Archive for October, 2009

Global Climate Change as a Trojan Horse

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

 

Dear Friends,
It seems to me that sending 67 billion dollars to Africa to recompense Africans for “global warming” is absolutely absurd. Here are a couple proponent articles on the subject; http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE57N26M20090824 and http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14376520
Who in their right mind believes that the money will help anyone who isn’t a member of the African Elite. Corruption is rife in African governments. I cannot think of one single African leader that is not corrupt and incompetent. Can you?
Every penny of the money, if sent, will go into the pockets of already rich tyrants. I am wondering how enriching evil dictators, who do nothing but lower the lot of the people in their care, will help global warming? If African tyrants have more money to spend on terrorizing people perhaps the people will forget about global warming… because of their suffering.
One thing I find interesting is that the global elite that claim we must act now have such an obvious agenda… to destroy individual sovereignty. Every prescription they offer will result in a global government. One from which global tyranny can sprout. The global Elite stand to gain a great deal. But you will be ridiculed if you mention they are greedy for power and money. When you think about it… aren’t we better off without self determination? Elite politicians can make all our decisions for us. Who knows better, what we as individuals need, but people we have never met and care nothing for us… or us?
The global Elite don’t really know if the planet is warming or cooling. They have renamed the phenomena global climate change because of their ignorance on the subject. They are spending billions of dollars, of our money, to study what will happen if the planet warms. Even as the planet cools. They don’t know if the planet is heating or cooling, but they do know one thing… whatever it is doing, it is our fault. 
They even discount the sun as a determiner of climate. The recent global cooling episode we have been in science 1998 is discounted as an anomaly. The lack of sunspot activity apparently has no affect on our climate. Just as the access of sunspot activity and the sun’s overpowering certain radio frequencies during the 1990s had no effect… according to the global Elite. 
I bet that if mankind were wiped from the planet now the temperature of the planet wouldn’t change half a degree. But, f the sun were removed from the solar system, the temperature would change drastically. Yet the Elite claim the sun has no effect on climate. Maybe I am wrong… maybe the planet would heat if the sun were removed from the solar system.
What about the planet Mars warming in virtual lockstep with Earth until 1998? How is that explained by the global Elite? The planet has changed color. I remember something in high school science class… Chemistry. There is some law that states color changes are a sign of a chemical reaction. I ask… what chemical reaction has taken place on Mars recently that didn’t happen over millions of years to now… why now? What is the cause? My Hyundai? 
But enriching African tyrants is critical! It must be done immediately! Else we are doomed! We have no time to think. We must act! Look at the track record of the global climate change alarmists. They were the same people who predicted the population bomb. Remember… the one that was a dud? Even third world countries have seen a fast decline in human fecundity. In the industrialized world fertility has reached an all time low. Articles are appearing warning of the graying time bomb. Not enough workers to provide for the many old people.
I am still waiting for the silent spring. DDT was outlawed resulting in thousands if not millions of deaths from malaria. But the world was saved. Slow death by malaria is the price others have to pay for the ideas of the Global Elite. You and I should be excited to die a slow sucking death for the ideas of some rich half wit moron with far too much power and too little wisdom.
I do understand how impoverishing Americans and Europeans will cut down global carbon emissions. We will have to go back to subsistence farming (if the Elite let us) after we transfer our wealth through the Elite to Africa. Really… don’t you feel good about sending your hard earned money to some evil tyrant in Africa so he can rape children, kill indiscriminately and ethnically cleanse areas of his country?  I don’t, but then again, I am an evil greedy capitalist, who believes in sovereignty of the individual… not Stateism.

Unbiased Journalists

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the modern definition of media bias depends on your perspective.

What is media bias? There seem to be several definitions. Everyone who finds a media story that portrays them in a negative light believes it is slanted. Some people believe that media stories that include certain information to be slanted. Others believe that media stories that allow certain points of view to see the light of day are slanted.

Every definition depends mostly on the point of perspective of the opiner’s. The merits of this or that argument is superfluous. The perspective of the viewer is paramount. An example is the Chris Mathews Show today.

Chris Mathews emphasizes he is a journalist and had three other journalists on his show today. They all had the exact point of view regarding Obama’s attack on Fox News. They all agreed that it was Fox News that is being unfair to the President. They also chortled at the unbiased journalist Chris Mathews calling everyone on his right and those at Fox News “wing nuts.” Chris was also incensed that Palin would use a teleprompter! (Apparently no other presidential candidate has ever used one before). Chris’s unbiased reporting went on, when Palin’s book was brought up as a best seller, he mentioned that it was ghost written. Apparently from his demeanor Chris Mathews finds ghost writing a book extremely distasteful.

Andrew Sullivan (who claimed to be a conservative… but has absolutely no conservative viewpoints) claimed Mitt Romney will say anything… To what end? He didn‘t elaborate. Andrews the conservative also claimed that McCain picking Sara Palin was wrong, because it was caving to the right wing. (of which he claims to be part of). But Mostly he purports that Obama’s best forte is his ability to let the right wing destroy themselves. By giving them enough rope.

Kathleen Parker said that, in the republican party, publicly, the belief is that Sara Palin could win the Whitehouse, But privately…(Read Elite), the belief is, she cannot.

The most interesting point was by Helena, (they didn’t put her name or credentials on the screen), when she said that right wing media makes republicans look more centrist. I wonder if she even gets a whiff of the irony in what she was saying as an unbiased journalist?

Unfortunately Dan Rather was incoherent. He came out with sophist statements like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” Of course he is the only one on the panel who has been caught fabricating evidence, then reported it as fact, just before an election… So he can be certified an unbiased journalist.

So… if this is the case, how can we ever rectify the term media bias?

Like a carpenter uses a chalk line to find a straight line we need to use, find or develop tools to find the straight in “news” as well. Many tools exist now but are only selectively used. Ad Homonym attacks like wing nuts show a perspective that is not in keeping with actually being unbiased.

Rhetoric is effective at moving a crowd but appeals to emotion… not to logic. Political philosophers have made the determination that government must run on logic not emotion. To do otherwise is folly. Every mischief will follow. So empty rhetoric is not a fair tool to use to make a point. Phrases like “The megaphone of right wing media outweighs them.” are good examples of this sophistry.

Changing the subject is another sophist means of redirecting a discussion away from a loosing point. Things like when a book is on the best seller list the author is denigrated instead of pointing out some flaw in the logic of the book.

Many other rules exist regarding just discussion of a subject… Regrettably the unbiased media demonstrates knowledge of none of them.

Why Isn’t The Economy Creating Jobs?

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the economy should be humming along creating jobs…

The dollar is very low as compared to other currencies. The Canadian Dollar is almost at par and is predicted to be at par by the end of the year at 60%. With the US Dollar so low wages in the US are lowered as compared to other nations. Notably the European Union. Making American labor comparatively cheap.

With so many talented and skilled workers being laid off Entrepreneurialship should be rampant. When there are no jobs available many people start a business. There is always a demand for something. Doing so fills a vacuum and pulls other people into job creation as well.

Government is spending gobs of money. Trillions of US Dollars are being spent on TARP and Stimulus. Roads are being repaved and bridges are being painted. With an unprecedented amount of government spending, the economy, (according to John Menard Keynes) should be ripping. (Isn’t painting a bridge more productive than burying money at the bottom of an old mine shaft)?

Government has bought General Motors. The government has appointed the board of directors and the president. Ensuring many high paid jobs will stay. Theoretically keeping the economies in the areas that have auto manufacturing plants viable.

The “problem” of sticky wages seems to have been solved. Workers across the US are taking pay cuts. Many are being forced to take unpaid days off. Union contracts are being broken in bankruptsy court. Wages are more reactive to the market conditions.

The stock market is booming. Up 50% this year. Capital is flowing into the stock market driving up the share prices. As the DOW goes up billions are made. All this money at the hands of people.

The Fed is keeping the interest rate near zero. That is like having the accelerator all the way to the floor. But no matter the access to air an engine needs fuel in the right mixture. Thus the pushing on a string analogy. You can pull a string, (slow the economy), but you can only let up on the string. If there is no pulling back the string will only go limp.

So why isn’t the economy creating jobs?

The government has declared profit a bad thing. Part of the societal myth of the United States is that profit is good. Now it is being redefined. So if profit is bad and those that make profit, (everyone except government and nonprofit) is bad. We the people are bad. This pernicious attack on the foundation of our society is corrosive of job creation. Without profit there can be no jobs. It follows necessarily.

Government is roiling the waters as it comes to regulation. Government is threatening, but everyone tacitly knows, the elite friends of government will have their oxen protected. Just as Bastiat said, “Government is seen as a means to plunder the goods of others and protect your goods from being plundered.” Threatening greater regulation puts a hold on some business. Especially that business that is being threatened by regulation. This is the very definition of friction to the economy.

Government is destroying the perceived value of the US Dollar. Remember caveat currency only has the value we give it. But, like it is public opinion that makes a king a king, as soon as the people see the king with no clothes he is no longer king. The currency of a nation is it’s life blood. Poison it at the peril of the nation.

Government is spending the money very unwisely. By trying to decide exactly where each dollar should go the government is handy capping the US economy. If the money were given back as a temporary tax cut the money would naturally flow to where it was needed. If the banks needed the money it would have flowed there. Manufacturing would have gotten a piece of the pie. Landscapers to Architects would have reaped the benefit. But the way government has decided to spend trillions of dollars, basically on reelection campaigns, it has guaranteed our children will have a lower standard of living than we have had.

Besides, most of the stimulus spending will be kicking in in 2010. An election year. I would think that spending timed to coincide with an election season next year won’t help the economy in crisis this year. Generally emergency spending to fend off a depression is spent quickly. Not earmarked for a year later.

It is a Faustian bargain at best to sell the futures of our children and grandchildren… to get reelected.

Terry McAuliffe vs Karl Rove… My Take

Sunday, October 18th, 2009

Dear friends,

I just watched a debate between Terry McAuliffe and Karl Rove. The debate was “if the Obama administration’s targeting Fox News as an enemy is a good thing for the Administration to do… Or not.”

Terry McAuliffe made several points;

That Fox News had interviewed an Administration official, then, the next week, had pointed out factual errors in her points. Terry then said that had never been done before. The Fox reporter claimed that he had never seem such disregard for the facts and felt he had to point out the truth of the matter.

I am of the opinion that it is the job of news organizations to point out the facts. No matter who is the President. To do otherwise would make a news organization biased on point of fact if not in opinion.

Terry said that Fox News is an arm of the Republican Party.

The premise of this statement is that “if a news organization is too critical of a political party, (as seen by that party) it is a tool of the other political party.” In a two party system… With this definition of a yellow news organization at hand much mischief can be done. Not the least of which is the obliterating of the first amendment to the Constitution.

Once it is acceptable for a faction to claim it is being preyed upon by some news entity, and can justly use the apparatus of government to damage the interests of that news organization, any party or faction in power can do this. When that is the case news must become a tool of the party in power. Else they risk their franchise. Like in Venezuela.

Terry also claimed Fox had not shown Barok Obama’s address about health care.

To this point I believe Karl Rove made an acceptable retort.

The last salient point I think he made was that one of Fox News opinion journalists had called Barok Obama a racist.

Premised, I suppose, that calling anyone a racist is unacceptable. Else Terry could mean that only calling Obama a racist is unacceptable. Or he could have meant that only calling a democrat a racist is unacceptable.

Only the first premise is acceptable in logic. The others have obvious flaws. (To go into them would require much more room then my blog has). If calling anyone a racist is unacceptable and anyone who calls someone a racist is bad. And that Fox news is bad by association because one of it’s opinion journalists called someone a racist and is bad. Then everyone who associates with people who call others racists are bad by association as well.

Former President Carter called everyone in the US South racist and is bad for saying that. And by association, the Administration is bad, for it’s association with someone who calls others racist.

Only by pointing out the universality of an argument can we sometimes see the flaws in it.

Terry also tried to change the subject to health care.

Although not having anywhere near as much microphone time Karl Rove made several points;

That The only Presidential Administration that has ever made a news organization an enemy was the Nixon Administration.

The much despised Nixon Administration. (Nixon had the audacity to prosecute Alger Hiss)! Nixon had an enemies list that included news outlets. Nixon was much reviled for this by the very people who are doing it now.

Karl Rove also claimed it is bad policy to target individual news outlets as enemies.

To do so is an attribute of despotic governors.

In retort to Terry McAuliffe’s points Karl pointed out;

That it was Fox Entertainment not fox news that didn’t show the President’s Health care address. Fox news did.. But the Administration is targeting Fox News not Fox entertainment. To it I would add, then, are all entertainment outlets, news affiliates enemies, that didn’t show the address? The address was not on every channel… Nor should it have been.

Glaucon said, what good (is justice) for the man who is perfectly just if he has the reputation of perfect injustice. He will be stoned and punished as if he were unjust. But the man who is perfectly unjust and has the reputation of perfect justice will be esteemed a great man. So it is only the appearance of justice that one needs.

This Administration is trying to make the just appear to be unjust. Then they will be stoned and tortured. To do this makes the one who engages in it unjust by this action. This is the behavior of people who want to appear to be perfectly just while actually being perfectly unjust.

Is that who we want ruling us… the perfectly unjust?

Socrates in Afghanistan

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that it depends on what type of society you live in, whether or not Socrates or Thrasymachus was correct in their summations of the question… Is living the just life good in itself (intrinsic) or is it at best for some external good (extrinsic) or is it even good at all.

Of all the interlocutors in the Republic Thrasymachus is the most interesting. Angry and like and overheated pot he opens up what he thinks is the “truth”. Namely that justice is for fools and the weak. The powerful never are just and they shouldn’t be.

Poor Socrates has to make a just life appealing to the upper middle class youth, (the most dangerous people on Earth). They have heard Thrasymachus talk of the natural law as the Gaul King saw it… The strong must take from the weak, to insure the survival of the strong. Justice is but a tool. But how is Socrates to defend Justice under such a powerful attack?

Religion has always been affective at taming some people. The youth in this house were indifferent to religious inducements… Threats of Hades and punishment. They were more inclined to logical dialectic reduction of the arguments.

Fortunately Socrates was expert at this. He created a “perfect” republic that even Socrates admitted wasn’t possible. But this “Republic” was used as a device to deduce that each person must be just and be dutiful for society to work. That when there is anarchy in the countryside society breaks down. In that breakdown men have no use of one another. The very thing that has allowed our species to develop to the extent it has is undermined. I do my thing and you do yours… together we all make the stuff of civilization. When justice is rare starvation is rampant.

So Socrates basically argued that society depends on justice, and if the injustice of bread makers has such a negative impact on society, then how much more the impact when lawmakers themselves are corrupt?

So back to the original assertion. Take a society like Afghanistan. Apparently no one is just. From Karzai to the guy who issues the license for latrines they are all utterly corrupt. Read one issue of the Kabul Press. Corruption is rampant in Afghanistan.

In this situation who is right? Socrates or Thrasymachus? This situation is a live demonstration of a non functional Republic. Were a miracle to happen, and the government and the people of Afghanistan were to become just instantly, society would right itself in minutes.

How to make that happen… Sufficient troops will stomp down a peace. That is unquestionable. But what then? The problem is how to establish a just government while a peace is being forced. One where elections are free from corruption. (The US is still working on that). One that is free of graft. One that would be an example for the people of Afghanistan to follow… Possibly a NUMA?

I guess I was wrong, no matter what society you live in, Socrates was right.

Distributive Justice

Monday, October 12th, 2009

Dear Friends,
It seems to me that there are two arguments about distributive justice.

One is that the goods of society should be distributed equally to equals. All those that are citizens of a society should share equally in it’s goods. This is characteristic of progressives, socialists and communists. They argue that, if all people are equal, then all people deserve equal distribution of the goods of society. To do otherwise is morally wrong.

The other is that people are not equal. We cannot be. I am different than you. It is the way it is. So if that is the case, to take from one who produces, lowering his or her standard of living, and give to one who does not produce is morally wrong… Just as stealing is wrong.

Our inequality can be summed up like this. You may be able to ski very well. I cannot ski well at all. The only way to make us equal, in skiing, is to disable you. Bring you down to my level. Then we can share equally in the joys of skiing. This lowers not elevates.

The one seeks to cut a pie equally, the other seeks to give to him who produces his or her share. Empirical evidence shows us that when you cut a pie up equally the pie grows ever smaller and smaller. Eventually getting so small the people are reduced to starvation. Examples include China and North Korea among others.

When the pie is distributed by what is produced the pie grows and grows. As the pie grows all people can have their standard of living raised. As long as distribution is according to production. If workers are being underpaid for their labor growth will be stunted. If labor is overpaid jobs will be lost. But when labor is rewarded for their labor correctly the pie will grow. I’m sure there is some bell curve that could be produced equating labor’s getting some percentage of the value of the labor they produce. Percent of labor’s cost relating to it’s production to growth curve.

But distributive justice goes even deeper. To take the libertarian point too far would be to say that if a person was starving to death… It would be morally wrong for him or her to steal food. I would argue that it would not be morally wrong. Provided there was no other means at hand to procure food and the person stolen from has more than sufficient food. Why not morally wrong?

Because of the absolute right to life. All other rights and sovereignty is subservient to this truth. God, Earth, the heavens or whatever provides for all. No matter who plants a seed… the seed will grow. No matter the hand that plants it, if the conditions are good, the seed will produce. Who we are is not relevant. What we are is not relevant. The relevant fact is that no matter who plants a seed God, Earth, the heavens or whatever will produce form our labor. God grants to all what they have produced. Mankind redistributes the fruits of labor. So if this is the case and someone takes the products of someone else’s labor, to give to someone who the taker feels is more deserving, the taker assumes the role of God.

From this it is plain to see that to redistribute is morally wrong… no matter the good intentions. The answer is always… to pay labor fairly and give to him/her that which he/she produces that does him/her and society the most good. Nothing else is morally correct.

Tax, Spend and Regulate

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that we are on a slow slide to oblivion. People immediately look to government if anything goes wrong in their lives. When government is spending the people into the poor house and bankrupting businesses with the tax burden the need for social services is greatest. But tax revenue is always going down. Because government taxing, regulating and spending drives business away.

Firms have to leave the people. Even firms that wholeheartedly want to stay are forced out. As business leaves an area the tax base necessarily goes down. But the need for government spending goes up. Government then always raises taxes. Forcing more business out of the state or municipality. Raising the need for government spending. The cycle is like fire… self sustaining.

Apparently the rulers of Michigan and Illinois don’t realize this simple fact. So they have run those two states into the ground. Jobs are evaporating out of the states. Driving a greater need for social services funded by taxation. (People are trained to look to the state). Taxes are already very high in those states. Now budgets are breaking.

The example of these two states should give one pause. But the Elite are determined that we not see it. They redirect our gaze to dancing with the stars. This vicious cycle has manifested itself over and over in history but we doggedly refuse to learn the lesson.

That is government cannot support the people. That is like a roof of a house supporting the foundation. No matter what, some foundation must touch the ground, else the laws of physics are broken (house floats). The more government tries to support the people the more stress is put on the whole structure of the state.

To argue that the rich have too much and the poor have too little and so it is just to take from the one and give to the other is no different than arguing the learned have too much knowledge and the ignorant have too little. Let us take from the one and give to the other. (Supposing it was possible).

The basic premise is that the human being is not sovereign upon himself. Once the door is opened a little it can be easily thrust open all the way. Because if you and I are not sovereign then we can be compelled to do any number of things that are not in our personal best interest.

A gruesome example would be; A scientist discovers that if a certain type of person is tortured to death over a two month period. After the two months his or her body would produce enough of a substance to save ten million cancer patients. Would that be morally acceptable? The logic is the same. The one person has too much health and the ten millions of people have too little. Let us take from the one and distribute it to the many. As long as the person that produces the substance is not sovereign he has no say. Some would argue it morally good. In the name of distributive justice it would be duty and therefore is an imperative and thus moral… A priori. Ergo it must be done.

When theory bumps up against reality theory gives way. That is the scientific method. But not in political governance. The political animal has no measure for his actions. Unlike the tradesman the modern legislator acts a spectator and feigns outrage at the injustices he has visited on the people.

Who knows what will become of Michigan and Illinois. The federal government may bail them out for a while but the federal government is on the Eurostar to the same place. They will be running out of money soon. Raising social spending much faster than revenues could ever keep up. As jobs are driven out of the country the tax base will necessarily go down. Taxes will be raised. The need is too much for government to curb it‘s profligacy. And voila! we are all on the treadmill.

Maybe… the Elite think that houses can float?

Well if it’s comanded by the Supreme Court they will!

Iranian Nukes and Taliban Kooks

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that Iran is running out the clock to get nuclear weapons. The new UN report makes it clear the Iranians have the technology and have been actively working on it for quite some time. Apparently the only thing in the way of Iran getting a nuclear warhead to put on one of those missiles they tested last week is sufficient enriched uranium.

Apparently it is being reported that Iran has made some movement in the direction of letting a third party enrich Iranian uranium to a level suitable for use in nuclear reactors. Russia and China have been purported to be possible partners.

The Iranians backed out of just such a deal with Europe. Such a deal could be great for Iran’s nuclear ambitions though. If Iran can game the system they could send un enriched uranium to China. The Chinese (or Russians) would enrich it to a level suitable for nuclear reactors. Then the Iranians could further enrich it to a level suitable for a warhead. Along with what they have already enriched with their own centrifuges this could double the enriched uranium in the hands of the new Cambyses… the Ayatollah.

Some member of the Elite, I forget who, said if the Iranians keep on the path they are on they will end up in the same boat as the North Koreans…. Isn’t that exactly the ship the Iranian tyranny wants to board???

Along the same lines, in Afghanistan, the general in charge says he needs more forces to do the job. The Obama administration is second guessing it’s general. More combat forces is not politically good for the president right now. So they are looking for ways out. The administration would like to fix Afghanistan on the cheap.

Like the Johnson administration the Obama administration believes it is a better war strategist then it’s generals. This is the problem with Democrat administrations in the past… they second guess their generals. Not that following doggedly, like Bush did, is much better. The trick is to know which generals have the right answer. One thing is certain, when a strategy is failing, and has failed every time it is tried, it should probably be relegated to the trash heap.

Strategies that have worked in the past, in as dire circumstances as these, probably are the best shot now. Take Hold and Build worked in Iraq. It will work in Afghanistan. The problem isn’t the Taliban it is the political will in Washington… and Europe.

The Europeans want the US to do all the heavy lifting as they did in Iraq. European countries have no stomach for fighting to give someone else freedom. They selfishly expect someone else to do the dirty work while they sip lattes in the square.

Like when the Nazis invaded Poland. France and Briton had the opportunity to stop the war there. The Nazi army was largely fighting in Poland. The British and French could have invaded from the Maginot Line. But the timidity of these two powers in committing forces led to the deaths of millions. To actually launch an invasion of Germany from France despite the aggressive acts of invading Poland would not have been politically good for the leaders of France and Briton. Plus who wants to die t protect a Pole?

Isn’t it funny how history repeats itself?