and rules, make the decision that your life is no longer worth the peoples' effort to support it.

You will argue that private insurers make that call all the time, that statement while having the color of truth is completely false. Who decides what insurance to buy? I do. And in doing so I decide what is covered and what is not, and what limits if any are on the care provided. So the level, scope, and cost of my plan are completely at my disposal. So if I reach a point in my own care that lies outside my coverage, I can look only at myself and the agreements I made. But all is still not lost even in this case, should I decide the cost is worth it, and my assets sufficient, I can personally fund the care. Or I can make the decision to stop, if I decide the inevitable was upon my doorstep. See all of those 'I's in private care?

That is one true dread of socialized medicine. It robs the impossible question of the only humanity that can be offered, that it be I or my family, those most impacted, those emotionally vested, and those that must bear the cost, who make the decision of when to stop. I fear that decision to be made by the apathetic government bureaucrat, regardless of qualification. Again robbing from the most merciless point in life the comfort of choosing my own fate.

We walk this Earth not as ants with collective minds set to one purpose, but as conscious individuals, each physically, emotionally and mentally unique, with unique dreams and plans. The one size fits all egalitarian approach to medicine is itself a poison to this uniqueness, pretending that every life can have the question of physical care answered with one set of rules. It places within the providence of government the care of the individual's body, giving the former complete jurisdiction over the latter. If you accept the government has such juris dicta to speak what parts of your body might receive replacement or healing care, you must accept that your body is no longer your belonging, and also be ready to accept your caretakers instructions on how you might use the vessel they maintain. What foods you are allowed to eat, what activities you may participate, and for the utterly unscrupulous government what you may say and think.

No egalitarian goal of more equal distribution of care (note I will not say equal, because elitists will always have care far and beyond that of the peons beneath) is worth robbing health care of its humanity and individuality, a mirror of the humans it serves, as care of the mortal coil should be, personal and private.

Good People, Good Intentions

2009-08-17T08:41:00.001-07:00

Listen children to a story that was written long ago. It was a great land with plentiful food and industrious folk. The people of this land valued their freedom very much. Within the cities peoples of all sorts gathered, and busied themselves amongst the industries of the day, smithing, accounting, assembling goods and such. The land was ripe with opportunity for those that had the will to pursue it. New ideas though flooded from all parts of the world, and gave rise to a profession, that would hold sway like it never had before in history. This profession provided a mere personal service… But the very fate of your life depended on it, or so it seemed. But how much it could move the threads in the tapestry was a sure function that depended not only on the quantity but also quality of service received. The profession was established from ancient times as private and paid, so of course those who had means received the best and brightest attention, while many that had not received none. It was then the great ideals struck the people of the land. Equality, it was said, was written in blood on the very paper s that made them a people. The rich should not be the only ones bending the skeins of fate to their favor; and did not society benefit when all were made better? An egalitarian initiative was sought to provide some of this great service to those less fortunate for even the smallest sum could in many cases accomplish wonders. The majority would still pay their monies for even greater quality but now some sense of egalitarianism was preserved as a public free option was introduced to the less fortunate. Then the peoples governing body saw the costs, and looked at the benefits, while many of modest means struggled to pay for their services, indeed in larger families the cost could become prohibitive. The next big step was seen, make the public option available to all, so that the modest and hard working would no longer be burdened with impossible choice of who had to go without inside of the family. Taxes would be levied, and though almost all would pay some, those with greater means would shoulder the lion share, for was it not true that their wealth was dependent on those below? With almost the same breath of a universal public option, the government spoke the universal requirement. All regardless of inclination or perceived need would be enrolled somewhere upon a plan that met the wise governments minimum standards, lest fines be levied. Soon houses of professionals that catered to the desires of modest of means disappeared, except for a small few that that catered to those whose special beliefs required special attention. The only private professional houses served the very rich, and lo, despite the aim of egalitarianism, they still had premium services offered at a premium price, which for the most part they gladly paid. The rest of the people participated in the public system. At first it was much like being private with nothing between the public customer and professional deciding what the best course might be. But government again looked at cost and inequity, and step by step, rule by rule, top to bottom, and generally in the name of efficiency and greater service, homogenized the system. Now the state would decide what course was best for all. A few generations later, the governments program would be considered a right, and while all had access to it, nearly all agreed that the service was a great disappointment on many levels.
If you have not drawn a clear picture of what I’ve put to words; it is clearly the United States of America, and a brief evolution of public education.
We entered on that path with the concept of a greater benefit for society and a value of egalitarianism echoed in the words that all were created equal. All would be given the chance at greatness then, only they had to stand up and take it. We reasoned that it was not a simple act of forced charity, because with such opportunity and education we would have a better citizen for participation in government, and a more productive person for participation in society. Now we stand with a similar circumstance, with a similar question. It would behoove us to ask ourselves some very difficult questions here. First examine our experience with our last great egalitarian effort. How did it go? How did it start? Where did it end in final form? What were our ultimate accomplishments across the board toward our goals in relation to what we had spent? What did we give up in the process?
We then need to look at our current debate and what our options are. A public option, would we ever expect it to stay “optional” given our experience with education. What of universal care; what is the payment back to society that justifies society’s indiscriminate outlay for a personal service. What level of involvement would we expect our government to have, today, tomorrow, and the next generation? Are we as comfortable with politicians deciding which medicines get purchased and what treatments are approved, as much as we are with them deciding which textbooks are approved, and what material must be taught? Though we might have been created equal it is not long after such we certainly become unique individuals; do we expect a one size fits all system of medicine to fare better than the same did for education? Or is diversity and choice far more valuable then homogenization and egalitarianism in this case?
In the end we must all face the impossible question. The moment when the care we need to survive falls as either, sufficient care does not exist, or is far too expensive. Our current system offers this moment, this question, the only humanity that can be offered. When I am approaching that moment, that horrible moment, it will be I or my family, those greatest impacted, who will answer that question. That is the only humanity that can be offered to death. It is what makes me different than my dog, I get to decide when I’m put down. It sounds horrible, but a horror story like none either Lovecraft or King ever penned is a government man behind desk and papers, with a big red stamp reading unapproved, arbitrarily administering a sentence of death.

Deſire and Diſsent

2009-07-06T19:28:00.000-07:00

Why do collectivists seem to hate individualists so much? Amidst the ongoing debate, a strange paradox has emerged. Collectivists, whom constantly tout their progressive thought, which has a central philosophy of acceptance and diversity, seem to have an absolute intolerance, prejudice, and even hatred toward individualists. I personally have found this emotion so strong that it prevents an otherwise rational person from engaging in meaningful discussion about their philosophy. It seems that as soon as Lockean philosophy becomes apparent, emotional walls silence meaningful debate, and conversation degrades to ridicule. This tendency has become so pervasive that it appears in popular media, and news outlets, and has become an effective bar against meaningful debate from the halls of Congress to the streets of the Republic. While I assume that many, if not most, collectivists I encounter do want a better humanity, the same cordiality is not returned. In the interest of advancing open discourse I’ve sought to unravel this problem. Many thanks to Robin, whose openness has helped to greatly refine my knowledge of collectivist thought.
As I pulled the necessary philosophical references, I quickly found myself fully embroiled in an argument thousands of years old; Politics arguing with The Republic; Communist Manifesto arguing with Two Treatises of Government arguing with Utopia. Within the philosophers pages I think I have found my answer, and it comes in two parts, desire and dissent.
Within the individualist philosophy lies a hope for the future. It surmises that philosophically man is incomplete but that he can improve. That a better future is possible as not only mankind’s expanse of knowledge widens, but also as we, as individuals, evolve in thought and manner to higher understandings. It harnesses man’s innate individuality as a driving force not only for individual growth, but also as a source of uniqueness for truly new thought and ideas while desire becomes the motivational force for societal growth. The progress of society is dependant on a diverse spectrum of new ideas and points of view and the ambition to see them realized. Diversity of thought and desire are not only wanted but needed.
The collectivist Utopia however takes a radically different approach. It sees human desire in a far dimmer light, and essentially personal desires are either animalistic in nature or a result of pride, arrogance, or greed. This demonization of desire places human uniqueness at odds with society. For once all animal requirements are met by food, water, clothing and adequate shelter, and fear from want eliminated by assurances of future yield, human’s should then have no other desire other than service to the society which provides for them. Other desires, personal interests and the like, are again pride, arrogance, greed. This system of collectivism not only wants but requires homogenization of thought. Dissent from the collective harms it and can destroy it. So in both philosophical model and in practical application we see the totalitarian hallmark as collectivism evolves mechanisms to homogenize thought and silence dissent. Plato proposed censorship, strict control of education, dissolving the family structure, and execution of those with an “evil soul”, to practically deal with uniqueness. More’s Utopia simply ignores the idea of dissenting from his perfection by the rational person, controls advanced education by only offering it to the selected few chosen to govern, demonizes desire, and regulates all who don’t follow his society’s rules as criminals and therefore slaves. Marx too ignores rational dissent, focusing only on forcefully deposing the upper class whose only protest again originates from greed. The philosophers here seem to have a common point; rational dissent to their vision of the perfect society is not conceivable.
Here is displayed the source of the problem, once collectivism is explained, in the mind of the collectivist, the only possible dissent stems from greed or fear due to lack of understanding. Since the system of collectivism cannot tolerate dissent, this sinful self interest is actually standing in the way of a successful society. Dissenters from collective thought, through their own selfishness or ignorance, prevent a better world. In effect collectivism supports diversity in every superficial way while discouraging the one way that really counts, diversity of thought; mankind’s great free will, now his greatest enemy. As if we could un-eat the apple and return to ignorant bliss.
This outlook allows collectivists to dehumanize individualists as persons, justifies their scorn, hatred, intellectual elitism, and every other immoral act they take to silence our arguments. They view us only as base animals, stupid, fearing, greedy, deserving only to be herded for our own good and the betterment of society; A barking dog standing in their way, treated with no less caution, and no more respect.
So with the issue exposed what is the remedy? My best prescription is the last thing in the box. As individualists, we must regain our humanity by clearly showing that we too want a better future for everyone, and that we too have a philosophy and a plan that leads to a better tomorrow. However, unlike our censurers, we don’t believe we need to leave what makes us human on the shores. We believe every individual, their uniqueness, their imagination, their passion, can help us get there, with just some freedom and time. Desire itself is no inherent evil, in fact, it’s the stuff that dreams are made of.
…We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.-WS

Tools of Government

2009-06-17T17:35:00.000-07:00

The government toolbox contains but three tools.
Government Guns
Bureaucracy
Taxpayer Money

I find three things apparent about this.

1. Mankind flourishes the most when the above implements are reduced to the smallest reasonable degree.
2. Not many problems lend themselves to effective solutions with the above implements.
3. When we cry "Please oh wise, powerful, and benevolent government, solve this problem which so vexes society" we, as a people, should not be surprised when the government shows up with guns, bureaucracy, and heaps of our money, ready to implement a plan that represents a patchwork sewn together by several hundred career politicians.

Divide and Conquer.

2009-04-10T11:20:00.000-07:00

The singling out of any predominantly peaceful group for their political beliefs, and based on the actions of the extremist few, characterizing the whole group as a threat or enemy of the nation, is wrong. It was wrong when Pol Pot did so to the Buddhist monks, Muslims, and educated; It was wrong when Che and Fidel did so to the proponents of democracy; It was wrong when McCarthy did so to the communists; It was wrong when Spiro Agnew did so to the hippies. And it is wrong today to do so to libertarians. To follow such conduct is to re-walk the darkest paths in human history, paths blazed by man's most oppressive totalitarian regimes; following in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao

Primus Libertas; Postpono Libertas:

2009-04-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

Primus Libertas;
Postpono Libertas:

The first freedom of every human is freedom of the mind, the great free will. Essential to this is education. Mankind must accept education as an individual responsibility. Turning over the responsibility for your personal education to another is to surrender your free will. By controlling what you can learn, others control you as neatly as a shepherd herds sheep. If mankind cannot accept the personal responsibility for self education, then I am wrong and mankind deserves to be treated as sheep, both shorn and slaughtered, while in the interim herded by a few smart dogs that lick the shepherd’s hands.

The second freedom of every human is to rise up against oppression, whether it comes from the lowly hands of a common thief or from the high hands of the so called sovereigns.

All of the other great gifts of freedom start here, the headwaters of liberty.

Anſwer to the recurring queſtion. "What is wrong with Socialiſm?"

2009-03-18T12:38:00.000-07:00

Socialism on its face has very laudable goals. However, the theory ignores what we know about natural law, and presupposes, to loosely borrow from those smarter than I, that men are angels. It assumes that those who are capable and have found success redirect some major portion of the fruits of their labor to support those who have not yet found success. It also assumes that those who have not found success are doing their earnest best to make sacrifices, make good decisions, and work toward success (eg contribute meaningfully to the economy/whole). The success of socialism depends on a near uniform acceptance of these principals, and positive action to follow. Natural law for dummies, states that men are not angels, and while many do not, many act only in their own self interest of either greed or laziness; either of which spells an end to uniform socialism, at least in the voluntary state. So a “voluntary society” based in socialism is unobtainable, at least for now for the flaws in mankind. The fact that Utopia is still out of reach for our own imperfections should not be a surprise.

Enter involuntary socialism, or government mandated socialism. The simple premise of which is, government, who acts based on coercion by force over the governed, now forces the above two principals to be followed if not believed. This vests a large amount of power with those who have shown repeatedly not to be angels and act repeatedly not in the interests of those governed but in the interest of consolidating their own power. The result is invariably (shown with numerous historical examples of any socialistic enterprise that has substantial size that had to cope with diversity of thought) a very large tax burden on enterprise or government control of the means of production, and a loss of liberty of the underclass. Class mobility becomes nonexistent, the underclass, now non-responsible, revert to a more childlike mentality with government as a parent, industry stagnates beneath taxes and regulation or the bureaucracy of government control, and overall economic conditions worsen. The usual result of which is further government intervention to control education, civilian activity and industry. The means define but three paths for socialism to follow.

Dissenting opinion is eliminated; all thought is homogenized behind the socialistic ideal through “education” campaigns that ignore the validity of any contravening philosophy.
Population and industry are largely or completely controlled by government.
Utter economic failure.

One and two constitute and end to freedom as we know it. Three is just a disaster. So while “socialism” is not a bad idea per se. Government mandated socialism is a disaster for a free society. With those overlooking who were so brave as to say “give me liberty or give me death” can we not struggle through economic crisis without begging our government to take our freedom?

Why Blog?

2008-12-02T23:25:00.000-08:00

I personally think that we are entering into another dangerous period of human history. A few have existed in the past; where much the progress mankind has made toward becoming an enlightened and free species stands to be set back by centuries if not millennia. Mankind since he has been able to reason has imagined a state of being of absolute harmony; a place where none suffer, all provide, each has a share, a proportional piece of the proverbial pie, which is not so large as to be a detriment to our wonderful planet; A place were mankind has forgotten his will to dominate and acts as a trustworthy and capable shepherd of the great planet God has given us. But we are not in Utopia, men are not angels and their will to dominate is alive and well, we are here in the real world with only aspirations of such philosophical perfection.
Many have theories on how to achieve this state of perfection, certainly Marx had his, Alinsky had a similar but slightly different route; let us not forget More who put the word in the common language, or the early grates of Plato and Aristotle, who first tried to conceptualize what it might be.
I have my own opinions, more a belief. It is man's nature to dominate those around him which is the true bar to a better civilization. For those of us content with some piece of that pie, who definitely, while possibly dreaming of more, will put stiff limits on what means we are willing to use to get more, the ideals of the megalomaniacs seem distant. But it is this desire for one person to dominate another, which ultimately dooms our society to vast inequities. I believe in order for man to overcome his domineering tendencies and progress he must exist in a state of free mind and relative free action and ultimate responsibility for his own decisions. As more responsibility is added to the individual, his relative world view grows, much as a tree spreads its limbs and roots. Control acts like a pot, perhaps necessary for immediate care, but ultimately stunting growth.
The problem in society is that those with strong desires for control move their way into positions of control, in one of three established entities which all would enslave man if they could. The Government, The Church, and The Corporation. A manifest of modern society, they vie for control of the modern human. Mankind is the most free when the three are kept with their power at the minimum necessary to affect their purpose. The Corporation bribes us with money and products to allow it more power, the Government promises greater safety and security for more power, The Church promises to save our soul for power. But all three have their purpose, Government is to protect our rights, Corporations organize means to efficiently produce, The Church acts as a guide to a moral understanding of ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND WRONG.
If one branch manages to usurp the functions of one or both of its rivals, the results are dystopia. Strangely in this little game it is still we the people who hold the lion share of the power and capability to determine divisions of power. So we listen to the Church talk of corporate sins, and government control of worship; We listen to corporations tell us about how government controls fetter them and that the real god is money; Last we listen to government tell us how they can save us from the evil hands of those dastardly corporations who care not for anything other than money, or the church shoving its morality down the throats of others.
And it is for us to balance the power of these entities for as long as they are needed, to keep us as free as possible so that we can grow. Recently, the last 25 years or so, there has been a movement. A belief that government, with its guns and laws, could somehow short circuit our trip to Utopia if we would only hand ultimate power over church and corporation, and ultimately ourselves to them. Somehow we forget the character of those who govern and their usual lust for power and domination and accept their words that it is they, not us, who will build a better tomorrow. And so I have sat by and watched country after country walk down that road of government domination. Their citizens regress to a dependent state, willingly handing over their toil to government masters, to get their stipend of benefits, at the loss of dreams and liberty. Socialism is feudalism with a bad health plan. I thought that we here the United States could stand against that tide and show the world they are on the wrong road, and again they would follow us. Sadly I was wrong. The thinking that there needs to be an upper class of leadership which herds the sheep around, feeds them, shears them, and eventually slaughters them is too pervasive. To many are willing to give up their cares to others along with their freedom; not seeing that an all powerful government is the first and foremost concept of dystopia.
We cannot reach perfection in civilization by taking shortcuts. As we try we are set back from our ultimate goals, as these deviant paths lead us astray. IF Utopia can be reached, it must be reached in the human heart. A heart that no longer wishes to take more than it is due or dominate other humans. Our hearts cannot grow like this they only shrink to be spoiled children who feel entitlement rather than responsibility. In short we cannot trust the perfection of civilization to any power mongering entity, we must do it ourselves without their “help”.
My deep concern is that, we, the United States, have again, though abandoning it in the past, started down that road. It is now, we need every voice of reason to say STOP. The blogosphere represents an open forum where I and others may have a voice, perhaps sway opinions, and put us back on the right road; before we find ourselves too far down the wrong one wondering where our freedoms and dreams have gone.

Officially Returning to the Republican Party

2008-11-22T19:51:00.000-08:00

Many of us left the GOP in recent years, feeling as though we were left out in the cold. I think we are all aware of recent events which have spurred my renewed interest in the Grand Old Party, however, I think that first I need to reflect on why some of us left.
After the Civil War the Republican and Democrat parties, both of which had underpinnings in Jefferson's Republican-Democrat party, went through a state of confusion, where the message and vision of each party became unclear. The Democrat's emerged first in the 1930's when FDR set the vision of the new Democratic party on socialism. Republicans remained listless and directionless in moderate opposition. The result of our lack of vision? A 50 year march into the vast sea of socialism and federalism. At the end it was a question whether the Soviet Union would defeat a battered and destroyed economic system, or whether we would just join them as a Communist nation.
It was in this dark hour when all hope seemed lost that the Republican Party found a voice, a purpose, a direction, and a vision. I saw Reagan turn the tide, and put the hope of freedom and prosperity into the hearts of American's. But as suddenly as his message came it also left. Our GOP reverted to its moderate ways, and lost its ideology. Many of us, saw the descent, and listened to powerful party members tell us we had to move on from Reagan, that the Republican party did not want us any more. We watched government expansion grow uncontrolled, worse yet headed by our own party. And we left. The Republicans became the fiscal conservatives presiding over a 400 Billion dollar deficit; the freedom party spying on US Citizens, and the limited government party with 3 Trillion Dollars in government spending. We didn't move on we moved backwards. So now it is 1976 again, and we ran a moderate Gerald Ford, should we now be surprised the American People elected Jimmy Carter?
So why have I returned? It is 1976 again, the wolf is at the door again, and we are faced with what might be grave damage to American freedom and the American way of life. I saw the tide turn in my lifetime, and I am ready to fight to turn it again. Moreover, the Federalist ideals of government dominance have infected every political party, and eroded our freedoms; simply put: The line must be drawn here! This far! NO FARTHER! Every freedom loving American needs to join this fight such that the Gallant Old Party might regain its vision, find its direction, and steer us back on the course of freedom! It is 1976 again if we cannot put Jefferson back on the ticket I don't want to think what things will look like in 1984. So I am here ready to lead and follow the cause of freedom in these United States of America