Sic Semper Tyrannis

Eugene Armstrong Beheading

2008-06-29T10:37:00.000-07:00

http://www.conservativenewswarriors.com/VIDEO-BEHEADING-Eugene-Armstrong.WMV

State frees teachers to criticize evolution

2008-06-28T12:25:00.000-07:00

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal this week signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows school districts to permit teachers to present evidence, analysis and critique of evolution and other prevalent scientific theories in public school classrooms.

The law came to the governor's desk after overwhelming support in the legislature, including a unanimous vote in the state's Senate and a 93-4 vote in the House.

The act has been criticized by some as an attempt to insert religion into science education and hailed by others as a blow for academic freedom in the face of pressure to ignore flaws in politically correct scientific theories.

Robert Crowther, director of communications for The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank on science and culture, called the act necessary.

In an article posted on The Discovery Institute's evolution news website, Crowther wrote, "The law is needed for two reasons. First, around the country, science teachers are being harassed, intimidated, and sometimes fired for trying to present scientific evidence critical of Darwinian theory along with the evidence that supports it. Second, many school administrators and teachers are fearful or confused about what is legally allowed when teaching about controversial scientific issues like evolution. The Louisiana Science Education Act clarifies what teachers may be allowed to do."

Specifically, the act allows teachers in the state's public schools to present evidence both for and against Darwinian theories of evolution and allows local school boards to approve supplemental materials that may open critical discussions of evolution, the origins of life, global warming, human cloning and other scientific theories.

Teachers are still required by the act to follow the standardized science curriculum, and school districts are required to authorize both the teachers' classes and additional materials. The state's Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials it deems inappropriate, and the act prohibits religious instruction.

Section 1D of the act states that the law "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

Despite section 1D, many national voices, including the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a New York Times editorial, and the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the measure.

Marjorie Esman, state director of Lousiana's ACLU told the New Orleans Times-Picayune, "To the extent that this might invite religion in the public school classroom, we will do everything we can do to keep religion out."

John West, a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, however, said opponents of the bill are misunderstanding it. Rather than being about infusing intelligent design or creationism into the classroom, he contends, the bill is about giving teachers the freedom to talk about the debates that already exist in science, even among evolutionists themselves.

"This bill is not a license to propagandize against something they don't like in science," West told the Times-Picayune. "Someone who uses materials to inject religion into the classroom is not only violating the Constitution, they are violating the bill."

Gov. Jindal released a statement at the time of the signing that read, in part: "I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and (the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

BUSH'S AMERICA: 100 PERCENT AL-QAIDA FREE SINCE 2001 (Ann Coulter)

2008-06-21T11:48:00.000-07:00

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds.

Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

But no one notices when 9/11 doesn't happen. Indeed, if we had somehow stopped the 9/11 attack, we'd all be watching Mohammed Atta being interviewed on MSNBC, explaining his lawsuit against the Bush administration. Maureen Dowd would be writing columns describing Khalid Sheik Mohammed as a "wannabe" terrorist being treated like Genghis Khan by an excitable Bush administration.

We begin to forget what it was like to turn on the TV, see a tornado, a car chase or another Pamela Anderson marriage and think: Good -- another day without a terrorist attack.

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush -- and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance.

Oil Price Economics (Critique of Bill O'Reilly)

2008-06-21T09:03:00.001-07:00

Bill O’Reilly of Fox News fame states in a recent article that energy independence is a national security issue. With that subject I agree, however, it is the predicate of his argument – namely, that big oil interests (e.g., petrol corporations and OPEC) are responsible for high gas prices – with which I take exception. O’Reilly’s role as a television news anchor notwithstanding, sensationalist rhetoric dodging the point at issue by Red Herring which points to the symptoms of the problem rather than the cause is naive at best and irresponsible at worst.

The US consumer is at fault here, not Iran or the mullahs, for high and rising oil prices. If household balance sheets were in order, our external debt position would not be where it is today. Moreover, if households collectively exercised prudence with regard to their political decisions surrounding the government budget (the other constituent part of our ‘twin deficits’), and specifically regarding our entitlements crises (e.g., Medicare and Social Security), by electing officials who would put an end to the abuse of unaccountable government spending facilitated via the laundering effect of statist welfare mechanisms or by simply voting away these monstrosities via referendum, our spending power, hence the price of goods such as oil, would be much different.

The rationale to back the premise that household profligacy leads to higher prices is thus: the market is more or less efficient in that investors, traders, merchants, and the like do not want to put themselves at more risk than necessary to make a living. Hence, there are limits to supply and demand, limits facilitated by the price mechanism.

(Disclaimer: If you wish to skip the wonkery, pass by this paragraph and you won’t lose any meaning behind my point.) The elasticity of demand for and supply of goods determines what degree supply and demand changes affect the [equilibrium, or market clearing] price. To be sure, the elasticity of demand for oil increases as the price rises as a percentage of household income. However, conjoined with other factors such as necessity and lack of proper substitutes, the relative inelasticity of demand for oil leads to consumption patterns which do harm to household balance sheets in the aggregate. Thus spending, investment, production, and employment growth in the economy is duly constrained. On the supply side, elasticity is affected by, among other things, the existence of raw materials (e.g., crude), production spare capacity (e.g., OPEC’s ability to put more petroleum onto the market), the length of the production process (e.g., refining Canadian tar sands) coupled with factor immobility and time (e.g., drilling and exploration).

American money is worth less than it used to be due to the monetary approach to the balance of payments whereby, according to Krugman and Obstfeld, “An increase in the supply of domestic currency bonds that the private sector must hold raises the risk premium on domestic currency assets,” (524, International Economics Theory and Policy). In other words, our trade deficit is financed, indirectly, via US government treasuries, among other securities. And the more financing activity we pursue (e.g., via household debt) the higher the risk premium we have tacked on to the price of our money. Therefore, purchasing power is directly linked to our spending activities – i.e., there is a causal link between debt and inflation.

The argument can also be made that the US is exporting inflation from wars in the Mid-East as financing overseas adventures puts a strain on government coffers. That oil prices are blowback of government overextension. Yes, that point is well received, however, government defense appropriations still do not make up nearly the proportion of the budget as entitlements (e.g., war = 20% while SS and Medicare = 60%). Moreover, estimates project that 2/3 of our economic growth has been consumption based. This suggests that the impact from government spending on war has had concomitant effects in the domestic economy (on the demand side), which have led to the impacts we now face in terms of our purchasing power [parity] reflected in higher prices.

The strength of the dollar, essentially, is determined by, among other things, our capital position (e.g., net assets or deficits) and future income earning potential coupled with past performance (e.g., market returns) and overall risk (e.g., default rates). When investors, traders, merchants, foreign sovereign wealth holders, etc. look at the US and its indefinitely increasing entitlements overhang (e.g., $42 Trillion Social Security and Medicare debt projected over the next 75 years) coupled with its increasingly stagnant economic growth (e.g., due to normal business cycle fluctuations), lending to decadent and irresponsible Americans looks less than appealing.

The meaning of our present condition lies much deeper than the vacuous notions propagated by populist demagogues of price manipulation for ‘windfall profits.’ The cost of oil is a proxy for a downgrade in [worldwide] investment opinions of the United States and these opinions reside in and are buttressed by rational economic expectations.

Whats Ben doing? (Very wonkish) - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

2008-03-09T13:48:00.000-07:00

Whats Ben doing? (Very wonkish) - Paul Krugman - Op-Ed Columnist - New York Times Blog

Retirees Are Not Part Of A Stimulus Package

2008-01-26T12:52:00.000-08:00

Social Security pensioners want to be included as part of the fiscal stimulus package meant to boost the American economy out of its slumping state. This would have two major negative effects – namely, it would:

A) Further bloat the federal budget deficit and shift even more of the onus of responsibility for debt service onto future generations (mortgage our posterity)

B) Skirt the issue of sustainability of the Social Security fund itself

There is no doubt that these suggestions of including pensioners into the proposed Congressional Fiscal Stimulus package are meant purely for political expediency. George Walker Bush (43rd President) earned plenty of enmity for, among other things, his mission to reform Social Security. By the same token, Fmr. Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) lost an election bid to the White House due to his [implacable] stance on Social Security reform. Needless to say, elected officials aren’t willing to risk their jobs proposing confrontational agendas with little broad-based political support.

That is why it is up to the people to demand change, to demand sustainability. Social Security pensioners need long-term solutions, namely, benefits that correct for inflation and measures which keep the government’s budget in the black.

For all intents and purposes, Social Security is bankrupt. It is not currently nor was it ever a trust fund. People cite the percentage of income tax that funds their Social Security pension, but that money could go anywhere. The fact that it is denoted "Social Security withholding" means nothing. That could say, "PETA" withholding, which might be unconstitutional, nevertheless, that money funds whatever the government and its agencies want to spend it on.

Briefly, Social Security is invested as a mutual fund and, being as top heavy* as it is, it earns miniscule returns. In fact, in 2005 (one of the most productive market years in recent history), the Social Security account earned a negative one percent return. Not only does [the fund] receive less income than it needs to survive, but the investment is tantamount to a boat with a leak, taking on water in the middle of the sea. When bureaucrats envisaged Social Security, it had more than 40 payers per retiree; now that ratio is less than ten.

From the government’s perspective, then, the present value of Social Security’s future income stream is increasingly negative. This ‘compact between generations’, therefore, is no longer actuarially sound. If private bankers were in charge of reforming Social Security, however, they would establish individual trust accounts, or government-matched 401(k)s, as it were.

In conclusion, the aforementioned hypothetical would be the best solution to our long-term problem, but this push to include pensioners in the proposed Fiscal Stimulus package is a short-term band-aid, which would be nothing more than a feint to distract attention away from the necessary debate over the future of the Social Security regime itself. As such, this policy (of including pensioners) should not be considered in the final drafting of Congress' bill.

*top heavy. Based on the principle that a large fund requires large gains to achieve a small percentage increase in earnings, whereas small funds require less to achieve more and are therefore more productive, ergo growth oriented. e.g., small caps v. large caps or blue chips. Note: Hedge funds and many other mutual funds remain closed to outside investors to guard against the effects of inefficiency caused by too much money chasing too few opportunities. Big government funding is unproductive for many reasons; this is a prime example.

2008-01-26T10:14:00.000-08:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Liberals decry lower taxes citing politics of envy while these self-same tax cuts are most beneficial to those with limited incomes - namely, middle and working class families. This message will attempt to put modern debate in an historical context by citing the ancient Roman regime (in Cicero's day) juxtaposed with both right and left-leaning columnists' views toward tax debate.

a brief video synopsis of the candidates' positions on taxes and a brief tutorial of the cost of capital.

Historical:

I. [An Author Recounts] Cicero On Governorship of a Province of Rome Near the Twilight of Empire

Cicero had found widespread anxiety about the future among all he met. No chief political players had shown their hands. Cicero's own view remained much as it had always been; he preached moderation, compromise and reconciliation.

[The former governor's] policy had simply been to enrich himself. Cicero was shocked when he saw the consequences. Writing while on the road, he described a 'forlorn and, without exaggeration, permanently ruined province.' Local communities had been forced to sell prospective tax revenues to tax farmers in order to meet [the former governor's] rapacity for cash. 'In a phrase, these people are absolutely tired of their lives.'

- Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician, by Anthony Everitt

Right:

II. a) Corporate Tax Bills Are Footed By the General Public

Corporations cannot possibly pay the corporate income tax because they are not human beings. Instead, that tax always is fully passed to one or all of three groups of human beings: to customers through higher prices, to shareholders through lower returns on capital, or to employees through lower take-home pay. Under fierce global competition, the potential of shifting corporate taxes to customers often is limited. Similarly, in a global capital market, the corporate tax cannot easily be shifted to capital owners who have the option of taking their capital elsewhere. Economists therefore suspect that the bulk of the corporate income tax is shifted back to the least global mobile target, the employees.

Appearances to the contrary, cuts in the individual income tax help corporate executives more than cuts in the corporate tax because income tax reductions accrue to themselves, whereas corporate tax cuts accrue to other people (e.g., employees and investors - which may or may not be one in the same).

- notes paraphrased from: Uwe Reinhardt, Political Economy Professor, Princeton University

II. b) Cost of Capital -

The Bush tax program, particularly the 2003 Tax Act, boosted productivity by encouraging the investment to make a larger capital stock possible. That investment is what finally kicked the recovery into a higher gear.

For a capital asset to be worth creating and employing, it must be projected to earn enough to recover its cost before it becomes unproductive (depreciation), pay taxes imposed on its revenues, and leave about a 3% risk-adjusted real (after inflation) rate of return to its owners. That combined [net] rate of return is the the service price of capital, or the4 hurdle rate. The lower the service price, the higher the sustainable capital stock, the average wage and the level of GDP. The 2003 Bush ;tax cut knocked the service price down by nearly 10%.

How? The 15% cap of tax rates on dividends and capital gains was a very large reduction in the double taxation of corporate income. It was equivalent to a big cut int the corporate tax rate and the biggest boost to investment of the Bush tax packages. Lowering the marginal income tax rates in the top four tax brackets cut the service price for noncorporate businesses and rewarded work and risk-taking.

Nevertheless, the investment surge from the Bush tax cuts will taper off as the added capital made possible by the lower service price is finally acquired, by about 2008-2013. Historically, it has taken about five years for the quantity of equipment to adapt to major tax changes, and about 10 years for structures. Growth should then revert to a more normal pace, but from a higher base.

Keeping growth near the 3.2% rate of the last three years would require more reductions in the service price of capital. We need more than an extension of the Bush tax cuts: deeper cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, cutting the corporate tax rate and marginal tax rates on noncorporate businesses, and letting businesses write of their investment spending faster.

If, instead, the Bush tax cuts expire as scheduled at the end of 2010, much of the newly acquired capital made possible by the tax cuts would no longer be sustainable. We would see businesses disinvest - investment would slump to allow the capital stock to shrink back to the old-law levels through attrition. That would flirt with recession.

Killing the 15% tax rate caps on capital gains and dividends, the marginal rate cuts, the bracket widening for joint returns (marriage penalty relief), and the partial estate tax relief currently in place, would jump the service price of capital by more than 10% (to 22.5% from about 20.3% currently), according to the Heritage [Foundation] service price calculator.

A 10% jump in the service price is a big deal. A lot of capital would be unable to earn enough to pay the higgher tax; I estimate that the stock of buisiness plant, equipment, and inventories would ultimately be about 16% less compared to what it would be under current tax rates. Hours worked would fall 2%. Private-sector output and wage and capital income would drop 7%. That would mean an eventual 5%-6% reduction in GDP.

The present Congress thinks it can raise $200 billion a year (at 2006 income levels) by letting the growth provisions of the present tax system die, but with no damage to GDP. Wishful thinking.

The tax calculator shows that a 7% reduction in private-sector income would depress federal individual income-tax revenues by $140 billion (more than a 7% drop because lower incomes drop people into lower tax rate brackets). That's not all.

I estimate that payroll taxes, federal corporate income taxes, customs and excise taxes, and the estate tax would drop $85 billion. Result: a net loss of $25 billion. State and local governments also would take a revenue hit, and likely raise taxes, further depressing GDP. Worse, this would all cost workers and savers roughly $700 billion to $800 billion in lost output and income.

Those would be the permanent effects. The transition is even dicier. Reverting to a lower capital stock would mean slashing business fixed assets and inventories by $2.5 trillion over 10 years. It would require cutting investment spending by 18%, or 1.9% of GDP (more in the first five years, less later). The investment slump would reduce a 2.5% annual expansion to a crawl. If disinvestment spread to the homebuilding sector, it could mean recession.

Alarmist? Consider precedent. Lyndon Johnson pushed a 10% war surtax on income through Congress in April 1968. It was the primary trigger for the 1969-1970 recession. Congress rushed to end it early in 1970. Investment spending crashed by 7%, and rebounded after the surtax was history. That surcharge had a fraction of the impact on the service price of capital that would occur if the Bush tax cuts expire.

Consider Japan as well. In 1988-1990, the Miyazawa tax program aped and outdid the worst anti-capital elements of the U.S. Tax Reform Act of 1986. Japan instituted a capital-gains tax where there had beeen none, and ended near universal tax-favored saving incentives for everyone below retirement age. It raised land taxes twice. These hits to capital crashed stock and land prices, made banks insolvent, and crushed investment. It took Japan 15 years to recover.

If Congress goes down this road, expect a similar outcome. When Congressmen do not study history, the rest of us are condemned to repeat it.

We should rather be thinking of more rate cuts. Growth will slow even if the Bush cuts are simply extended, but we would keep the increase in the base level of GDP they made possible. Letting the cuts expire would undo a fair bit of the capital formation since 2003, forestall gainst yet to come, and shunt GDP to a lower baseline. Hiking other taxes would only make matters worse.

- Stephen Entin is President and Executive Director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation

Left:

III. McCain Lies His Head Off; NY Times Asleep at Switch

One of the most common-supply-side talking points is that tax cuts always lead to higher tax revenues. It's not really true (revenues crashed after the 2001 Bush tax cuts) but even if it were, it's misleading: Tax revenues tend to rise over time as a natural result of inflation, rising population, and economic growth. Taken at its face value, the supply-side logic would imply that tax hikes always cause revenue to fall, which is ridiculous on its face, and which explains why supply-siders never mention this silly corrollary to their claim.

Until now! John McCain is a recent convert to supply-side economics and still working on getting the talking points down. Speaking yesterday in South Carolina , the straight talker:

proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. "Don't listen to this siren song about cutting taxes," Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. "Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues."

What? Every time? Okay, how about we go back and look at the last time taxes were raised -- 1993. It's true that conservatives predicted revenue would fall as a result of the tax hike. (Typical quote: "Higher taxes will shrink the tax base and reduce tax revenues" -- Newt Gingrich.) But it didn't exactly work out that way:

The amazing thing is that New York Times, which printed McCain's quote, made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the truth of his point. Just the typical, "McCain says earth is flat, and meanwhile in other news..." stuff. I realize that campaign reporting is hard, and reporters don't usually have time to check on the truth of candidate's statements. (And yes, this is a huge flaw with reporting, but that's another story.) But this claim is so obviously false it could have been refuted after maybe thirty seconds of research. Didn't the author (Michael Cooper) realize that tax hikes don't always, or even usually, lead to reduced revenue? Does he remember the 1990s? Is he aware that the federal government raised taxes and started collecting dramatically higher revenues during World War II? (Taxes were raised and revenues quintipled.)

The expecially annoying thing is that when Mitt Romney promised he could rebuild Detroit's auto industry, the media hammered him as a liar -- and it wasn't even a lie, just a matter of opinion, albeit a highly optimistic promise. Meanwhile, McCain disagreed and was treated to another worshipful round of press coverage. (The Washington Post credited him with telling "hard truths," which, again, takes McCain's side on an issue that's a question of opinion rather than fact.)

As my book explains, political coverage almost never bothers to check on the truth of candidate's claims about public policy. So, okay. But can they at least stop praising McCain as a brave truth-teller when he's totally reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts and now defends them with obvious lies?

--Jonathan Chait

IV. Conclusion:

The analysis by the big government, tax-and-spend left ignores the cumulative effects of stimuli in the form of lower taxes, which reduce costs of capital and spur investment, leading to a virtuous cycle of increased: jobs, income, consumption, and investment. Welfare statists impute that simply increasing taxes leads to overall general welfare in that more income for the government can create jobs via bureaucracy etc. However, bureaucracy is not business and business requires truck, barter and trade - all individual activities performed by human beings who need incentive to get off their [fill-in-the-blanks] and work.

In short, a policy (and propaganda supporting it) which simply increases the tax rate and acts like a cache pulling in a greater percentage of wealth forthcoming (spurred by previously pro-business tax cuts) is an intellectually dishonest productivity freeride and a stalking horse for bureaucratic extortion.

Money and Economy 2-21-05

2007-03-27T13:55:00.000-07:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want everyone to be on the same page with what I'm thinking right now about spending money and the state of the economy. It's an important thing to save [money]because production is at it's highest level in years and the economy will keep on growing until it's satisfied. Once this happens, increased spending simply translates into higher prices. Inflation is created by money that becomes ineffective in driving jobs growth (among other factors) and this will cause the Fed to cut back the money supply to decrease consumption demand and shift spending to [long-term] investments.

What I'm asking you to do right now is to take the initiative and lower your spending because the money in your bank account is on loan to you from the Fed. That is, the nominal money supply is a temporary pool of funds that can dry up and which will dry up as soon as the economy reaches it's full potential and we begin to experience diminishing marginal returns.

> Please don't get frustrated with what I'm saying or how I'm saying it. There is not an easier way, just listen. Diminishing marginal returns means that you get less and less from your money or, specifically, the economy grows less and less with each dollar spent.

--> Think of it as a lions' cage at the zoo. You go see the keepers feed the lions at noon and of course those beasts have been kept hungry for a few days so they will be growling when the meat comes out. Have you seen what happens when that meat gets thrown into the cage? The lions growl loudly and aggressively tear the flesh apart.

This is what it is like in the economy when demand gets pent up (with high interest rates over time). The Fed releases liquidity from their vaults and the hungry economy just eats it up and grows... The thing is that once those lions are satisfied, the meat can be thrown into the cage, but the lions won't fight over it. In fact, they won't even go over there to pick it up; rather, they will just lie there and bask in the sun with full bellies while the meat rots. That is wasted meat and money represents the meat. Don't waste.

What I'm asking you to do is put off making any big purchases and limit your habitual consumption to a reasonable level to benefit the economy. This is asking you to sacrifice your own consumption for the greater good, I know. But it's not too much to ask because the proposition is less altruistic (benevolent, unselfish) than you might think. Saving will prosper you because when the funds dry up, you will have money rather than needing it and getting used by creditors who charge exorbitant interest rates on loans.

Don't get taken advantage of by creditors when you don't have money (-->ex: maxing out your cc @ 20% interest). Instead, save your money and loan it to others so that you can make more! You might be asking, well how can I loan to others, I'm not a bank? That's not a dumb question; you loan money anytime you buy stock, bond, mutual fund investments and the like. When you buy a bond, it is like loaning that face value over a set period of time (unless you sell it).

Do you want to know what separates the people who have money and those who don't? Do you want to know why 'those who have will always get more and those who don't will actually lose more'? The reason is that people who 'have' think ahead and plan for times when supplies run short. When supply is short, the opportunity cost of holding is high ~ you could be loaning it to others and making profits off the excess you're holding! And that's what they do. Now why don't you join the ranks of the 'monied classes' and start saving!

I'll get to specifics in a minute, but first I want to make a clear distinction. That is, don't think of your economic prosperity in terms of 'the economy'. (-->ex: I don't have money or a job right now becuase the economy is bad). The economy is not bad or good per se. It only fluctuates between high and low levels of growth. If you want to reduce uncertainty associatied with these 'cycles' then pay attention to your spending habits and save money to to do just that. It won't matter if the economy is in a high state of growth or a recession (God save us from another depression) because you have thought ahead and are ready for what comes.

Money is relative; people say that they could have better lives with a higher income, but this is not true (to an extent). Quality of life depends on what you can afford. This might seem like hair splitting, but I assure you it is not. You may afford much but choose not to consume in order to increase your options and assure that they remain open. At the same time, you may afford little but choose to consume all that you can, thereby reducing your options to a card game ~ you must be shrewd and conniving or else just play with the hand you are dealt. Please, don't just let the cards fall as they may. Save your money for a rainy day.

I have spoken with a friend recently and she had mentioned buying a new condo. I told her, yes that is great. I'm proud of you and that is the best direction (saving) you could possibly go. To be sure, borrowing is not the same as saving, but taking out a mortgage and building equity in a home is making an investment. This is quite possibly the most sound investment you can make.

For those of you with a house, keep on building equity which will stratify you in any case. If you haven't considered investing, you should look into it (you can buy mutual funds directly from any Wells Fargo ATM). While I don't consider myself at liberty to give advice on investing particulars just yet, I'd like to extend my idea of a good savings plan. I'll take just a minute more to explain a useful method.

Limit essential spending to 60%. This includes your mortgage (unless you are just starting out), car payment, insurance, groceries, vacations, dining out, etc. By saving as you are, you will be accomplishing three things:

1. Planning ahead for consumption when money is tight, thereby stabilizing your personal income cycles and reducing uncertainty.

2. Making money off your surplus when the money supply has been decreased because higher interest rates mean higher returns on your investments.

3. Stabilizing the business cycles in the economy ~ less spending in a period of full employment and nearly satiated goods/services markets equals less inflation or waste.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, here, but don't get caught in the age-old trap of gluttonous overspending when prosperity seems endless. It is not. Save your money rather than spending it so that you can avoid being reaped by creditors (-->ex: maxing out credit cards @ a 20% interest rate). Don't get steeped in debt! And if you already are, get out! And if you're laughing right now, just keep on laughing... it won't be funny later.

Here's a link that explains a proper savings plan. Click for further details. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Savinganddebt/Learntobudget/P36153.asp

Jesus; Interest Rates 6-2-05

2007-03-27T13:49:00.000-07:00

When I thought I would be a Loan Officer (things change):

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Finals are over and school has been out for over a week. I've been working with my friend, Sam on the peninsula. We sell Tempurpedic beds and OSIM massage chairs, as well as some other luxury therapeutic products. It's fun when people come in and have no idea what they want and I get to tell them all the facts as well as to direct them around the store. Some people have a plan and others just want to go shopping! Either way, it is fun to service people by showing them all the options and letting them decide for themselves what they want. It is easy to tell the facts to people and build rapport, but it is a challenge to close the deal. That's when the grit comes in.

I went into a local book store in Berkeley on two of my days off and I sat down in the business section under sales/marketing to find some material on the subject of sales. I spent a total of about 8 hours in those two days where I swallowed up two books and took notes using 3 x 5 notecards on the main ideas. To be sure, that is not considered a crime unless you have an extremely strict standard on the infringement of intellectual property rights. Ha ha ha. There were several interesting books and I bought one called "Getting Past No," by William Ury. He runs the program on Negotiation at Harvard Law school. Perhaps some of you have heard of him. In fact, Jon I'm pretty sure you are familiar with his work because I recognize that some of his topics are similar to what we learned in your IEOR 171 class.

I'm not even out of the Prologue yet, but the book says that the world is getting smaller and more integrated; we must cooperate in order to succeed/proceed. Negotiation is involved in every aspect of life from salesmanship to personal matters. The route we must take to finding solutions are both indirect and 'middle-of-the-road,' or value-based choices that can satisfy the interests of both parties. I'll give a rundown after I finish it, but I have been taking my sweet time reading it because there is so much good stuff. I read then re-read and go over it again.

I'm reading another book that is taking awhile called "The Purpose Driven Life." My Mom bought it for me and I'm glad she did. It is filled with every good thing you could imagine and there are so many treasures in there I've stopped counting. The book is about living a righteous life with Christ and it has been inspirational at least. At best, it is motivational. Speaking of motivation, Jesus was my source of calm during a period of great pressure and uncertainty. The finals season was rough this semester. I had taken 25 units (20 at Berkeley and 5 at the community college) in order to get myself through school in time to get into mortgage before interest rates start going up.

When I meet up with stress, I like to face it head-on like a champion, but sometimes the pressure is insurmountable. In that case, it's necessary to dive down then resurface. That sounds easy enough, but if the current is strong enough to keep me under for too long, then I'll drown! The weight of my workload was more than I could have handled on my own. This semester and especially during finals season, I became a close friend of Jesus! He gave me peace of mind to maintain and follow-through. When I was so tired that I could not read one more word or write any more lines or crunch any more numbers or memorize any more ideas, I got down on my knees and asked him to give me wings like an eagle so that I could soar. I ran but did not get tired, I walked, but did not falter. I begged him to pull me through to the other side and I promised I would lift him up.

Now I am fulfilling my promise. One of the reasons I have not written a word in the last two or three weeks has been because I was shy to bring this up. It is hard to talk about Christ the Lord because so much badmouthing goes on about him. Christians follow 'the way' to do what is right and to succeed on grounds of morality and virtue. There is only one way and that is through Him. It is hard to talk about the Lord because so many people have so many negative things to say about Him, but it is all hype from the impatient, intransigent, shiftless, and faithless. I know it sounds hypocritical that I should criticize unbelievers since I have been critical of their criticism. Ha ha ha. Yes I am a hypocrite. Please. Test me.

On that note, the new President of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has just announced that we may be in the 8th inning of the tightening cycle ball game. For those of you who are not familiar with the game of baseball, there are nine innings before the game is over and there have been eight rounds of interest rate increases up to this point. When I heard this on public broadcast radio Wednesday night when I was driving home for work, I let out a loud yell that sounded like "Yahoo!" That means low interest rates, given steady rates of inflation, should continue indefinitely. In turn, Real Estate will continue to burn hot as home values soar with high levels of available credit. If I play my cards right, I will be able to take this opportunity and turn it into a manufacturing center of money creation --> savings.

I will live on the bare minimum as I sell every single damn thing and save almost all that I earn. This way, I save when the money flows and lend when the money is tight. I constantly make money whether the supply is short or long. My plan is to save for two years (if Real Estate makes a run that long) and start investing as the market drops. With faith in the US economy, I will be patient as prices plummet due to such factors as less available credit, lower productivity and less output, lower business and consumer confidence, et cetera. When the prices start falling, that's when the headwork begins. The computer lab is closing and I don't have much more time to talk about this, but basically, it's analyzation of the market based on precedence and potential. Fun stuff.

Enjoy yourselves. Hope the weather is great wherever you are. Let me know!

State of the Union 2-31-06

2007-03-27T13:48:00.001-07:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I must pull myself away from typing practice for a moment to speak on some issues that are heating up and I'd like to get in a word before President George W. Bush speaks at the State of the Union Address (tonight at 9:15ET).

- - - - -

Samuel A. Alito will be sworn into the Supreme Court next to John G. Roberts. I mentioned in an email before the November 2004 Presidential election that Bush would not use a 'litmus test' for replacing a Supreme Court Justice. Well, there has definitely been a 'rightward shift' on the bench. Conservatives are pleased by what will entail a more traditional interpretation of the US Constitution. Make no mistake, decisions by the Supreme Court have had major effects on the direction of civil society. We will see a judicial branch which ascribes to: increasing executive power (i.e. the President will have more freedom to collect information), limiting a woman's choice to have an abortion (i.e. disallow women to abort a pregnancy after the third trimester), and otherwise providing America with more conservative underpinnings.

- - - - -

Iran will be reported to the U.N. Security Council in March by all six major industrialized countries (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) if it continues to defy the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), our U.N. watchdog. This is a pivotal moment in world affairs; these nations whom are perceived to have the greatest stake in a properly functioning and secure international political economy have aligned over security interests. Now let me issue a small caveat because therein lies a delicate interpretation:

--> Britain is an ally of sorts with whom we are obliged to reckon

--> France has nuclear weapons they are not afraid to use them

--> Germany doesn't want nuclear war and, as the largest economy of the EU, it will benefit from an international political economy that remains stable

--> Russia has just entered the world stage with energy (petrol, nat gas) and it doesn't want to jeapordize its influence by making a faulty political decision on such an order of magnitude

--> China is inextricably bound with the US in terms of Dollar-Yuan/Renminbi trade flows and securities holdings

- - - -

Quickly, I'd like to mention Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine. Although it may not come up today, it's important because Mid-East tensions are flaring and it has a lot to do with history, war, diplomacy, conflicting loyalties, and the like.

Since WWI, The U.S. has supported a Zionist state (Israel) located on the west bank of the Jordan River, a territory which includes Jerusalem, the holy city of all three Abrahamic faiths. Without going into a long history of World Wars and the 'passing-of-the-torch' debate, it is necessary and sufficient to explain that American intervention in the Mid-East is necessary to shore up a political vacuum which would otherwise exist.* (endnote 1)

In the eyes of 'public opinion,' it seems that Americans will continue to blindly support Israel without regard for the conflicting needs of both Jews and Muslims in the Mid-East. Hamas is an interest group which is decidedly against the occupation of Israel in Palestine (the territories overlap, in fact, I couldn't even provide the distinction b/w them if you asked me). The conflict lies in rhetoric. Bush has to make a choice, here.

Will we continue to support a Jewish state without regard to the needs of Islamic nationalists in the Middle East or will we make some compromise and be flexible in the boundaries which were established way back in the uncertain times of multi-polarity?* (endnote 2)

The Hamas leadership is not seeking to establish a Theocratic [Islamic] regime, rather, a pluralistic society with faith-based principles of tolerance and unity. Hamas is, indeed, an Islamic force pursuing self-determination. It seems like Hamas is being construed as some type of terrorist organization which we now must contend with in the Mid-East. Although I may be putting myself out on the line, here, I do not believe this is the case. Of course, it depends on your point-of-view.

Conservative rhetoric says, "We must back Israel at all costs." In my personal opinion, it is more realistic to state, "There is a problem, here. How do we define loyalty? And what are the repercussions of such doctrine espousal?"

- - - - -

Now for the economy, I stated in 'Jesus; Interest Rates,' (June 2005) that, according to market signals (i.e. Dallas Fed Gov. said we may be in the last round of the tightening cycle ball game...), "...low interest rates, given steady rates of inflation, should continue indefinitely." Furthermore, I went on to declare, "...[the] Real Estate [market] will continue to burn hot as home values soar with high levels of available credit." At the time, it seemed this interpretation was a fair chart for a course that would play itself out over the next 1-2 years. It has been just eight months since that time and you have seen the rates plateau for yourselves. My Dad says, "Yeah, but 'low' is relative."

In the letter, 'my big chance,' (April 2005) I made a definition:

--------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tack
n.

Nautical.

1. The position of a vessel relative to the trim of its sails.
2. A course of action meant to minimize opposition to the attainment of a goal.
3. An approach, especially one of a series of changing approaches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The winds have changed and it will be prudent to state that inflation is coming soon. Right now, interest rates are being held at artificially low levels via a process termed 'financial repression.' It is a common Asiatic technique for filtering low-cost loans into a command economy for military-industrial development.

Chinese financial repression is beneficial for the US in the short-run because we receive cheap money to refinance homes for a better rate & term or to cash-out. Sometimes we reinvest [cash-out] money in our property to experience Schumpeterian 'windfall profits,' (i.e. refurbish kitchen for capital gains) while other times, we just blow it out the expense column.

Chinese national banks (i.e. Hong Kong Bank and Shanghai Bank) use the Yuan/Renminbi to buy dollar-denominated assets such as 'zero-risk' government bonds, T-bills, long- and short-term notes, mortgage-backed securities, and the like. They get the security of American money to run their economy as well as the advantage of relatively inexpensive goods for export in foreign markets.* (endnote 3)

We cannot avoid inflation because US consumer interests are bound with Chinese aspirations for a military-industrial complex. We are mortgaging our posterity for the 'here-and-now' while simultaneously bankrolling Chinese development out of our own pockets. It is a mutually beneficial situation that cannot last long.

Economists like to say 'there is no free lunch.' If we have any indication of what the future may hold, it is possible that we can check the history books and look back to the Kennedy-

The idea is that this 'free money' you're getting from your house isn't really free. In economic terms, we like to say, 'there is no free lunch.' Financial repression is an artificial maneuver that causes interest rates to stay low for the short term and then, as inflation rises and the value of currency declines, interest rates will spring back up and the market will collapse.

Essentially, that money you got on refinancing your home is Chinese money. That interest rate on your home mortgage is staying low because the Chinese are funneling money into the US through financial repression.

In 'Money & Economy' (February 2005) I used the allegory of lions at the zoo to explain the international economy as it pertains to us as American citizens. In that story, I explained that inflation is waste. The connection I want to make here is that profligate spending leads to inflation and that is bad.

The nation has two deficits:

1. the Current Account (Imports minus Exports)

2. Government Budget (social programs and military spending -- national overhead)

As citizens, the only part of the 'twin deficits' we have control over is household spending. In the aggregate, American household savings rates are negative. People are using their homes like ATMs, taking cash out to buy hummers, plasma screen tvs, and using the money to go on vacations. Fun fun fun.

We have spent loads of money rebuilding Iraq. We did not go into Iraq to build a nation. There isn't any more money in the government's budget for nation-building nor will there be measures to increase the budget for the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. When this 2006 money runs out, that's it.

Oil companies across the globe are benefitting from the highest petroleum prices in history. My Dad made a good point that high energy costs lower corporate profit margins due to increased transporation expenditures which increase cost of goods sold. Prices must be increased to sustain profitability, and thus workers demand higher wages to keep up with inflation. Hi hi hi hi hi hi hi. You can see everything goes up. That is one way to experience inflation.

Inflation can also be experienced by way of overextension. This is the most popular explanation and it pertains to the Current Account (household spending on foreign goods) as well as the government budget (war in Iraq, foreign aid, national social programs including provision of health care and social security to illegal immigrants who have children inside our boarders).

Right now, we see both tendencies on the rise. Energy prices are going through the roof and as Americans we are overextended both at home and abroad. More on this later. The President is speaking now.

Israeli - Palestinian Conflict; Term of the Day

2007-03-27T13:46:00.002-07:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Here is your term of the day:

mutually exclusive

adj

1: unable to be both true at the same time [syn: contradictory]

I've been studying for the LSAT for six months and I just started a class that teaches formal logic. This is one of the terms we learn. I was doing some homework the other night and these words just flowed onto the page. By the way, I write a lot of things that I never send out, but I can never tell what will come through and what won't. It's like artistry, you know? Sometimes you can start doodling and then end up with a good picture that you weren't intending. Alternatively, it can be like a workout that you weren't looking forward to and then it ends up being a day where you just crush every rep and hit a PR! It just depends; I think it has to do with persistence and clear intentions.

Well, what I came up with is this:

* God and chaos/corruption are mutually exclusive agents. i.e., they cannot exist in the
same place at the same time.

Key:

G = GOD

CH = CHAOS

CO = CORRUPTION

* not symbol (negation of a term)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

G --> *CH and *CO; alternatively -

CO or CH --> *G

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This says that if GOD is, then CHAOS and CORRUPTION are not. Alternatively, if CHAOS or CORRUPTION is, then GOD is not. We cannot say that if CHAOS or CORRUPTION is then GOD is not; that is an incorrect reversal. Alternatively, we cannot say that if GOD is not, then CHAOS and/or CORRUPTION is. That is an incorrect negation. We don't know what happens if God does not exist and we don't know what happens if Chaos or Corruption do not exist.

Chaos and Corruption are not mutually exclusive. They can exist together or separately.

e.g. Chaos and Corruption exist together in opaque administrations - like the ones that come up with
surprise advances and whose administrations keep lots of secrets to ambush citizens and
foreigners.

e.g.2 Chaos can exist without corruption such as in the case of a victim. That person without
territorial integrity will fall prey to uncertainty over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over again.

e.g.3 Corruption can exist without chaos such as in the case of the Mafia. The hierarchical structure
and transparency of a strict moral code preclude anything but transparent organization. That
is, [individuals at the top of the chain of command] know who is doing what, where, when,
why, how and with whom. There is no uncertainty (or chaos), but there sure is corruption!

L&G-

I used the example of the Mafia's hierarchical structure and strict moral code which precludes anything but transparency. There is no disorder within the localized sampling, but of course the organized crime ring creates free-for-all in the macro sense. i.e., in a global structure, Mafias create chaos. So it just depends on how broad you want to look at it.

In the victim example, I said that there is no corruption (in the localized sampling of the individual). However, the global examination shows that a victim cannot exist without fault or corruption unless you consider the possibility that human nature, at least in one case, lends it self to pure ignorance. I think we can prove that even babies and madmen can learn. If they could not, they would cease to be human. Methinks.

L&G-

For clarification, the globalized sampling looks at the victim over time rather than in a specific instance. This suggests that a victim can learn and therefore victimhood is reserved for the uninitiated. Thanks.

L&G-

Formal logic was my way to couch the argument that taking a side [esp. for Israel and against Hezbolla/Hamas or any manifestations of the Palestinian Arab Islamic fundamentalist cults] in Mid-Eastern jihad would be a bad idea. When you hear Arabs saying, "Down with Israel! Down with America!" That is only taunting meant to lure us into a trap. If we get sucked in, those bastards will have justification for bombing us again. I guarantee that if we defend 'Israel' in Zionist/Islamic holy war, we will see brutal ramifications in the near/mid/long term. That is imminent danger.

In fact, if we advance ourselves in the name of [whatever type of justification] against Hamas/Hezbolla/Al Queda/Mujahadeen or any other Islamic force seeking self-determinacy in order to defend 'Israel' in the Middle East, we will deserve an attack by terrorists from that region. That is to say, we can't keep claiming ignorance.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." — George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

America was the victim of a horrible tragedy on 9/11 in Washington and Pennsylvania. We experienced blowback or unintended consequences of foreign policy when terrorism was justified by Islamic radicalists ostensibly because of the Cold War struggle of the Mujahadeen. We sent $millions in covert aid and weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood during the seventies to defeat Stalinist Russia (the USSR - a country of terrorists armed with nuclear weapons). Once we secured that territory, the newly united Islamists were left unguided and these religious zealots (or some faction thereof) subsequently overthrew the Sha of Iran in my birthday year. With the innervation of revolutionary power, these fundamentalists - armed with weapons, cash and ideology - reunited the flame of medieval crusade.

The ideologues thought God was giving them the green light to destroy all non-Muslim peoples and principalities. This false positive led from the wrongheaded assumption that that global jihad is justified based on the supposition that God is on the side of the jihadists themselves. However, God is neither political nor religious. People are. God is neither Conservative nor Liberal. People are. God is neither Christian nor Islamic nor Zionist. People are.

Furthermore, God does not fight people's battles. People fight God's battles. In a struggle, there may be some justifiable evidence for righteousness based on a relative standard for either party. However, unless God's will has been sought out and followed, that coalition's military and/or ideological endeavor will be disappointed. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be answered.

Fears

2007-03-27T13:46:00.001-07:00

L&G-

A random note regarding something interesting in a book I'm reading called 'In a Pit with a Lion on a Snowy Day':

Humans only have two instinctual fears:

1. Falling down
2. Loud noises

All other fears are learned*.

*The corollary truth to this statement is that [any other] fear can be unlearned.

A Forteriori, Natural Law

2007-03-27T13:41:00.000-07:00

L&G,

Your term of the day is philosophical. I'm going somewhere with (w/) this, don't worry. It's all part of a bigger vision I'm trying to encapsulate. i.e., I'd like to show that outcomes in politics, economics, etc. have much to do with natural law. If we can just get to the bottom of the issues and find the common denominator, you know. If we can just get to the common basis of all these arguments and figure out where each schism begins and why people think the way they do, if we can figure out why people make certain decisions and what leads them to act out certain behaviors, ergo what repercussions society will be faced w/, then we have a better picture of things in general and will be able to manage risk more effectively. I think what government and economics and law all comes down to is making things as simple and as effective and as blindly just as possible. We can only provide justice if:

1. We have the power to do so
2. We are enlightened as to the practical ramifications of our laws

It's important, I think, to be purposeful and direct in governance as in all of our communications and our interactions. We're a government of the people, for the people and by the people. That's where I'm coming from. If we don't participate in democracy and if we don't act responsibly to know the issues, then we will lose our rights.

With those rights, our freedoms will be usurped. And I don't think anyone wants that (except for the bad guys w/in us and abroad). Don't trust anyone who slanders the Bible. If you have a problem w/ what I'm saying, then you're not going to like much of what else I have to say from here on out so just let me know w/ a reply email that you want to opt out or else, just divert these messages to your junk mail folder – that would probably be easiest I think. Here is your term of the day.

a-forteriori- to the stronger; even more so

The term is used to predict outcomes of case-based legal arguments.

L&G-

I know some people get bent out of shape regarding religion and politics. That will all be explained, but it requires a bit of discernment. People take [self-evident truths] and oversimplify 'reality' based on such. It is important for us to understand the basis of universal laws created by God (i.e., natural law) so that we can understand why things happen and how they come about. In case you happen to think God does not exist, then you'd be interested to also know that nothing exists. I'll get to that.

L&G –

In order to make things simple and clear, once we understand natural law, we can then guide our thoughts and actions accordingly. In such a way, we will reach our goals most directly. I would like to say that acting according to universal truth is always the path of least resistance, but that's not necessarily the case. Individuals and entities often stand in the way of scientific law to impose their own set of standards, their own culture, and their own 'truths' in order to create a 'reality' most fitting for their own interests. e.g., Oligarchs impose authoritarian rule over conformists in a [totalitarian] state like China, Japan, Venezuela (among others in Latin America), Nigeria (among others in Africa) or in the Islamic world.

The terror is that conformity and authoritarianism are opposite sides of the same coin. The former begets the latter and vice versa. An easy way to put it, I think, is that conformists need to be dominated like authoritarians need [the power of] domination. It can all be explained simply in terms of human nature. i.e., we see as is often the case in codependent relationships when one person takes on an 'oppressor' role and the other 'victim'. Regardless of incessant torture and relentless violence, the 'victim' often returns to the 'oppressor' and likewise the 'oppressor' continues his (or her) behavior according to the modus operandi of ignorance.

The insecurity of each party leads to these types of behavioral norms and it is a way of asserting legitimacy, enfranchisement, and efficacy, among other things. You see, the definition of insanity is:

a disease, defect, or condition of the mind that renders one unable to understand the nature of [the] law being violated; inability to understand the nature and consequences of one's acts

As you can see, the definition, generally, is taken to mean that someone who is insane cannot understand their own surroundings or the consequences of their actions. Actions are principally borne from thoughts, which are derived from beliefs grounded in character. And if I may be so bold, [individual] character is rooted in behavioral norms defined by cultural traditions*.

Ignorance to natural law makes people feel insecure – they cannot adjust to their environment without (w/o) exercising overarching control over it. Imagine if your house, your job, your family and your friends changed every day. You would spend all of your time just trying to figure things out and you would never be allowed to adjust. There would be a commensurate lack of: peace, security, order, harmony, joy, hope, and other beautiful things. You would feel impotent and disenfranchised; you would be frustrated by a lack of understanding and control of your own environment. You would feel totally helpless and by definition, insane. What would you about your situation? Well, seek refuge of course.

When authoritarians exercise absolute control over their environs (to establish a refuge), they become [absolutely] corrupt. The corruption can apply to any overarching leadership such as a dictator or a monarch. I think I'm going to stop there or else risk going too far in any unnecessary direction. I'll speak more on this later.

*An objection to said statement would be the degree to which certain behavioral norms do not conform to traditional cultural values due to various temporal factors, which cause the uprooting and concomitant displacement of such principles. e.g., commercialism or some fanciful ideological trend.

Article Notes - Berkeley

2007-03-27T13:40:00.002-07:00

L&G,

A friend of mine sent me an article that I thought was interesting. I think it goes right to the point of a certain aspect of what I'm trying to say in general. Forgive the circuitous nature of my argument here, but as I say, it's necessary. The article is called, "Little Asia on the Hill", referring to the [over]representation of smart people in this ethnic group after prop 209 banned Affirmative Action (AA)*, an amendment passed during my junior year. Berkeley is the nation's premier public university and it has been referred to as "Harvard on the hill" by some academics. On Berkeley as a meritocracy after AA:

"We shouldn't be calling these studying habits that help so many kids get into good schools 'Asian values,' " says Mr. Liu, himself a product of Yale College and Harvard Law School. "These are values that used to be called Jewish values or Anglo-Saxon work-ethic values. The bottom line message from the family is the same: work hard, defer gratification, share sacrifice and focus on the big goal."

*For those of you who are unaware, AA is a program that discriminates against 'white' males (and, ostensibly, high performing 'Asians' on the basis of general performance in math and the sciences) in favor of the generally less high academic performers – i.e., 'blacks' and 'hispanics', etc. As an aside, 'white' is a skin color and 'Asian' actually refers to a geographical location. I'm not sure how we've come to defer to these [superficial] discriminations the way we do. And I don't think it's correct to refer to people or people groups based on color of skin or geographical location or language for that matter, but I guess the whole point is to correct this. Furthermore, the racial and gender preference for women v. men applies only to 'white' skin color (i.e., 'Asian' men are not discriminated against to allow for 'Asian' women – for the record).

The burden is completely on our shoulders. And I am going to [re]prove that self-evident truth although it has been uprooted and displaced in the minds of the masses by hateful demagogues using class, gender, and race warfare – promoting tensions in civil society by pointing out reinforcing cleavages. The order of the day is disorder for those who have created this society and there is order – rather power, in nonconformance and non-assimilation for those who have been ostensibly 'wronged'. But justice is a relative term. How can 'justice' be served w/in the context of parallel or relative moralities? The answer is: It cannot. The only way to serve the greatest number w/ the greatest good is by establishing one order, one rule and one way. And justice must be served based on universal standards, universal norms, and universal values.

If we don't do it God's way, we lose. To the extent which demagogues can uproot our tradition, they will supplant it w/ their own. Don't be fooled by false believers who talk big and loud and get in your face about 'righteousness' it's nothing more than chauvinism meant to provoke you and turn you away from the truth. And please discern duplicity from sincere, unambiguous service to the will of almighty God. There is an easy way to tell the difference: People who are insincere about their faith will be suspicious of [you] as they act suspiciously themselves. Morality is written on our hearts. When people act in defiance to [natural] morality, it will cause a tugging feeling on your heart by way of individual conscience. And that will nag you forever if you can't justify your actions. So when people commit obviously indecent acts (meanness, committing crimes, etc.) and when they try to justify their actions by playing a 'victim' role (e.g., 'life is unfair, I'm just trying to survive), don't buy into it.

People act according to their belief systems. If they really are Christian, they will espouse Christian values, they will walk and talk Christian. Christians, although very often persecuted, do not go around acting like 'victims'; that is not our character. We strive and are persistent in longsuffering. We overcome obstacles by appeal to an all- powerful God. We do not go around complaining about our circumstances and trying to appeal to other people to give us 'hand-outs'. We do not take advantage of others' gentle sensitivities and use them for wealth and advantage. We do not creep into the lives of our neighbors and stab them in the back once they give us an opportunity by making themselves vulnerable. We do not prey on the natural openness and forthrightness of honest people by accusations.

The entire discussion comes down to one thing to the exclusion of all other things. That is, in a word, values. And I will stop there.

P.S. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I love you.

L&G-

When I referred to reproving that it is 'our' burden, I was referring, as you're probably aware of the Christians' burden. It has been traditionally referred to as the "White Man's Burden", but I don't think that accurately captures the nature of the struggle @ all. It's lazy talk to refer to people by their skin color and those things b/c, as I've previously stated, you can't know anthing about behavioral norms, ergo morality, by these superficial discriminations in the present day. So many things have changed; value systems have had an opportunity to cut across all people groups regardless of ethnicity, language or geographical location. For the record, I think "White" has been used for simplicity throughout [modern] history because Christianity has traditionally been the "White" man's value system.

I think the real reason for our tendency to refer to ourselves as 'white' comes from the fact that our forebears were the ancient Greeks (radical democracy of Athens, the Western world, etc.) and it is our desire to have continuity w/ those roots. We all care about that, right? However, fortunately or unfortunately, I think skin color differentiation has outgrown its useful life. We have to understand our differences based on value systems, i.e., on character. That way, we can get to the bottom of things and solve all of our problems. Yes there will always be trouble brewing somewhere across the globe because of the fallen state of man*. He is a sinner. I'll get to that.

*species, not gender

L&G-

One thing I noticed about the message about the Puritan colony, when I said: "And where civil society ends, tribalism begins..." That is a funny thing because (b/c) of the impossible nature of defining a society's boundaries that is anything other than civil ( e.g. tribal). The undercurrent of 'white shame' in media and academia reflected in reparations-style public policy in Anglo Saxon Christian societies (e.g. AA-type programs in the USA and UK) stems, at least in part, from the notion of 'unjustified displacement' of [tribal] societies ( e.g. British Quakers come to settle in North America, ergo Native Americans are confronted w/ a new reality of sharing land w/ people unlike themselves) from their indigenous territories. Herein lies the conundrum:

How do you define territory? If Native Americans roamed across the country and did not set up any demarcated boundaries and if they did not tend to the land they lived upon, how could they possibly ever hope to claim it? And what did they claim, everything? That sounds awfully odd to me. What happens if other people come (demographics and net influxes of new peoples every day) and need to share the land? How do you mitigate that? I guess the natives never really considered the possibility that there would ever be anyone besides themselves. And this gets me to thinking...

Iraq is not in "Civil War"

2007-03-27T13:40:00.001-07:00

L&G-

I'd just like to point this out; it's a posting from my former professor's blog that I receive via email. It's called "Feedblitz" (an RSS feed). As of yesterday:

"The Marines in Anbar province report very positive effects in reducing the non-sectarian Al Qaeda based violence that is the predominant cause of instability there."

Followed by comments from the peanut gallery:

"Yep non sectarian Al Qaeda. This is like saying pacifist Al Qaeda. [There was a] captured CD [that] revealed an explicit plan to provoke sectarian civil war proposed by 'Monotheism and Jihad' aka 'al Qaeda in Mesopotamia' aka 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' aka 'Abu Mussab al Zarqawi and fellow murderous sectarian fanatics.'"

Just a quick note: The lack of a 'civil' society precludes the possibility of a 'civil war' (Iraq is not a state according to the Treaty of Westphalia since it cannot secure its own borders independently). 'Civil' society requires:

1. Statehood

And

2. Rule of law*.

Iraq has neither of these prerequisites because the rule of law does not function independently of varying sectarian interpretations (fatwas, etc.). Without a common order (i.e., universal laws for all, pertaining to every case and subject of the state), there can be no stability, functionality, etc. and therefore no civil society.

*Numbers 35

Pagan Recusancy

2007-03-27T13:38:00.000-07:00

L&G-

They say it takes 40 or so people to pay for one retiree through the so-called 'compact b/w generations' a.k.a. Social Security pay-go Mutual/Trust Fund in America. How many Christians do you think it takes to maintain the unity of our liberal republican state per pagan? I'd say it probably depends on the strength of the pagan's recusancy v. the opposing strength of the Christians' [self]-sacrifice and stalwartness. Of course we must consider the 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts' principle (in both cases).

L&G-

Recusancy refers to petty self-empowerment at the expense of unity in the form of political pressure groups in the USA (and abroad). We can't have a civil order w/o mutual self-sacrifice. And individualism cannot be sustained w/o shared values. For the record.

Don't Trust Politicians

2007-03-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Bureaucrats want power. They will do whatever they need to do to get it (e.g., agree, disagree, mock, applaud, etc.) Don't be fooled by politicians that tell you they will save you from yourselves. We are in this place here, now together. There are things we must do, together. Let's get on w/ it. Here is a quote from Bill Bonner's Daily Reckoning that speaks well to the situation:

We are in the Age of Mammon.

If the pollsters told the major parties they could win the White House by
renouncing the Constitution, the Bible, and the Theory of
Evolution...they'd do it immediately.

Generations Trend in Different Directions

2007-03-27T13:36:00.000-07:00

L&G-

I found this article considerably amusing. According to a survey conducted by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, reports of marijuana and other illicit drug use among the deconstructionist generation* (ages 60-42) has risen by an average of over 60% during the four year period ('02-'05)**. Meanwhile, American teens' (age 12-17) drug use has declined by an average of [a shade under] 15% in the same time frame. The author, Donna Leinwand of USA Today states,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Federal anti-drug officials say the survey indicates that while some baby boomers who were in their teens and 20s when drug-use rates peaked in the 1970s are taking their drug habits well into middle age, today's youths aren't embracing drugs as enthusiastically."
- (Boomers...Push Up Overall Rates)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

According to John Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, substance abuse has been viewed euphemistically by this group of individuals as a rite of passage into [young] adulthood or ‘a coming of age’. Apparently for some, this has become a tradition carried on throughout their lifetimes.

-NM

endnotes:

*deconstruction and poststructural are literary definitions for the [post]modern age controlled by the baby boom generation

** 2002-2005 inclusive = 4 years (that means you count all of 2002 and 2005, don't just subtract the numbers, silly!)

Cultural Relativism

2007-03-27T13:25:00.001-07:00

L&G-

I'm stoked about continuity. There is nothing coincidental in the life of a man ferociously seeking to do the will of God. Yes I am on fire and I plan on staying that way. This a.m. in the WSJ there was a piece on the funnyman P.J. O'Rourke – a political satirist. The article was about whether conservatives or liberals are funnier. And his stance on the issue was that Liberals are always feeling so guilty that they can't be funny and Conservatives are always so worried about the world falling to pieces that they can't be funny. That's funny. Ha ha!!

He talked about negative rights: i.e., "Freedom from" and positive rights: i.e., "What will you give me?" He says, "In a democracy, it's always vibrating back and forth. People want the government to do everything; when they see that it sucks, they want the government to let them take charge, and when that doesn't work, they want the government to come back and fix all the problems that they themselves caused when they took charge."

On developing nations' intransigence, he said, "Twenty years ago we were all very interested in what was making these people fight each (ea.) other, and who was right and who was wrong, and after a while you say: Sit down and shut up. Go to hell." That sounds familiar. Ha ha!! That's funny. Except I know why the baby boom generation got derailed and I'm going back to fix it. This generation threw the baby out w/ the bathwater and expected cosmopolitanism to mend everything. That's impossible because (b/c) people come from different places; they have different habits; they walk and talk and act differently.

I think the ruling [baby boom] generation in America and the up-and-coming generation X have bought into the idea that everyone thinks the same, everyone really has the same general standards for morality and thus, dislocations only arise due to peoples' ignorance and oppression in general. I think there is a lot of truth in what is being said there, but people do not have the same standards for morality – i.e., what is just and what is unjust. Therefore ignorance and oppression are relative terms.

Consider the fact that, in a tribal culture, barbarians would consider it oppressive to be forced to obey civil laws and abide by standards other than their own. And on the opposite side of that coin, citizens of the civilized world consider barbarianism oppressive and threatening. Let's make pretend for a moment. Let's say we have two societies:

African tribe (Voodo, syncreticism)
Quaker colony (Protestant Christian)

Now these two societies live adjacent to one another. The Puritans do what the Puritans do. They dominate savage nature and subdue the elements (e.g., cut down trees to build houses, develop infrastructure for diverting water and storing it, purifying it for drinking, etc.) according to God's will. He says, "I want you to subdue the earth and populate it." Likewise, the barbarian tribes live in 'harmony w/ nature' or rather, in submission to the elements. They are unscrupulous in their dealings w/ civil society and are therefore unpredictable and untrustworthy.¹

Now the Puritans set up fences, build houses, schools, hospitals, libraries, churches, lay roads, etc. And where civil society ends, tribalism begins. As a Pilgrim settler living adjacent to a tribal culture, what do you think is going to happen?

With your indulgence, I'll ask you to conduct the same experiment w/ the following cultures:

1. Muslim

2. Hindu

3. Atheist (holism, existentialism, asceticism, commercialism, communism, etc.)

4. Polytheist (human sacrifice, cannibalism, etc.)

You may ask, well why do I associate people w/ religion and not something else like color of skin or language or geographical location? The reason being, you cannot identify someone's behavioral norms from their color of skin or their language or their geographical location. These superficial discriminations are crosscutting cleavages rather than reinforcing cleavages.

¹I'm asking for some leeway w/ this generalization. I will prove, although it will take some time, that I can defeat sophist tautology and semantical plays on words and ideological fantasy to establish this message as a self-evident truth. Just wait and see!

God Has Many Names

2007-03-27T13:21:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Our King is named: 'Lord of Hosts' because (b/c) we host his holy spirit. Unfortunately, we are also hosts of Satan's¹ manifold parasitism.

¹satan. Depending on your belief, this word either describes an actual [spiritual] entity replete w/ leagues of angels or else it is simply an allusion to the absence of God^a.

^1aan absence of God. According to natural law, light casts out all darkness. God is infinite light^b.

^1b God is infinite light. And when we look out @ the stars at night, we are encapsulated in darkness. Therefore, our [universe] is self-contained. In fact, it is a sphere^c.

^1c [the] universe…is a sphere. Copernicus' theory of why the earth is so pertains as well to the realm of our existence. I'll talk about it later.

Message 1/13/07

2007-03-27T13:10:00.000-07:00

L&G-

First off, I want to say that I understand the lots of emails can be kind of daunting w/ all of the various topics and corrections. I don't have an editing staff yet, so before I can spend my life playing guitar and writing (and raising a family), I have to work @ a regular job and just send regular emails. Perhaps soon I'll get a blog setup replete w/ video streams, an RSS feed and subscriptions, so you can access everything all in one place.

There's one thing I want to note about sympathy and parasites. We have an entire industry of victim racketeering in Washington (which is a microcosm of the US) that's paid for by your tax dollars. I'd like to share w/ you the following excerpt from a lawyer counseling his client in Tort litigation (civil suit for arrest – mistreatment by police, etc.).

The attorney led the [deponent] w/ the following: "…the difficulty created anger in you. The anger stays w/ you – you've become angry and anxious w/ respect to imposed authority". And then he said, "They patronizingly humiliated you."

Of course this is meant to propose that the person is a victim for being humiliated. I think it's rather dubious since the people who claim to be victimized by humiliation are so often – although not always – the cause of suffering, pain, torture and humiliation for themselves and so many others. (e.g., norms lead to goals; if you act foolish, there will be consequences.) I think so many of us -individually and collectively – want to play the 'Catcher in the Rye' role and save people from themselves. God says, "Don't rescue a fool from the consequences of his/her actions or else you will become responsible for [continuing to do so]", or words to that affect (sic.). This is in the same vein of "A man who hates his son spares the rod of discipline", etc.

I'd also like to make a correction to the previous email: 'God has many names' and also add something. The endnote would be: ^1a [the] absence of God. And, if we are to get anything done @ all – i.e., discuss the problems w/ health care/social security, national security, etc., we need to be speaking the same language. When you turn on different t.v. channels, you pretty much expect a certain point-of-view (p.o.v.). It's the same w/ magazines and newspapers; they have perspectives. W/ my emails, you're going to get a certain perspective and I don't feel the need to articulate according to the needs and concerns of commercialized/marginalized mainstream media. Here's a quote that I think represents the situation perfectly.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." – Bill Cosby, comedian

Evil Suspicion

2007-03-27T12:57:00.001-07:00

L&G-

It's a constant no matter where you go or what you do there will always be people looking incredulously @ you and freeriding on your efforts, just waiting for you to do something unacceptable¹ so they can lay blame. Consider the fact that every culture² affirms certain norms at the expense of others – i.e., certain attitudes/behaviors and actions will be emphasized as 'good' while behaviors/attitudes and actions that do not conform to those standards will be designated as 'bad'. When people feed off of you by suspicion, it is based on logic³ that is derived from morals grounded in something other than [your] tradition. That is to say, people who accuse you by sight and whom spread the tension, ergo fear, of said suspicion, are not speaking the same language you speak. They are developing these negatives in the darkroom of their own minds – minds which are brainwashed w/ ignorance by a multitude of sources. In fact, the tension you feel is none other than a lack of enlightenment, literally and figuratively.

Morality is written on our hearts (God's law) and therefore, when people act in defiance to said law, it will create a tension there. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only redistributed. This principle is of the same accord as the Law of Conservation of Justice such that justice cannot be created or destroyed; only redistributed. If someone commits a crime for which they are to blame, they must justify it or else face the consequences (anxiety/guilt --> loss of sleep, bad health, etc.). Shame can kill a man; in fact shame has killed many men. When someone acts suspicious of you [by sight] – i.e., judging you by your appearance – and you feel that tension, it is b/c the person has some type of blame to pass. Don't be fooled into shame by Satan⁴.

¹ unacceptable. A normative term.
² culture. Body of social norms including: attitudes, values, standards [for living], ethics and morals
³ logic. Ethical code derived from morals rooted in tradition.
⁴ Satan. Literally: 'the accuser'.

P.S. Not to obfuscate, but cultural varieties are derived from interpretations of an underpinning tradition (e.g., Anglo Saxon American culture of Christianity v. Anglo Saxon British culture of Christianity).

Evolution

2007-03-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

L&G-

This is a rejoinder to science ficiton's account of the 'descent of man' that we're all having a good time refuting. We Christians get all of our work done and do it well so that we have free time to sit around refining logic and coming up w/ great ideas to spur society forward. Science is fantastic to the extent that it creates socially desirable solutions (e.g. a cure for cancer/HIV, etc.), but it is really harmful when used for political ends - i.e., to [ostensibly] refute the existence of God and brainwash affected citizens into the despair/lunacy/hopelessness that arises from a lack of 'reason' for existence. His name is Jonathan Raymond and he's a student @ some private Christian school in the Midwest. Enjoy.

ok. Creationism. Ok. First let me explain the difference between macro and micro evolution. Microevolution is intraspecial variation. Ok? Got that? So look at the entirely enormous variation within the species 'Dog' caused by artificial selection (breeding). Note also that the textbook definition of species is that group of animilia which can reproduce with itself and produce legitmate offspring which can then also reproduce. All dogs can hump all other dogs and have little dog babies that can also reproduce. We good here? Variation within species is called micro-evolution.

In contrast is macroevolution--which means variation that causes an offspring to generate which is not in the species. This has never been recorded. Generally evolutionists say that micro evolution climaxes in macroevolution. If this were possible I'm sure it would have been observed already in the example I have given above--the artificial selection of dogs--because by the means of artificial selection you can speed up microevolution very much.

Any way, why am I telling you this? To first make clear that the Creationist is still an evolutionist--however he is a microevolutionist and not a macroevolutionist. The Creationist agrees with observed microevolution but disagrees with the greater problem and unobserved macroevolution.

OK. Now onto the holes of evolutionary theory:

First, evolutionary theory does not explain the leap from inorganic materials to the highly complex structure of the cell. Recent or more modern evolutionary theory suggests that life started in pourous rocks--NOT the primordial soup--because of this problem. Why pourous rocks? a makeshift cell membrane. Anyway, the complexities of molecular biology and the interdependence of the organelles of the cell (PLEASE tell me you took cellular biology and PAID ATTENTION?) makes evolution from inorganic materials impossible.

Secondly: the problem of the generation of the complex interplay between RNA and DNA to generate protiens (protein synthesis). There are no observed predecessors to RNA or DNA and this poses an enormous problem to evolution. The problem, I think, can be googled using the keyword 'pRNA' (for predecessor RNA).

Thirdly, evolution does not account for the leap from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction (first on a cellular level--bacteria--and then on a plant / animal level). why sexual reproduction?

Fourthly, evolution does not account for symbiosis. Symbiosis is the interdependence of beings/species. Take bees and flowers for example. Flowers depend on bees for their reproduction; and bees on flowers for food. There are a plethora of such symbiotic relationships in the known animal kingdom and these would not be possible to have ever been developed; they are interdependent systems that must have been generated as is.

Fifthly, evolution, I think takes for granted the evident design in all the animal kingdom and especially in the human species. If you have ever played with K'Nex or Lego Technic you will have a bit of a grasp on two important mechinical concepts that have bearing here. First the more minor of the two. If you have ever had a large/huge box of K'Nex or Legos; where do the smaller parts fall? Contrary to your intuition or commonsense they fall to the bottom; and the larger pieces sift through up to the top. This I realized, typifies the fossil record especially. It would make sense to me to say that the record was generated from a worldwide flood because of this observed phenomenon.

The second concept is of mechanics. As a child I would frequently try to make robotic arms with my K'Nex. Most people take the device of the arm EXTREMELY for granted but anybody who has tried to MAKE THEIR OWN will have realized the enormous difficulties in simulating the many points of rotation and movement made possible with the aesthetically pleasing and simple arrangement of the bones present in the arm. Have you ever taken human biology?

here is a picture:

http://www.artfuloddities.

com/2D/Sketches/Workshop/B

ack-arm-FINAL.jpg

but it really doesn't do justice to the structure of the radius which enables the forearm to rotate while the ulna enables the forearm to do a hinge motion. These are mechanical concepts--joints they call them. But to have both a rotating and hinge is quite a pleasing feat of mechanics. At least I think so. Maybe you have to take Human Biology and have the radius and ulna and the humerous in your hands like I did and play with them a little to get what I mean. Where the radius and the humerous are jointed there is a bit of a ball and socket bit. Its really hard for me to explain. The human arm is a masterpiece of mechanics.

And this simplistic, Zen like efficiency and aestheticism is present throughout nearly all of the structures of the human body if one has an eye to see.

For example, the semicircular canals of the ear--which are instrumental in balance--are three in number and follow the three spatial planes--the X, Y, and Z. This ingenious collaboration between mathematical space and biology I find impossible to be coincidence.

Also the interdependence of systems is also quite wonderful; there are more than five systems of the body: the cardiovascular, skeletal, muscular, nervous, digestive, lymph, and hormonal. The interplay between these systems allows for all human activity. Again, I really recommend taking a good human biology course.

All this suggests to me design. A car implicitly suggests a car-maker; and likewise the man. A man implicity suggests a man-Maker--that is, God.

That's about it for now!

Recommended Reading:

Darwin's Black Box --Michael J. Behe

A human biology text

A text on the principles of mechanics

I also recommend looking into the works done at MIT in regards to Artificial Life (COG, etc) and playing with legos/K'nex. trying to make a human arm

Betrayal

2007-03-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

L&G-

All I know is, people that I can't trust are creeps and I'm not wrong for being shrewd. If someone calls me, "Mean" for standing up for my own values and establishing boundaries (-i.e ., standing for what I believe in and not giving in or allowing my principles to be supplanted by suspicious pressures and people that want to 'move' me), that is due to their own ignorance. I won't be held hostage to others' sense of entitlement and to their accusations - I will not stand to defend myself ad infinitum from Satan's deception and manipulation. I will not allow myself to be betrayed (in the same way twice). You can fool me once, shame on you. But I can't get fooled again.

Economics be damned - Congress, legislate @ will! Aaaargh!!!

2007-03-27T12:50:00.001-07:00

L&G-

I'd just like to introduce something of a bill that affects the most needy of Americans. It is the minimum wage law. We have just passed one ($7.15/hr.) in the continental United States, which, I'm sure, is a happy happy day for some. However, there are indeed unintended consequences that I'd like to quickly delve into. As most know, a company can employ workers from any location to make things and to export goods. Those locations w/ the lowest wages can offer the most competitive advantage to companies seeking profits. And profits are the lifeblood of business, employment, and life. Do you work for a corporation? Most likely! Otherwise you work for yourself, the government, or an NGO (nonprofit). In any case, it's truism that you can't just sit still and expect to earn enough pay to keep you going. If a man won't work, he won't eat. Get out of bed, lazy! Alternatively, you are either getting stronger or you are getting weaker. You are either moving ahead or you are falling behind. Some move just enough to maintain a relatively stable position. Oftentimes it is these people who get laid off in restructuring, but I digress...

Companies need to clear revenues over [variable and fixed] costs to earn profit. It is that of variable cost - e.g., wages - that we are most concerned w/ today. A company's factor inputs consist of seventy percent labour and thirty percent capital. Meaning, that if labour costs a lot, it will contribute a lot of extra cost to the company and that will diminish the internal rate of return, or the return on [human] capital. And companies will have fewer profits. And shareholders become unhappy. And people lose jobs. So that is bad. Blame neither executives nor stockholders. It is no one's fault because in God's economy, there is no free lunch. You can't legislate higher wages and expect to make more people happy (unless we are in the dark ages or in a totalitarian country where people get routinely taken advantage of and abused and terrorized and there is no oversight, ergo protection for the weak and the vulnerable). We do not live in a totalitarian dark age. We live in a market-driven political economy where the price mechanism functions satisfactorily well and civilians are able to acquire jobs commensurate w/ their own knowledge, skills and abilities.

In American Samoa, there is frenzy over the $3.26 minimum wage legislation that tuna fisheries are now required to pay their employees. The problem is that, although Star Kist, a major employer in the area, would like American Samoa to maintain its status as the preferred cost location for much of Star Kist production, the area will not be able to compete with a $0.50 wage in another place (e.g. Ecuador). So when people say 'fair economics', consider what God considers fair first and then make plans that comport w/ that. Otherwise, legislating wages in a [perfectly] competitive wage environment such as in the heretofore-globalizing world in order to increase employees' utility is a fool's errand. Legislation that contravenes natural law causes negative spillover effects into the domestic economy - i.e., we lose jobs to overseas workers who are willing to do the jobs for less pay.

Bumbling bureaucrats thought they were helping people. Now these [literally] poor fishermen are wondering what percentage of the wage labour increase will pass through to the commodity price of Star Kist tuna and what effect that will have on competition w/ other brands [of tuna]. Minimum wage legislation is forcing industry [that provides jobs to Samoan Americans] to relocate in order to compete for [razor thin] margins in an industry w/ a nearly perfect price elasticity of demand.

Star Kist on new [deal] legislation that will cause outsourcing of jobs from [American] Samoa:

Our bottom line position is, any increase in minimum wage puts considerable pressure on the costs of the commodity products that are manufactured in American Samoa that are already not in a good cost position.

FYI

Global Econ

2007-03-27T12:49:00.001-07:00

L&G-

This from 'Feedblitz':

The regional course of trade deficits and surpluses: 1997-2005.

Source: IMF, via Global Economy Matters: Structural Drivers of Global Macroeconomic Imbalances .

The Situation:

Net capital inflow: $600B (from foreign central banks) + $200B (from foreign private wealthy) = $800B a year.

This must balance:

Trade deficit: $800B a year

What happens if the $600B of net capital flowing in from foreign central banks disappears?

U.S. interest rates go up--supply and demand in the capital market for loanable funds.
U.S. dollar's value goes down--supply and demand in the market for foreign exchange.
A less-valuable dollar raises dollar-value exports and lowers dollar-value imports.
Higher interest rates pull in more capital, which partially offsets the decline in foreign central bank-driven inflow.
U.S. has to move people from construction and consumer goods to export and import-competing goods. (8M?)
Foreigners have to move people from export industry into construction and consumer goods. (40M?)

Why can't the current configuration go on forever? Consider China, currently at $250B a year (12% of Chinese GDP) with foreign exchange reserves of $1T (50% of Chinese GDP). In a decade, at the current pace, foreign exchange reserves of $4.5T (110% of future Chinese GDP). Losses on foreign exchange reserve portfolio: to buy dollars at $1=8RMB and then to sell them at $1=16RMB is expensive.

What happens just before foreign central banks abandon their dollar-purchase programs?
What happens just before that?
And just before that?

http://delong.typepad.com/teaching_spring_2006/2007/01/in_condemnation.html

Want to Hear a Funny Trick?

2007-03-27T12:42:00.001-07:00

L&G-

The ideologies of 'feminism' and 'multiculturalism' are set up against [white] Christian male dominance in the world. And their power is your submission; i.e., you must 'buy in' to these philosophies in order for them to be potent, or to have force in guiding behavioral norms. That's just a dash of perspective for your long weekend. Is everybody doing well? I hope so! Chat with me when you get some time. I'll be around!! ;)

XOXO

High School Prison

2007-03-27T12:41:00.001-07:00

L&G-

I think there should be a two-tier public school system for: 1. kids that work hard, achieve and don't have behavioral problems and 2. the rest. This is the beginning of isolating problems in our society. The reason we have backslidden so hard since Brown v. Board of Education is due to the practical ramifications of the [ostensibly] sacrosanct 'integration' reform which has been so devastating to our nation. The smartest kids drop out of [public] high school by the thousands because it is like a prison for them. I'm just getting warm here.

Big Brother

2007-03-27T12:33:00.000-07:00

L&G-

So there was this rage a little while ago about freedom and personal privacy. I wonder why people don't acknowledge the fact that there are citizens among us watching all the time. They are surveying where you move your hand and where you move your foot. They are surveying where you look with your eyes and how you move with your body. They are surveying and also criticizing every word you say and how you say it. These people are vigilantly on watch to catch you in a crime against humanity. They are always watching how you interact with others just trying to shame you into feeling as though you've interacted improperly. These people among us actively and overtly seek to suck the happiness out of us and to make us feel bad. They feel sorry for themselves in public and act like we can't be happy if they aren't happy but inside they laugh at our stupidity. These people are vigilantly watching us to make sure that we remain subservient to their interests and unhappy in public. If we don't bow down, they will 'socialize' us. We are prisoners of the pagans'.

Enough is Enough!

2007-03-27T12:32:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Oh and these people will run a racket to make you feel sorry for them - they reason that they need to act that way to protect themselves. Do you buy into that? Do you really think that people who get easily offended and who are all the time provoking really deserve sympathy? Do you think that adults who act like children really deserve to swamp you with their troubles and drain all your resources (time, energy, money and the like)? Personally, if people make dumb decisions and have bad attitudes, I am sure they will remain in the same circumstances (unless they can fool others into doing the work for them). When people complain about how their circumstances don't change and when they complain about the same crises over and over and over again they are simply not learning from their mistakes. Do you think we should keep people from developing character by protecting them from the consequences of their own actions?

I think that's a great disservice; people need character to carry on in the face of adversity; they don't need a way out every time the going gets tough. We cannot hold all of these walking wounded - these people are not our burden! The next time someone acts like a spoiled rotten child and demands that you do something about their problem or the way they feel, stand up and say, "Well heck [Ma'am or Mister], you've never grown up. That's your problem!"

They Say America Has Lost Its Moral Compass

2007-03-27T12:30:00.001-07:00

L&G-

Add to that, it's backbone as well. America has certifiably castrated those who would otherwise guard and protect America's best interests. We are eunuchs in the palace! Hmm... I hope nobody decides to attack us! Who will stand up to them, people of color? I dare say no. America is synonymous with white Christian dominance in the world and there are lots of people who would rather see us crushed than to even enjoy living fruitful lives among us - sharing in the bounty etc. Unless we cut the umbilical cord of 'protected' status in this Republic and allow the impartial majesty of the law to blindly consider all as equals, we will continue as a ship on the ocean with a hole in its hull. Most ships cannot fill up fast enough to be completely filled with water before they sink all the way to the ocean floor. And any ship that is not completely filled before it sinks will implode in deep waters. We have been heading down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down down for a whole generation and I'm afraid it won't be much longer now. I'm holding my forefinger one centimeter from my thumb and looking through the crack. I say, "We are this close!"

Politics of Accommodation I - (the Anti-Christ)

2007-03-27T12:11:00.002-07:00

L&G-

I just wanted to write a quick note on something that has been simmering in my mind for quite some time. I hear a lot of talk in general from political leaders on the right (such as pastors and bureaucrats) that there is an agenda in America that seeks to defy Christianity and that the worldview of people from this agenda is of moral relativism - i.e., anything can be considered 'truth' as long as [a majority of] people believe it. And this affronts God's absolute sovereignty. It is true that there is an agenda that seeks to undermine God and our biblical/literate tradition in the civilized world, but it is not necessarily one group of people seeking to 'relativize' the truth, as it were. There is no single culprit (e.g., homosexuals) seeking to destroy the foundations for God's perfect order and there is no single culprit seeking to wash away the sanctuary created for God on earth (i.e., the American dream).

America was borne, largely of Protestants seeking freedom from religious persecution - e.g., being jailed for insurrection in England, being crucified as well as burnt on stakes in Spain for heresy - in Europe where freedom of speech and the right to gather peacefully as well as freedom of the press were curtailed. This nation is great not due to compromising its values and its ethics but from staying true to its traditions and it has been blessed, through faith, in obedience to God. We are ascendant and set apart to glorify the name of Christ; we are as a city upon a hill for all to see - a holy example bright and shining for the world to acknowledge the works of his hands. I told you these emails were going to start getting steeped in Christianity - it is the only way for us to solve our problems. We are being encroached upon by the dreaded hand of private violence and the even more to be dreaded hand of legal oppression, not due to the worldviews of homosexuals or any specific target demographic, but due to our politics of accommodation. There is a saying that, "If you give Satan an inch, he'll be a ruler!" There is no specific demographic that threatens our nation's prosperity; rather it is accommodative politics which encroaches upon our liberties.

Let me explain something: civil society is based upon the rule of law and we, as citizens, are each engaged in a social contract of mutual shared sacrifice. We are limited in what we can do to one another by the law - that is what 'liberty' is. If you are running on a mountain pass and you see a hungry predator that wants to hunt you, it's not likely that screaming, "Stop - in the name of the law; I am protected by my human rights liberties!" is going to have any affect on that animals' behaviour. If it wants to eat you and if you are less than capable of defending yourself from an attack (and no act of providence protects you), then you will surely be eaten. In the case of civil society, however, people honor the power of the written word and objective standards govern our social mechanics (e.g., people stop at red lights in traffic; abate their respective inclinations toward murder, theft, etc.). When people invoke the sweet name of 'liberty', consider the cost and God's economy where there is no free lunch. People use [human] 'rights' struggles propaganda to take advantage of each other.

If one specific demographic group is to have [special] 'liberties', then another [specific] demographic group (or the remainder thereof) will have to pay for those liberties. When someone 'takes their liberties' with another person, that is a form of rape, murder, theft - it is really just one person taking advantage of another. Earlier I said that there is no specific demographic group that seeks to undermine God's biblical tradition, necessarily. And furthermore, it is not simply a will of one specific group that asserts a [morally relative] worldview, therefore, the moral/political leaders of America need to focus more broadly, in my opinion, on issues of accommodation rather than targeting specific groups as culprits in America's [ever-increasing] moral failings and ineptitude to defend itself from [foreign/domestic invasion], bankruptcy ( e.g. top-heavy entitlements such as pensions for being an American citizen analogous to the Airlines, all of whom are directly or indirectly subsidized by American citizens' tax dollars via Federal assistance and most of whom are nevertheless going bankrupt) and the like. Essentially, the issues we face are corporative - once people have citizenship (given they've reached the adult age of eighteen and are not convicted felons), they can vote and these enfranchised peoples have power to influence the direction of this society, as well as the way it functions.

Accomodative politics usurps American liberties because it takes away from those who are, as I've previously stated, hard-working and law-abiding - i.e., common people who love God and who love America and who love their families. Bureaucrats, merchant-elites, Hollywood media-elites, Manhattanite International Relations elites and the like, all gain power from having widespread influence. The bureaucrats pander to the widest constituencies possible in order to get the most votes. Merchants advertise in the most provocative manner and in the form that segregates populations into 'target demographics' to create the deepest possible penetration (for market share, brand loyalty, etc.). Hollywood media elites want the broadest appeal for sales, etc. And finally, the International Relations elites want power by association with world leaders for influence, etc. so their agenda is, as the aforementioned, accommodative.

Now the phenomenon of accommodation goes like this: once you give specific groups of people special status and accommodate them accordingly, you are importing trouble. People, unless they are a homogenous collective, bring with them various worldviews, perspectives, belief systems, et cetera, according to the normative traditions attending their respective nationalities*. Diverse perspectives and diverse intellectual thought can add to the creative genius of society and be very productive, if harnessed properly – i.e., if used toward moral ends. It's just as the proverbial encounter states: "Will [one] use power for good or for evil?" However, unrestrained 'diversity' is deviant and counterproductive because it subverts the common order and perverts the collective good (which can take many forms – e.g., economy, politics, military/police protection, culture, etc.).

Once you accommodate people by giving them special liberties, it takes [liberties] away from those who aren't special. And when people are given free reign to exercise liberties, they bring their culture and their traditions and their natural inclinations with them. So, essentially what occurs is we have many different nations in the United States of America that all have special privileges to, basically, act and believe in whatever manner they see fit. The universal rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' outlined in our frame of government include specific statutes declaring the ability [of every person] to speak out, gather peacefully, write and even criticize the government, among other things. These rights are good, but when combined with 'special privileges' for special demographic groups, we have an adverse affect which disallows those without special privileges to practice those same rights and enjoy those same liberties to the same extent (special status creates a supra-class and a sub-class partition with a concomitant order based on those status differences). In economic terms, the now underprivileged get 'crowded out', as it were. And with a loss of privileges comes a loss of moral and political status in society. When you gradually disenfranchise a specific class, you are, in effect, negating the traditions and the order of that specific class.

Back to the point I was making about accommodation: In the main, what we have here is an accommodation of specific people groups and their traditions at the expense of America's host society's liberties and, thereby, America's host society's traditions. So America is slipping into moral decrepitude due to the overindulgence of demographics that pull us away from God, the Bible, et cetera. By accommodating the will of pagans, as it were, we are allowing for the slippage, for lack of a better word, of our own morals, or own ethics, our own traditions, our own order, our own strength – which is God's will, God's traditions, Gods' order, God's ethics, God's morals and God's strength. To the extent we allow non-Christians to lead us astray, God will continue to let America fall into the pits of despair and hopelessness. However, upon a quickening and revival (i.e., enlightenment in the truth of our situation and responsibility to correct it), we can be surely turned around and set on solid ground.

*I say nationality specifically for the purpose of this argument which seeks to set [multiculturalism] in context of the multi-ethnic, multi-traditional realm in which we deal in our day-to-day realities in the civilized world.

Politics of Accommodation II - (the Anti-Christ)

2007-03-27T12:11:00.001-07:00

L&G-

I just want to illustrate the extent of my frustration, but it's hard to do. So I'm going to just make a note right now about a phenomenon that I've recently broached. That is the phenomenon of resistance. It has a lot to do with the differences between men and women. Men are given the power of aggression and thrust while women are given the opposite, or corollary power of governance and checking that thrust to make sure it is properly harnessed and headed in the right direction (with proper intent, given we are logical creatures). I don't think male and female counterparts in the animal world operate on the same basis, but I'm not an animal so I don't know. When you give a woman unchecked power (via special liberty) she will naturally check and cross-check the man ad infinitum to render him powerless to thrust; paralyzed; impotent.

e.g., I was checking into the computer station at the library just now and upon getting up from the chair to walk over to the computer, someone from a protected class was walking toward me. I stopped to check the receipt and see which computer I was going to (also in order to let the person walk by) and that person stopped. So I walked forward and the person walked forward (right into me).

When people have car accidents (e.g., they run into a pole on the side of the road in the middle of the night), police will ask them, "What happened?" To which the person might say,
"Well I ran into the pole." And the police may very well reply by asking,
"What was in your line of sight; in other words, what was the last thing you saw when you ran into the pole?" And, a forteriori, the person will respond by saying,
"The pole."

If you will open your eyes to notice, it will become apparent that society has been divided into two classes and one class is burdened with the obligation of providing, hamstrung, while the other is walking freely, strutting even, accepting the entitlements of said class with impunity. And the obligation is rendered such through the ideology that the class due for entitlements is worthy based on what the other class has made. It is theft. What the class of entitlement sets to do is to make sure that it is not receiving less than its 'fair share' of what the burdened class is producing. This produces a phenomenon of resistance such that the entitlement class is opposed to whatever the burdened class does the former counteracting and besieging the latter. The entitlement class is more concerned with political power rather than solving problems or making social progress.

In fact, there is a euphemism called 'social progress' when the entitlement class avers, "Had enough?", which is intended to suggest oppression and the overcoming of adversity. The euphemism of 'social progress' symbolizes the advancement of special interests at the expense of the body-politic at large. When the entitled class bellows for 'diversity' and 'equality' they are keeping one eye peeled at all times on the burdened class, making sure there are no differences in the allotments between [the burdened] and themselves. If such perception of inequality (or relative deprivation) arises, the entitled class goes on attack to usurp that which has arisen and they split up the spoils based on a cronyist structure (i.e., based on political favors).

There is a saying that laziness and [the ruthless hand of] ignorance lie in the same bed. The reason why the '3rd World' remains poor is because of the ideology that if anyone has gained something, that person should be punished (for having more) and the proceeds should be divvied up, just as I have explained. This disenfranchises entrepreneurship and disincentivizes innovation because, when people cannot keep what they earn and they are duly punished for their gains, what is the incentive to work toward these ends? The answer is that there is no incentive and this is nothing but Satan's cunning ruse to keep people unhappy and at each others' throats. God set up a blueprint for morality in the OT with outward laws - more or less embodied in the Decalogue. Jesus came to inform a large part of the [law's intent] as well as to fulfill the rest.

God sets up boundaries in order to give people their portion, which is property [rights], ergo wealth. God's portion is his people.
God set up morality to basically restrain people from doing things which their evil nature sets them toward. It is this [virtuous] self-restraint that forms the basis of all civil society. That is why, in the civilized world, people have [human] rights and in the barbaric 'developing world' people are treated inconsequentially, as human chattel - esp. women. There are no boundaries among the pagans because people aren't held back by the same sympathies and the same humanity we feel when our hearts are circumcised by God. The American Republic is founded upon principles of Republicanism, or the idea that each individual, in seeking his/her own best interests within the confines of civil law, will advance the interests of the public good. And that, within the confines of the law, each man* should be free to seek his own ends (i.e., job, family, hobbies, etc.).

People, I think, tend to have the notion that the law can give them power. That is wrong; the law cannot give, it can only take away. When people are free under the law, it represents a lack of restraint. Now I mentioned that when people are given 'special liberties', the rest of the body politic has to pay for it because in God's economy, there is no free lunch. Let me use an example to explain what I mean. Consider an airplane, e.g., Southwest Airlines which has the same [coach] seating for everyone with a certain number of seats on the plane and each seat has the same amount of leg room. In order to give one person more legroom (and keep the same number of seats on the plane), you would have to take away the leg room of the others on the plane. If you were going to be 'just' regarding the new distribution, you would have to take away an equal amount of leg room from each of the remaining passengers, or distribute it equally. On the other hand, if more than one person were to require more legroom, you would have to consequently take away the leg room of each of the rest of the passengers, equally, as it were. The only way to get more legroom [for special individuals] is to take away the legroom of the remaining passengers, or, to remove seats.

The law cannot make people more free than no law can (e.g., in a tribal society without government), it can only restrain some less and others more. I wrote an email about police that put a man in handcuffs "...for [his own] safety and for [the policemen's] safety." This suggests that safety lies in restraint. If we can restrain the people who are threatening to us, or those who could pose a threat to society, then we can be more assured about our own safety. Now the ideal of 'protected classes' receiving liberties is such that, the aforementioned are unrestrained while whomever remains [unprotected] is restrained**. The converse, applying the same principle, would be giving everyone 'equal' rights, but taking away the rights of some for the sake of making others safer. The idea that 'protected classes' need more liberty is rooted in the notion that the [unprotected] pose a threat to society. God says that the fate of wild beasts is only to be: 'caught and killed'. Do you know why that is? The rationale is that wild beasts are unpredictable and pose a risk to society; they must be subdued and eliminated.

*man. species, not gender
**restrained...unrestrained. relatively speaking

Dems calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' resignation

2007-03-27T12:09:00.000-07:00

L&G-

My interpretation is: the liberal mafia has marked this guy for a hit job. They want to send the [default, in this case, racial] message that working for Republicans is a no no.

The Devil's three pronged strategy:

1. Negotiation
2. Incrimination
3. Isolation

1. Negotiation: he says, "Hey, come on out here and talk to me!" Satan wants to get a person of integrity wrapped up in a needless conversation and bring that person to the table of compromise. Then comes 2. Incrimination: where he will accuse you of only seeking to enrich yourself, etc. Lastly, 3. Isolation: to get you by yourself where he can break you down (divide and conquer). We have seen this tactic used also for emasculating the Iraq war effort: first came the UN Negotiation dally-strategy followed by the No Weapons Incrimination and finally attacking the Bush-Blair relationship. It's patented.

Civil Rights Racketeering

2007-03-27T12:08:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Just a note: civil liberties advocates use 'oppression' as a pretext for acquiring more liberty, ergo power. When you give people special rights, that's entitlement and license; you make these people (to whom you've granted special liberty) untouchable, as it were. It's tough to be a Christian today because we're expected to be perfect and the more liberties the pagans get, the higher the standards get set for Christians to abide by. Essentially, the double standard gets lowered (for pagans) and raised for (white Christians) commensurately. I use pagans interchangeably with special demographic groups that use (gender and race-based National Socialism) to gain privilege, ergo primacy within the body politic. They use this power to drive the 'unprotected' back and to disenfranchise him, rendering his traditions and his order and his authority null and void.

White men are a minority in terms of suffrages (women plus ethnic groups have way more votes than the singular group of white males) and as such, this distinction has been proper since the laws were changed during the Civil Rights era in America during the baby boomers' coming of age. Today's Civil Rights struggle stands for nothing more than a continued oppression of the majority. By the way, the Legislative Branch is much more powerful than any other branch in government. That being said, extending the rationale that the Executive branch uses its governmental power as a 'bully pulpit' is nothing more than cunning artifice certain legislators use to divert attention from their own ends – i.e., to overtax the society and serve up pork for special interests!

Politics of Accommodation III - (the Anti-Christ)

2007-03-27T11:56:00.000-07:00

L&G-

So I thought that after venting my frustration recently that things had changed. I had adjusted or found a certain amount of repose - enough to calm me down and relax. And things have been fine recently, until today. I went to get my haircut and this Middle Eastern woman took my order and cut my hair. She asked me how I'd like it cut and I told her high and tight. No fuss, she just started cutting my hair. About halfway through the haircut, this woman sneezes and I was just keeping to myself, as usual. No one conferred a blessing on her and I didn't know her or feel very comfortable so I didn't say anything either. She had just been giving some orders to another stylist about some type of drudgery which was to be conducted in terms of a rotation (ostensibly, this stylist was next due), so I figured she was pretty comfortable with her surroundings. Then after she said, "I have allergic reaction," I looked up and saw her wearing a facemask (like the one painters or people in a pandemic wear) then I burst out laughing from shock. Nobody laughed with me and when that settled in my resentments awakened.

Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek." And many of you are probably thinking to yourselves, "What is Nathan talking about?" he is paranoid or crazy! Well let me tell you our enemies rely upon us not picking up on subtleties, or at least not acting upon them. This, I think, would be a good segue for discussing the rule of law in terms of liberty and a responsible body politic. We are free because we are expected to be responsible for our freedom, otherwise liberty becomes license and, as Benjamin Rush stated, 'the temple of tyranny has two doors; we bolted one of them by proper restraints, but we left the other open by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness'. What he means is that monarchy or despotism (government by one through a system of rules or via individual will and caprice, respectively) leads to tyranny. Consequently, by establishing a Republic of, for and by the people, we have avoided [tyranny] on one account. However, the other 'door' to tyranny is rampant licentiousness, or irresponsibility with our rights.

I'd like to proffer that it is not 'us', being white Christians, who are the direct cause of licentiousness and irresponsibility in modern America, rather pagan influence-at-large. We have to put that in check if we want to keep our freedom. Justice is the end of government. Indeed, it is the end of civil-society. If people were angels, we wouldn't need government. If the government were run by angels, we would need the division of powers, checks and balances, etc. We are humans prone to sin and there is a certain amount of accountability we need to take for that. Let's consider a couple of simple questions for context - namely: "Why is the '3rd World' uncivilized? And what makes it so?" The latter I've covered already - it is a lack of moral restraint, ergo depravity which leads to destitution. To the former question, some people aver that inputs (e.g., resources or land or climate) are the cause of development or lack thereof. Humbug. The uncivilized world is so because of the people who live there.

A lack of responsibility with freedom will always lead to anarchy. And in order for justice to be obtained (in a civil society or otherwise), people cannot get away with crimes; they must be punished and deterred, or else government is in the business of creating victims. So, if people are irresponsible with freedom (e.g., if they lack self-restraint and are inclined toward anti-social, anarchical behavior), they will lose it. The government, in order to impose justice in the face of licentiousness, will be forced to tighten down the restraints upon society. If they did not strengthen their mechanism to punish/deter crimes by making rule more draconian, people would be able to finagle the administration [of justice] by impeaching the credibility of courts [of public opinion and of law] via hearsay evidence - e.g., O.J. Simpson citing 'racism' to get away with murder. And, in turn, the artful and designing would live in relative liberty at the expense of those who hold themselves accountable to the rule of law (as in the case of civil society). This, in turn, would create a double-standard in which one class is of debauchees while another is bearing the grudge of responsibility for upholding order. And that is a concept we refer to in economics called 'free riding'.

Free riding creates victims (i.e., those who bear the burden to supporting others who don't 'pull their own weight', as it were). That being said, no government can victimize its people forever without facing an insurrection of some sort. I think I've previously mentioned that bureaucrats want power and they will do whatever is in their power to keep it, including ratcheting down pressure on civil society to maintain order. It is well known that people of warmer climes have more dissolute character than people from cooler climes. In effect, the 'inclusion' of more dissolute characters into a body politic that is otherwise responsible creates a 'ratcheting down' effect on liberty. 'Diversity' subsidizes freedom for the less morally restrained and it costs those who are more inclined toward self-restraint. "Unfair discrimination" is one thing, but let's have a little discernment, shall we? People are different. We don't all act the same, walk the same, talk the same; we don't all have the same behaviors or standards for morality. We don't all believe the same things or hold ourselves to the same levels of accountability (standards are relative). Let's wake up and realize who and what we're dealing with, here. If we don't accept the truth staring us in the face, our beloved Republic will be gone.

Hyphenated Identities

2007-03-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Why do people call themselves and why do journalists refer to people by hyphenated identities that list other geographies/nationalities first before America - i.e., 'African-American' and 'Hispanic-American' etc.? Personally, I see that as a sign of limited fealty to the state. In turn, this begs the question, "Can we trust these people in positions of responsibility where American interests-at-large are at stake?"

Peevish Gangsters

2007-03-27T11:12:00.000-07:00

L&G-

I don't exactly know how to broach the topic, but do you notice how the most irascible characters in our, being possessive of white Christians, respective societies across the globe are also the poorest, most destitute and foul creatures? Consider the fact that God has established certain natural laws that people must abide by in order to receive blessing. Not least of which is the Golden Rule, which is infinitely subtle, ergo having manifold interpretations. One evaluation of the Golden Rule is: "You must give in order to receive." Think about this. If everyone put in their share and took only their share, then there would be enough to go around. Furthermore, if some put in more than they gave (and none took out more than they put in), there would be excess. However, in the case of people not putting in as much as they are taking out, we have the phenomenon of scarcity. Niggardly people make for niggardly resources. And the method for solving the problem of scarcity is not to take away from the generous and give to the niggardly, but to teach the niggardly to be generous. Then economics becomes a matter of supply and demand and, in all fairness, we can make sure that people in need don't go without.

God said in the Old Testament to his covenant nation, Israel, "There should be no poor among you." That was not to establish poverty as some type of crime, rather to establish the fact that when blessings flow, they should be shared with others so that, upon receiving a share of those resources, the kingliness of God would be revealed and people would come to trust almighty God. It is all for his glory and nothing else. God is practical, notwithstanding his divine order which is impossible for imperfect beings to consummately abide in. Accordingly, God has made accommodation for the regular distribution* of peoples with different abilities of acquiring property combined with unforeseen and natural occurrences in which some people fall into [tough circumstances]. In terms of wealth, God says that only a few men** on earth will ever be rich (a relative term). God says that, in terms of property, you reap what you sew. That's basically the final word. Some evil men become rich via corruption and bribery, but these people will pay the price for their deceit and it is not a human, rather God's prerogative to take vengeance. The last commandment in the Decalogue is 'thou shalt not covet'. God says that for a reason; it is a matter of social cohesiveness and providing the greatest good for the greatest number. If people are out on a mission to usurp every private gain from his neighbor, a violent society will ensue and any government based on these principles will collapse just as quickly as it rose (as in the case of a Communist rebellion).

*regular distribution. bell curve; check your stats text
** men. species, not gender

Socialist Feculence

2007-03-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Democratic challengers for the national political heavyweight title (POTUS) want to 'back in' to Communism by offering Socialized Medicine to illegal immigrants, among others, in America which will have more than a few adverse implications, not least of which include:

1. Lowering the quality of care
2. Increasing the wait time through overcrowding the system (e.g., regular doctor visits, emergency room visits)
2. Increasing the cost burden to taxpayers
3. Decreasing the competitiveness in industry which exacerbates problems one through three plus adds an additional burden of reducing innovation in pharmaceuticals (which will reduce the number of and diversity in new life-saving and salubrious drugs).

Essentially, it's just an inroad to accommodation and the destruction of the American way of life. To be sure, Socialism is nothing more than political correctness, which is the decisive anti-Christian agenda of the modern world. Tell me something, what about diversity in the 3rd World? How come there are mainly Asians in Asia? I don't see a richness of diversity which includes many of other types of peoples there that I can see. How come there are mostly Indians in India? And how come there are mostly, if not all, Arabs/Persians/Egyptians in the Middle-East? How come there is not much diversity in Africa except for the missionaries and apartheid in South Africa? How come there is not very much diversity anywhere except in the civilized world? And how come it's okay for people in or descendant of the 3rd World to associate amongst themselves, however, it becomes a crime of political correctness when white people associate [primarily] with other white people? I'll tell you, it's anti-Christian rhetoric draped in incendiary race demagoguery propagated by anti-Christian Socialists. If people were really concerned with 'diversity' rather than just dividing and conquering Christians, there would be a thrust to diversify the whole world, not just the civilized, Christian, developed world.

Gay Rights in the Military

2007-03-27T10:49:00.000-07:00

L&G-

Do you see what happens when you elect National Socialist legislators? All they do is mettle with the lives of citizens, putting up barriers where there should not be and lowering boundaries where they should exist. Let me put this phenomenon in context by asking a question: "Why do we separate men's and women's facilities?" And the same answer should be used to apply to whether gays should be openly homosexual in the military. Let me tell you something. I was in the military and it was enough of a prison culture as it was. Clinton emasculated the military by taking away commanders' right to use physical force with soldiers (even though they're fighting enemies and getting shot at in battle) and that produced the most passive-aggressive environment on the face of the planet. It's mumbo jumbo, people!

Let me compare the lack of necessary assertiveness that exists in society today to a state of purgatory because that's what it is. Nobody really knows where they stand with anyone else because everyone's On Guard! protecting against the possibility of hurting other people's feelings. And this only incentivizes a 'victim' mentality such that people who can gain more liberty, ergo power from being 'oppressed, offended, etc.' will only seek to be offended in order to gain more liberty, ergo power!!! Can I please say this without anyone striking me down? You cannot protect people from themselves except at the most basic level without exacting punishment on natural, acceptable tendencies and turning everyone into robots!!! This attempt to facilitate perfection in the body politic by making everyone 'equal' in terms of abilities and properties and what have you is a totalitarian design for utopia that is nothing but dystopia!!! Please stop!!!!!!