Monthly Archives: May 2011

The Random Thoughts of May

Is there any country Obama is not going to embarrass us in (between his inability to know when to speak during a toast and Michelle’s truly abhorrent dress–I have no fashion sense and even I know that thing is hideous– when meeting the royals this just adds to our embarrassment of giving the Queen an iPod and the Prime Minister a bunch of DVD’s that don’t work in Britain. Oh and how can we forget that Obama returned a bust of Winston Churchill?) Is he angling for the redneck vote by acting like classless trash?
I do not envy the next president’s job at rebuilding our connection with the rest of the world. Under Clinton and Bush the world didn’t like us, but they respected us…now we’re just a laughingstock.

Movies are becoming more and more disappointing. I had such hopes for Hangover II. Yet where the original had raunchiness for the sake of comedy, this just had raunchiness for the sake of raunchiness. Honestly with the exception of Atlas Shrugged (and that mainly for philosophy not for absolute quality of the film) I don’t think there have been any movies that I will be able to put on my top 10 list this year. (And I can think of only two that will make the honorable mention list).

Obama’s comments on immigration are also a disgrace but more on that Monday.

As far as I can tell if there was anything that could have been done when Osama died, if there was anything that could have been done to strike while the iron was hot, we clearly missed it as we did nothing after his end. That would have been the perfect time to start a new offensive against the Taliban or Al-Qaida or something…but no, we did nothing.

Who seriously thinks that Israel can negotiate anything with Hamas? If you raised your hand, you’re an idiot without compare.

Should it surprise anyone that the housing market seems to be on the verge of another crash? It shouldn’t, we didn’t let the market correct itself last time, and the invisible hand will have its way no matter what we try.

This month reminded me why I like Binyamin Netanyahu. Which reminded me I also like Merkel, Cameron, and Sarkozy. …notice who isn’t on that list?

Meanwhile the endlessly entertaining show that is Iran has given us this month’s Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad having to deflect accusations from his opponents that he isn’t Anti-Semitic and having some of his aids being arrested for sorcery. You have to love a country where a politician needs to have his Jew hating credentials and where you can still be arrested for sorcery. Oh wait, love isn’t the right word there. I meant nuke.

According to Michele Bachmann’s Facebook page we are finally getting legislation to let people buy insurance across state lines. Finally!

Oh, and apparently there is also legislation in the works to allow the Amish to sell milk across state lines….because apparently Eric Holder and his Brownshirts in the Justice Department think that the Amish and unpasteurized milk are serious threats to your safety.

Would Sarah Palin please just go away and stop embarrassing us all.

Bill Clinton says we need medicare reform. Given the absolute vindictiveness of the Clintons I wonder what will happen if the GOP nominates a social moderate like Giuliani…perhaps an endorsement designed to only stab Obama in the back.

Oh and how we forget that the Democrat solution to the economy is to raise the top income tax rate to 62%. …I’m speechless at the stupidity of this. Hey while we’re at it why don’t we pass another tariff bill…worked so well right before the Depression.

Hmmm…the value of a creature so poorly designed by nature it exists in only one place and can’t adapt to new conditions vs. making a recession worse. Ohhh, tough call. I’m sorry but species go extinct all the time. They’re supposed to. It’s called survival of the fittest. If they can’t adapt to new conditions they’re not very fit…and as it’s not cute, I don’t give a shit if it lives or dies. I do however care about not destroying the US economy. (Now if you’re talking about the life of one panda vs. the life lives of a billion communists…clearly the panda should live).


Leave a comment

Filed under Budget, Debt, Foreign Policy, Israel, Michele Bachmann, Obama

Weekly Meditation: The 3rd Chakra

Now we come to the all important third chakra, the solar plexus chakra. Why is this the all important chakra? Because this is the chakra that controls will, control actions, controls choice…in short it’s you. The energy that flows through the solar plexus chakra controls how energy flows through all the others. If you can master control of the solar plexus chakra, everything else is downhill and enlightenment is, at most, only a handful of lifetimes away. This is why the Bhagavad-Gita, the most important text in Hinduism is a story about the god Krishna (an embodiment of the sixth chakra, or as yogi Paramahansa Yogananda called it, the Christ-Consciousness) telling the warrior Arjuna (the embodiment of the solar plexus chakra) to go out and slaughter his foes (embodiments of fear and negative desires and habits).

It is the energy of the solar plexus that controls us. When the solar plexus is unbalanced we are fearful, indecisive, unsuccessful, stressed and hateful towards others. When balanced we are calm, determined and decisive—when the energy of the solar plexus is balanced we can take time to consider not only our wants, needs, and emotions from the lower two chakras, but also begin to incorporate the acts of love, creation, and sight that come from the higher chakras.

As the name suggests it’s located in the solar plexus, about 2 inches below the center of the middle of the breast bone. As with all the chakras you should envision it as a c clockwise spinning circle perpendicular to your spine. This chakra happens to be bright yellow, so think of it as looking like the sun.

For this week’s meditation simply meditate on it quietly for about fifteen minutes. Envision it in your mind, look and feel for any dark patches in the in circle and if you find them ask whatever power you believe in to clear those negative thoughts from your chakra.

Leave a comment

Filed under Chakra, Meditation, Solar Plexus Chakra Willpower

Are we all socialists?

So I recently discovered clips from Lawrence O’Donnell’s show on MSNBC. I used to listen to clips from Olbermann (mainly for a laugh) but hadn’t been able to keep up with his replacement as the herald of liberalism on the most liberal news outlet due to work. But then I was able to catch this, this week. And I don’t know if I should laugh or cry. But clearly O’Donnell is not a force for good in this world.

Please watch the clip before continuing.

This man who wants to say that America doesn’t know what socialism means, clearly doesn’t seem to know what socialism means (actually I think he does know what it means and he is just using very old tricks of rhetoric to strengthen his weak case but lets’ assume for the moment he’s stupid and not completely evil).

Now he claims that the definition of socialism is “Socialism doesn’t mean that we’re against making a profit; it just means that government takes over certain things like hospitals, the prisons and the military and schools that shouldn’t be run for profit[.]” First off O’Donnell lies (or is too stupid to understand) when he says that O’Reilly agrees with this definition of socialism—in fact if you listen to the context, O’Reilly, who is actually in his economic politics left of center, is agreeing with the sentiment that government should run those things, not with the definition of socialism.

An accurate definition of socialism is this one from

n. 1. A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Socialism thus has two parts. Part one is the control of industry by the government, as suggested by Bill Maher’s quote. Part two is the distribution of wealth by the government which Maher forget, and O’Donnell quite dishonestly wants you to forget. So actually what Maher’s definition of government taking over certain businesses isn’t socialism it’s what’s called a mixed economy (or as I call it Socialism-Lite). Under Socialism-Lite you take certain aspects of socialism, the running of the post office, schools and hospitals, heavy taxes on certain industries, and regulation which is designed to push the economy to certain goals predetermined by the government, but you also keep some of capitalism (profit, freedom of choice in some sectors, competition). Where socialism ends, Socialism-Lite begins and ends and capitalism begins is not a hard and fast rule. No system of capitalism, even laissez-faire capitalism, can operate without some minor intrusions into the economic system (at least not it if involves more than a handful of people and you want it to last for more than a few years) and even under pure socialist countries like the former Soviet states or Germany under the National Socialists (yes that is what NAZI means) there were still concepts such as private property (if not the de jure sense then at least the de facto sense, and both systems had black markets which are always capitalistic). So there are no pure models to point to. However I would say that right now, under Obama we are in the Socialist-Lite category and have been inching toward socialist more and more for the last couple of decades.

But back to O’Donnell. Keep in mind his whole argument is that socialism is good

“So letting government take over certain thing like hospitals, prisons the military and schools erodes freedom […].” He this as a basic idea that government should run these things and then uses the military as the example of what the government should be doing, implying that the rest follow the same premise. Everyone sane person believes the government should control the military, because that’s why you have a government, that’s why the Founding Fathers were quite clear to create military powers in the Constitution (and why they also included a lot of restrictions on the military)–lots of people who are not socialists believe that the military is a proper function of the government. All but anarchists believe that the military should be run by the government—even the most staunch libertarians state the government is created to provide a military, a police force and a court system, and the basic laws to run those things. But it does not mean that because government should be running the military it should be running those other things. In fact it shouldn’t. Private hospitals offer better care, faster care, and cheaper care than public ones (and Obamacare is causing doctors to leave, to close, and fewer services available). FedEx and UPS are far better than the Post Office. As we have seen California is just doing a bang up job with its government run prisons. And as someone who has worked in education my whole life I can without a moment’s hesitation that as dumb as some of the things I have seen done in charter schools, and I’ve seen some truly idiotic choices made, they are still light-years ahead of the public sector. Hell the dumbest and most unethical person I’ve ever met in charter schools was also a board member for a public school so I’m not sure we can blame all of his idiocy on the private sector. Public education has made people uneducated and dumb, definitely erodes freedom. Public run prisons are just dumping criminals back on the street because they can’t house them…definitely eroding my freedom if one of those people who should have been locked up now attacks me. Public run health care, as we all know, is certainly going to limit my choices, thus it destroys my freedom to choose.

But back to his odd argument about the military, O’Donnell states, “[O’Reilly] thinks the government does a better job at defending the country […] than the private sector could ever do.” This is an interesting statement because it’s not true. We use the military to defend against places that don’t have a capitalist private sector. If those places did have private sectors we wouldn’t be at war with them. I’m a big believer in the idea called Democratic Peace Theory, which states that once every country becomes a democratic-republic (and I will add has a healthy level of capitalistic defense of property and choice) then you won’t have wars because classically liberal democratic republics (which are the only places you have efficient private sectors) do not (and history bears this out) declare war against each other. So actually the private sector is a much better defense against war than the government. It’s just that while we have tyranny we have the necessary evil, as any capitalist will tell you, of the need for a standing military.

Then there is his claim that if government wasn’t in the medical business we would have fewer hospitals and more expensive hospitals. Either he’s lying or he’s an idiot because that is just not true. The more government control, the more Medicaid and Medicare get involved, the more health care costs and the fewer people get into the medical field. If you withdrew government from the equation by half of what it is doing now you would see many, many more private practices, more of the smaller operations and more competition. I’m not saying withdraw the government completely (at least not yet) because society has become too dependent on the idea of city run hospitals and you need to let society begin to develop more private institutions on its own, as the private sector will always fill any need that people have, but government is not the answer to medical problems, it is the problem.

But why does this little rant really bother me.

Because it is the words of a very clever demagogue.

So, what this man does is he ignores the many and terrible evils of socialistic wealth distribution because he knows that is harder to defend. Most people understand that they earned their money and that other people do not have a right to it. But what O’Donnell does is he tries to convince you that you agree with part of his argument, that the government should be in charge of the military (1) and then extends that to other fields (2). He argues that if you agree with 1 you are a socialist. And if you agree with 2 you are a socialist. But this argument is beyond a non-sequitor. You aren’t a socialist if you believe the government should control the military, you’re sane and possibly a capitalist. So point 1 is wrong. And point two is based on the idea that if government controls one thing it should control another, and if you’re not listening for every little logical fallacy a lot of people might fall for that. So it doesn’t matter point 2 is wrong on its face because it’s based on false point one, it’s an old rhetoric trick to get you to agree with point 2. So twice now he’s convinced some of his audience that they’re socialists (when really even if you agree with government run hospitals, schools, and prisons you’re only a mixed-economist). But now he’s got some people believing that socialism isn’t all that bad, after all it supports the things they do. As a good demagogue he has now planted the seed to justify any true socialist policy because that middle ground of America which seems to always be very fickle and very lax in their thinking will think “well, if that’s socialist and socialist was all those things I supported before then I guess I’ll support this.”

It’s a clever trick. It’s an old one too and I salute O’Donnell for being such a skilled rhetorician at using half-truths, distortions, and cleverly hidden logical fallacies.

But sadly we are not all socialists.

We’re not all capitalists either, sadly. But we are not all socialists. And hatred of socialism is quite justified.

I have a lot more to say on this, but even for me this blog is getting long, so let me just say I expect to see future columns on Lawrence O’Donnell. Unlike Olbermann and Krugman this man has a silver tongue that can hide a truly villainous lie between two half truth effectively and I will be pointing out those lies whenever I can.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Economics, Evils of Liberalism, Lawrence O'Donnell, People Are Stupid

The hypocrisy of conservatives and the tea party

So lately I’ve seen friends, both conservative (even some tea partiers) and liberal, posting petitions and reminders to vote or don’t vote, to write to a public official, to save this or that program. The programs run the gambit of education, social services, the arts, law enforcement and from what I consider frivolous to even a few programs that I kind of like. Now for my liberal friends I see nothing wrong with this—they have taken a position that it is the government’s responsibility to provide certain services and to support not cutting those is perfectly in line with that position. I may not agree with their stance, but I find no hypocrisy in their actions. However, to my fellow conservatives, I find a lot of hypocrisy in their stance asking that this or that program not be cut.

As conservatives we think that a $14,000,000,000,000.00+ debt is insane. That taxes are too high. That government does too much. And that it all needs to be cut.

Except for that program I really like. A lot of us seem to add that little caveat. Except the program that I benefit from.

Shame on all of you.

If the debt, taxes, and the size of government are a problem, which they are, then everything needs to be cut. If we hold off on this or that program because we like it and we see that it has some value, well, guess what, someone believes every program out there serves some person. If we keep making exceptions then nothing gets cuts, because oddly enough everything gets put aside and nothing gets done. To try and save your favorite program is to say that you don’t believe that we have big issues with the size of government intrusion into our lives and our economy.

Thus every conservative, every member of the tea party, every Republican needs to find their favorite program. The one that provides them with the most goods, the one they would fight to the death to defend and write to every elected official that this program needs to be cut by 10%…granted you should argue everything else should be cut by 15-20% but your favorite program needs to be cut. I guarantee you, no program at any level of government is currently not filled with pork, with poor accounting, poor expenditure, over staffed, and could easily tighten their belt.

I like the military. But there are a lot of expensive R&D and construction projects that could easily go.

I like education (not the least of which because that’s where I get my paycheck from) but more money HAS NEVER equaled better education. Besides you could easily cut the budget of any school in America without even touching teachers. Trust no Superintendent, with their six figure salaries (sometimes high sixes), is worth more than $80K (if that). No principal in the nation is even close to being worth six digit salaries. Most school administrations are filled with nothing but useless, worthless, time and money wasting excuses for humans. Fire about half of them. There—I probably just saved American education 10% without even touching teachers. Fun fact– charter schools in Arizona get paid less per student than public schools, and yet, charter schools often offer better education. How about we lower the public school funding to the charter school level (remember Admin should go on the chopping block first) and see if we can make the most of what we have and see which system, public or charter, can do the most with the same amount of money. (I bet you’ll see that charters will continue to improve and the public schools with their goddamn unions will just implode).

I like law enforcement…but let’s be honest here, is the highway patrol of any state anything other than a bunch of ticket writing meter maids with guns.

I’m trying to find something I would usually approve of unconditionally that government does…but I’m having a hard time thinking of anything.

My point is that you need to be willing to cut even those parts of the government you like if we are going to get out of our problem. Otherwise you don’t actually believe the basic principles of conservatism and are a hypocrite.

Leave a comment

Filed under Debt Budget, Economics, Problems with the GOP

Nobody understands Science!

This has been a fun week for me watching people who don’t understand science. First Stephen Hawking came out and said that there was no Heaven…not, you know, a scientific assessment that he cannot find evidence of such or that he does not see a scientific necessity for it (although his argument that there is no necessity for God was a little flimsy as arguments against God go)…no he made a statement of fact. A blanket statement that there is no heaven or afterlife. To state that the lack of evidence proves something doesn’t exist is bad science. To say you can prove any negative is logically impossible. Now it may be good science to say that you shouldn’t believe in something if you have no proof for it (even though there is proof of an afterlife and God, just not irrefutable proof), but to make an assertion that there is nothing is just below Hawking’s intellect, but clearly he is forgetting the rules of science and logic. (Of course asking an astrophysicist for metaphysical truths is like asking an architect for an opinion on quantum physics or a linguist for their opinion on politics—they may be right, and they may have evidence, but their credentials make them a layman in the field and they need to prove they know something about the field before you should listen to them. In this case, Hawking is coming up as lacking in a Metaphysics credential). And I would have looked forward to see him take a few philosophical hits…but what came was so much funnier what I expected.

Enter psycho Christian Kirk Cameron, who knows even less about science and logic than Hawking knows about metaphysics. Now, is a man who denies the basics of evolution the best person to criticize anyone on anything? Probably not. But it’s amusing to watch. Two people who either don’t know about the rule of reason (or at least have forgotten for one of them), yelling meaningless statements of illogic at each other. I kind of hope this begins a back and forth shouting match because, like the battle of Stalingrad, it doesn’t matter if anyone wins, just so long as both sides take massive hits it warms my heart.

But this got me to thinking, nobody seems to understand science. Both the wacky conservative fringe and most of the left seems to be utterly clueless as to what science says and what it can say.

Let me start with the idiots in my own party (because maybe if I’m lucky I will offend them and they’ll leave). The wacky Christian Right does not seem to have a very good grasp on biology. Let’s start with homosexuality. It’s a biological trait. The structure of the brain determines whether you like a different gender or your own. What a shock! A biological trait affects how you engage in a biological function. Mindboggling to say the least. Now there may be some gray area over whether this is caused directly by genes or by hormone level while in utero, but any way you look at it, by the time you’re born your brain is set a certain way and you will either like men, women, or both. You don’t get to choose. (This also suggests that the Christian Right does not understand psychology, after all who the hell says to themselves, “Let me pick a lifestyle that will get me ostracized from society because I think it will be fun,” but I would like to stick primarily here to the hard sciences.) Thus it becomes the height of insanity to blame, criticize or ostracize someone for a biological trait they have no control over (would you yell at people for natural hair color? Height? Being born blind? No.) Now if you want to critique some in the homosexual community for rejecting monogamy, that’s fine so long as you critique straight people with the same moral failing and understand that ethical choice is not related to the biological condition. And if you want to scream about how gay pride parades are obscene and simply not doing the gay community any help, please join me in that one.

And while we’re on the subject of the Christian right not getting the basics of biology, let’s talk evolution. Similarities in DNA between species, undeniable evolution of single celled organisms and virus, fossil records and a million other little things point to the undeniable fact that life on this planet is A.) Billions of years old (I love the Christians who try to deny carbon dating, thus showing they have little understanding of chemistry) and B.) that life evolved over time from very simple cells to very complex creatures. That’s a scientific fact. Science and facts come first and faith and belief can justifiably fill in what science and fact do not; it doesn’t get to work the other way around. Now if you want to discuss how science does not explain how lifeless chemicals suddenly became self-replicating DNA cells or how an evolved primate suddenly becomes self-aware, and use Intelligent Design to explain those infinite jumps from one thing to another, fine. Science as yet has no explanation for those things, so the idea of a creator is justifiable. It is not however justifiable to use an Intelligent Designer to explain the shape of a banana…evolution works fine on that one on its own. The jury is out on whether or not evolution completely explains the platypus or, as we all know, it is proof of God’s sense of humor.

Facts first, then belief. If facts contradict you belief…too bad your belief is wrong. You’re more than free to try and prove the facts wrong, but once you’ve failed, be mature enough to admit it.

And liberals I know you’ve been enjoying that flogging of your opponents…but now it’s your turn. Liberals don’t seem to understand the basics of physics and the scientific method. After all, you couldn’t believe in global warming if you had any concept of either. Let’s look at some facts, (and I know to some liberals all facts are created equally, but in my world facts that are true are better than the facts you like to make up to fit your argument). The world got colder around 800 AD, the world got warmer around 1400, it got colder again around 1600, and warmer again soon after that. All without the help of burning fossil fuels. How warm was it before 800? Well there are records of wineries as far north as Lincolnshire. It’s too cold in Lincolnshire right now to grow grapes…so it was warmer than we are now. And remember how water levels used to be higher and thus Iraq was a fertile crescent and not a barren desert…or how Homer describes Troy as a port city (and archeology backs that up) yet when they dug it up it was miles and miles from the shoreline…I guess the water levels have lowered in the last few thousand years…and clearly before the heavy use of fossil fuels. (So really if it’s getting warmer and the water levels are rising we’re just getting back to what the human race was once used to). Oh and then there is the fact that Mars seems to be going through its own warming and cooling cycle at the exact same time as our thus suggesting that warmth on the planets might have some relationship to how much energy the sun is releasing. (And I seriously doubt the fumes from my car are affecting the nuclear reactions of the sun). Global warming is a myth. There is not actual proof of a causation between man and the global climate (however, I will admit building Phoenix in a valley, and covering it all with heat conducting concrete and asphalt was probably not the best idea if you wanted to avoid creating a permanent heat bubble in the summer…but that still isn’t affecting the global climate). But ignoring the fact that causation has never been proved, it’s also the illogical reaction to this. Oh my God it’s getting warmer (or cooler depending on decade)! Well if it got warmer then that would mean you would have more land in Russia and Canada that would be fit for growing crops and human habitation (actually far more land than would be made uninhabitable around the equator). So warming would actually be a net gain. But the other problem is that there has been a 1 degree change over the last century. That medieval warming cooling I mentioned was a variation of 3 possibly as much as 5 degrees. Oh, one degree I’m scared. Global warming is hype designed to sell industries based on green technology. It’s a magnificent con job without any scientific backing. Now if you want to talk about legitimate environmental issues like the low levels of ground water that we have left or the level of pollution caused by dumping chemical in certain areas, that’s fine, that fact based concern about the environment…but give up the man made global warming myth.

And while conservatives think that science explains nothing, liberals make the equally stupid idea that science somehow explains everything. Liberals, like Hawking, like to use science to disprove the idea of God. Hate to tell them this, but science can’t do that. And to try and use it to do that is bad science. On a personal level you can say, I see no proof and thus choose not to believe, but don’t mistake your belief for scientific fact. Just because you’ve found the Higgs—Boson particle or some quasar out in space doesn’t disprove God, no amount of science can (bonus points if you caught the pun in this sentence)…conversely it’d be damn hard for science to prove God, but that’s why it’s called faith and not science. Faith is a legitimate source of knowledge where reason and science offer no clear answer…but it doesn’t trump reason and science.

Oh, and a note on quoting sources. Recently I got into a debate with someone on global warming and he quoted as his proof (I kid you not) Carl Sagan and Jane Goodall (among a few other people who did not have backgrounds or credentials in earth sciences) as scientists who have proved global warming. (In case you’re wondering I quoted as my sources Bjorn Lomberg, David Evens and Michael Crichton (who while not an environmentalist per se, did extensive research on the subject)). And then he yelled at me for questioning what a guy who looks at stars and a woman who lives with gorillas would know about global climate systems. I mean neither of them has a degree in meteorology let alone earth sciences or any background in the field that I’m aware of. He just screamed and went away as if questioning the credentials of his sources was heresy. Clearly this person was a moron…But no more than someone who quotes a book written fourteen hundred, two-thousand, or twenty-five hundred years ago (Koran, New Testament, Hebrew Bible if you’re having trouble matching those years up) as proof for why I should listen to valid scientific sources. In a battle between scientists who are discussing their actual field and people who are not scientists the experts should win unless you have a damn good reason to ignore them (like the claims of bias and greed made by climate scientists who point out that you will go broke trying to disprove man made global warming, but will be very well funded if you say the myth is truth).

I think everyone needs to go back, take a few hard science courses and learn what science does and does not say. (And this coming from an English Major).

Leave a comment

Filed under Environmentalism, Faith, People Are Stupid

Obama, Anti-Semite –In-Chief

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.”—John Kennedy [Italics added]

“As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself [.]”

We seem to have come a long way from Kennedy’s supposed policy of defending any friend, to Obama saying, “hey you have the right to defend yourself, on your own, as in if all those crazy Islamic countries I’m so in love with want to attack and slaughter you, I really won’t raise a finger. But you have the right to give it the old college try at defending yourself.”

Now should the U.S.’s policy be unconditional support of Israel? No. I’m not thrilled with the lack of capitalistic protections in Israel, and there are other little things I think Israel could make serious improvement when it comes to their system…and you know, someday, when they’re not having their very existence threatened by every country around them they might get around to making those improvements. However, while the U.S. should not unconditionally support Israel in everything it does, we do have a moral responsibility to help support every democracy against terrorism.

“But, but” the liberals whine, “Palestine is a democratic government.” Palestine is a government where Hamas, a terrorist organization whose charter calls for destroying Israel and killing the Jews, is in the majority, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, whose has always called for the destruction of Israel, exists under their new name of Fatah. So the majority government calls for the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews, and the opposition party calls for the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews. One has to wonder where these two groups actually disagree on anything. Using ovens or just shooting them? Does it surprise anyone that this part of the world was having excellent diplomatic relations with Germany in the 30’s and early 40’s? So while this government may have been elected democratically, just as Hitler was, it is by no means a democratic government. It’s a terrorist organization. The popular vote just makes the people of Gaza and the West Bank as morally guilty as those of Germany in the 30’s. And anyone who dares to call Palestine a democratic government defiles the term suggesting that democracy is not a set of classically liberal principles set up to protect and defend the natural rights of humanity, but rather just a form of theater, that so long as the public forums are continued, any atrocity may be carried under the name of that show.

Anyone with a brain and conscience can see who deserves most, sorry ALL, of the blame in this conflict: The people in the West Bank and Gaza. When you act like terrorists, elect terrorists, hide terrorists, and support terrorists, you are a terrorist. And you don’t deal with terrorists diplomatically. You kill them.

Perhaps if we demand anything of Israel we could demand that the Palestinians get a real government and not a terrorist organization. That would only be fair. But not for an anti-Semite like Obama, who I am sure in his heart of hearts wouldn’t mind seeing the furnaces started up again.

But that might be asking a bit much of Obama. Perhaps my claim of his anti-Semitism is unfounded.

After all this is a man who sat for years in Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-Semitic screeds without once being offended.

This is a man who called Israel defending itself by stopping a weapons shipment reaching the West bank “tragic.” …That’s how I’m sure we all usually respond to the killing of terrorists hell-bent on genocide, “tragic”…oh wait, no most of us smile when terrorists die. If you watch the clip also he blames Israel for Palestinian economic problems…and not, you know, the Palestinian desire to elect a terrorist organization.

Nominating an anti-Semite to the National Security Council.

How about backing that wacky Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, and Libya? A group, which as its name suggests, is not going to be friendly to Israel because they have a long standing history of talking about how evil the Jews are (or maybe the Muslim Brotherhood just believes in showing both sides of the argument, that’s why they distribute copies of Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Arabic wherever they can…no, they’re about as Anti-Semitic as you get). What’s really interesting here is that Obama can’t help the anti-Semitic rebels enough…but remember a year or so ago when he let the Iranian protesters just get killed without doing much of anything…maybe it was because they were protesting against Ahmadinejad, a devout Holocaust denier.

I could go on, but you get the point.

One piece of evidence could be written off as a fluke or random chance, as something where we didn’t see the larger picture that Obama did. But when every single action that directly or tangential deals with Israel or the Jewish people, Obama is dead set against….well the conclusion becomes all too clear: Barrack Obama takes his place among other such names as FDR and Carter as an anti-Semitic President of the United States.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Evils of Liberalism, Foreign Policy, Israel, Obama

Laws for the GOP to pass #28 How to deal with Foreign Aid

I’ll fully admit that I’m not anywhere near original as this is already being proposed in Congress, but I feel it does deserve some public notice.

So apparently, when we vote for international aid it’s a single huge bill sent to Congress. We want to give X dollars to countries A, B, C, through G. One bill. So all the aid for Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Ireland, and Mexico is in one bill. They may have later bills every year for more money, but the powers that be like to try and get everything in as few bills as possible.

This is insane.

Congress needs to take countries each on their own.

Now granted, foreign aid is an incredibly small portion of the budget and taking out a few countries isn’t even going to make a major difference. But, first of all, remember I have a death of a thousand cuts philosophy to the budget—if you make enough small cuts on every aspect of every program you’ll eventually have a huge amount of savings. And on a second issue, some countries don’t deserve a dime from us.

For instance I have a link here to the U.S. list of countries we give aid to.

It’s a strange list.
2009 2 Billion to Egypt…to a dictator so he can be overthrown by terrorists. Money well spent I’m sure.

1 Billion to the Sudan. I think some bombs on the people committing genocide would have been more effective and cost less.

900 Million to Pakistan…the smartass remark is too obvious for me to need to write it down.

900 Million to Palestine…so the terrorist run government can plot the 2nd Holocaust.

800 Million to Russia…so they can help Iran develop a nuclear reactor.

33 Million to Mexico…to help print pamphlets on how to leave their country and have another country pay for all of their healthcare and childcare costs.

22 Million to China…to help repress the people and torture Tibetan monks.

Now, am I going to say all the money we spend is wasted? Yes. I am. The U.S. government couldn’t spend properly if it tried. But I will admit that some of that money is not necessarily going into the pocket of dictators to help fund the murder of innocents…in those countries, it’s often going into the pocket of corrupt bureaucrats to fund their retirement in an equatorial non-extradition country. But the point here is we should be looking at each country separately.

Ireland? Probably not.

Iraq? Yeah, we blew the place up pretty good, the least we can do is to pay for the cleanup.

Palestine? No. Hell no. Not in a million years do those terrorist deserve a dime…now if we want to discuss lots and lots of ordinance, I’m open to that expenditure.

China? Only if it’s paying off debt. And I still maintain that all the copyright violations, trade mark infringement, and industrial espionage that’s all but funded and sponsored by that corrupt government should just cancel out what we owe them.

The long list of sub-Saharan African countries? Eh. I don’t think our money is actually doing any good…but I have no ethical problems other than my concerns over the pragmatics of it.

But we should not have to have an all or nothing bill. Each country’s aid should go up separately. And each country should get an up or down vote in both houses, and the White House should have the opportunity to veto any country’s individual aid. (Although, if we do that I’m betting five bucks the Obama, otherwise known as the Anti-Semite-in-chief, would veto all of Israel’s funding, but while it would mean Israel would go without funding for a year, getting that asshole to show his true colors might be worth it).

Leave a comment

Filed under China, Foreign Policy, Government is useless, Laws the GOP should pass

Polls, Rapture, and the Zombie Apocalypse…or People Continue to Be Stupid

13% believe that Obama wasn’t born in the US.

36% have a positive view of socialism (17% of Republicans have a positive view of socialism!? How does that happen?)

One in five believe Osama Bin Laden is still alive.

The CDC needs to address disaster preparedness by warning people of the zombie apocalypse. (If it takes a warning about zombies for you to prepare for any disaster you don’t deserve to survive a disaster…natural or zombie).

And according to some sources the rapture is this Saturday. (On a side note, whether it does or doesn’t occur we can all agree that this little pagan will not be taking part. And a question…when the rapture occurs and takes the souls of the believers to Heaven, will their bodies be left soulless thus starting the zombie apocalypse?*)

And of course there is the 10%-20% in every poll who have no opinion.

Obviously there is a portion of humanity that is quite frankly too stupid to live. But as we can’t go about killing these morons, as stress relieving an experience as it might be, I think we can all agree that these idiots should not be allowed to answer poll questions and/or vote—especially the 10% that never has an opinion until they seem to get into the voting booth and, I’m guessing, flips a coin. (Have you ever noticed that even the day before an election, even in a poll that is asking only likely voters, there is still 5% that lists themselves as undecided? Undecided? All of campaign season and you still haven’t made up your mind? How is that possible?)

I suggest a simple questionnaire everyone needs to answer before they can answer poll questions. The questions are as follows

Does 2+2=4? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is the world round? Yes /No/ No Opinion

The sky is blue? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is the President of the United State (enter name of current occupant)? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is drinking bleach bad for you? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is hot coffee dangerous to spill on your lap? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is it true that a zombie apocalypse is impossible? Yes /No/ No Opinion

Is O.J guilty of double murder? Yes /No/ No Opinion
(Yes that last one is a little dated, but it’s still a self-evident truth, and its inclusion keeps idiots like Alan Colmes from voting).

You know some basic common sense questions.

If you answer incorrectly or you have no opinion clearly you are not qualified to answer poll questions and/or vote. This is a public safety issue.

I will all but guarantee that, even if we publicized that the correct answer for every question is yes, 10% of the population will be taken out of the voting populace from making incredibly stupid voting calls…

And if we were looking to take out the crazies we could add the following three questions:
Is homosexuality not a sin? Yes /No/ No Opinion (To take out the crazies in social politics)
It is true that socialism never works? Yes /No/ No Opinion
(To take out the crazies in economic policies)
Is it true that in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Israeli’s are the good guys? Yes /No/ No Opinion
(which takes out everyone who has no ability to judge foreign policy correctly).

*In case my sarcasm wasn’t thick enough and I want to make it clear that I think the odds of having to deal with a zombie apocalypse are somewhere far below zero.

Leave a comment

Filed under People Are Stupid

Here We Go Again, Or, How to Ruin a Ruined Economy.

So, as I’ve discussed in a previous blog (and as others can testify to) one of the primary catalysts for our current economic woes was the sub-prime housing market. A government forced program whereby banks were at first forced to give loans to people they knew could not pay them back because the federal government threatened to sue and prosecute/persecute them if they did not make these loans (and once it was clear the banks couldn’t win, the bankers took on an attitude of “well, if we’re going to be forced to lose money, I’ll get mine while I can”; Not exactly ethical behavior, but certainly predictable human behavior). Was the subprime housing market the only cause? Hell no. You had an entire economic system ruined by government welfare, subsidies, lack of regulation in the right places, over regulation in the wrong places, and truly idiotic interest rate and monetary policy from the Federal Reserve.

Among other things, this led to an inflated economy on a whole, and an obscene bubble in the housing market. Now when that bubble burst for the first time, we had our current little woes. The problem housing prices are still in a bubble and we have at least one more bubble burst and massive drop in housing prices left (and I will support this claim in a minute). Now there are two ways to handle this. The first way would be the socialist way of using the government to throw money and subsidies and regulation at the problem trying to stop the problem. The flaw with that system is that you can’t stop the problem, and trying to stop it only makes the eventual bubble burst even worse. (If Greenspan hadn’t fiddled so much with interest rates back in the 90’s and just let the dot com bubble hit America full force we might have still had a housing market crash, but it wouldn’t have been so bad…and if the government hadn’t done a thousand other things we would have had minor little quarter long recessions in this or that sector over the last couple of decades, but not the system wide failure we have going on right now). The other ways to deal with this is the capitalist model—do nothing; take the hit from the bubble burst, tighten our belts one more notch for a while, but come out still on our feet. The capitalist model will have the hit coming sooner, but it will be like getting sprayed with a lawn hose in the face; annoying but tolerable. If we go with the socialist model, it won’t hit as soon but it will feel like being hit with a fire house at close range…and whether we will get up after that is anyone’s guess.

So which way is the Obama administration going? Is it really that hard to guess?

Well let’s look at a few facts.

Fannie Mae, you know the people who in cahoots with Freddie Mac, helped engineer the entire sham that was the secondary loan market for sub-prime loans which was a chief cause of the housing bubble and its ultimate demise, is asking for more money from the government. $ 8.5 billion in fact. Now, sadly we’ve reached a point where billion is not a large number. But that doesn’t mean it’s still not a problem. What do they need billions of dollars of tax payer money for? Why, to help bailout people who can’t pay their mortgages. This brings up two points in itself. If people are still defaulting on their housing payments anyone with a few working synapses and basic understanding of economics (i.e. not anyone in or around anyone in D.C.) would tell you this means that housing prices are still higher than what the market will bear. Add in a couple more synapses and you will see that if prices are higher than what the market will bear, then prices are about to drop, ergo another bubble is about to burst. If it’s going to burst then throwing more money at it isn’t going to solve the problem. But it appears that the Obama administration is more than willing to throw your money away (after all it’s not his money). Throwing more money at it will only allow the problem to grow, meaning that more people will be hurt when the bubble bursts again. But what did you expect from the loser-in-chief? Sound economic policy?

But it gets better.

One of the other problems that led to the market crash was the suing of banks under the Community Reinvestment Act. This was suing banks by claiming they weren’t making enough loans to people in low income areas. Now an intelligent person would look at that statement and think, “They’re probably not making loans in low income areas because, low and behold, people in low income areas have low incomes and can’t afford the payments even on a cheap house. Why should they shell out the banks money (i.e. the money of bank’s customers) to a person who can’t pay them back.”? And I’m not talking about people who may not have large amounts of credit or can leave a huge down payment; I’m talking about people who would be turned away for a loan from the Bailey Building and Loan. You and I would call not making these loans common sense. Liberals like Barrack Obama call it racist (No I really can say that Obama did this because he was one of the lawyers who sued Citibank on grounds that they were being racist for not giving enough loans to minorities).

Now, as economist Thomas Sowell points out, if the banks were being racist you would be able to see it really easily. If they were racist then they would only be giving loans to minorities who have twice as good credit and a higher down payment than they would to white people…which in turn means that the minorities should have a lower rate of default on their loans. But low and behold the default rates of whites and minorities was statistically the same before the banks started getting sued under the provisions of the CRA. So what that really means is that the banks were judging people only on their credit scores and incomes (the closest thing a banker has to judge the content of one’s character). But facts and logic have never stopped liberals from suing people for being racists. They sued. The banks seeing they couldn’t win just gave in, and decided if they can’t make money long term for the bank and the investors, then they’ll make money for themselves in the short run and screw the investors. And we have a bank collapse.

So knowing this it would take a level of idiocy beyond the acting abilities of Cliff Robertson to want to repeat suing banks under the CRA to give more subprime loans, three guesses what the Obama Administration has started doing? If you said they’re suing banks to force them to give subprime loans, you’re a winner (only, not really, because this is likely going to destroy whatever wealth you still had left over from the last bubble bursting)!

Either the Obama Administration is very, very stupid or they are sociopaths out to intentionally destroy the U.S. economy. And since I don’t give Barrack the skill to be a Bond super villain it must be that these people are idiots beyond comprehension. God help us all.

1 Comment

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Long Term Thinking, Obama

Laws the GOP Should Pass #27: Organ Donation

This week’s law is once again brought to you by Health Care. Health Care: The problem that has a million right ways to solves it, and Barack Obama has yet to find one of them.
This week we’re going to again be dealing with something that’s more of a state’s rights issue and will require 50 individual states to enact it but will also yield major benefits in the healthcare industry.

Before we proceed I want you to you take out your driver’s license. Does it say organ donor? No? SHAME ON YOU! (If you did check off the organ donor part you will of course understand the shame people who didn’t should feel). But this comes to my point how many people don’t check off the organ donor section because they just don’t think about it. A lot. Most people who don’t check off the organ donor box do it because they’re apathetic, not because they have some insane religious belief. (And I will maintain any religious requirements on what happens to a body after the owner has given up residence are insane. Why on Earth would God blame or punish you on what happens to your body after you’re no longer there. That would be beyond insane. Now some religious people might counter that it’s an injunction for the living to show respect to those who have passed…but again I can’t see God caring more about you showing respect to the dearly departed than showing respect to the almost dying who could be saved by a heart transplant. To assume God would be against using corpses for organ donation is to assume God is irrational and cruel—(neither of which I assume he is.) So why should we waste those organs just because people are apathetic? Let’s get rid of the requirement of having to be registered with the National Donor Registry and just assume you wanted to help people who could still live.

I suggest all states change their laws to be that we will assume we can use all your organs, donate your body to science and burn the rest unless you or your family objects. Instead of checking the “organ donor” box people will check the “do not use my organs” box (I would prefer it to read “I am so selfish I would rather kill people just out of spite” box…but I don’t think we could get that passed) and give a year period for everyone with wacky religious beliefs to get their new cards. Obviously if your immediate family (and only immediate family, we all have the wacky distant relative who has converted to the craziest sect they can find) wants to keep your body whole, or wants to put what’s left in the ground, no questions will be asked. But we will simply change the basic assumption toward organ donation. Now will some families still object, yes–but this change will make it less socially acceptible to object because your immediate (and only immediate) family has some rather bizzare attachment to the useless husk that you are not longer inhabiting.

This will save a lot of lives. It should also moderately drop the cost of organs (which is currently insanely high) as while I’m sure most of the cost comes from medical costs of searching for viable candidates (which should actually drop), harvesting from cadavers, and transportation (which might also drop as you’re now much more likely to be close to a viable organ) so even capitalism doesn’t suggest that the prices will go down a lot…but a glut on any market will always drop the price and I can’t see this as being completely outside of the basic rules of supply and demand.

It’s not going to affect costs a lot, but it will affect quality of care as hundreds (perhaps thousands of more people) will live…and isn’t that one of the main cries about helping people live better lives when it comes to healthcare reform?

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of collecting organs that would otherwise be thrown away, I have heard that if laws were changed and allowed to save and store the blood in umbilical cords which is otherwise thrown away, we would always have enough blood for necessary transfusions. I have not heard this confirmed by a medical expert and I can imagine several medical reasons why storing and reusing such blood might not be medically safe…however if there is no medical impediment to reusing umbilical cord blood shouldn’t laws be changed in favor of it. Do I have any doctors who read this blog who can give me a reason why we can’t use that blood?

Leave a comment

Filed under Health Care, Laws the GOP should pass


So let me get this straight…
According to liberals,

Waterboarding (which isn’t really torture)= bad

Killing unarmed guy (who I don’t deny deserved it)= good

So when liberals watch 24 it’s the terrorists who are the heroes and Jack Bauer who’s the villain? (Same goes for Magnum Force, was Dirty Harry the bad guy?)

Am I the only one confused?

Leave a comment

Filed under liberal arrogance, Obama, War on Terrorism

Laws for the GOP to Pass #26: Let’s Declare War

One of the strangest things the week following Bin Laden’s death has revealed is some very odd reactions. None stranger than the comments I have seen in several places “Now that he’s dead, can the soldiers come home.” There are a lot of insults about liberal naïveté here, I’m just going to skip them and get to my main point. We need to start declaring war again.

We haven’t declared war since WWII…yet somehow there have been actions in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya and half the Caribbean. Now I’ll admit that the problem of modern warfare do not always allow for a formal declaration of war to proceed to hostilities….but what we’ve come to is having military actions that can span multiple administrations and thus dependant on the whim of whoever is in the office (and their whim is often dependant on the whim of the latest polls). This is not how you conduct a cohesive foreign policy. We need to start having declarations of war.

We need declarations of war which defines goals that we wish to accomplish, and conditions for the ending of a state of war….after all when exactly will we be done in Afghanistan? Given the BS of Presidents Carter (for letting the Soviets take over), Bush (for not going in and rebuilding after the collapse of the USSR), Clinton (for letting the Taliban gain power), Bush (for not going in with a plan) and Obama (for having a bipolar policy of doing everything and nothing) that country is so screwed up it will literary take us generations to fix all their problems…do we want to stay in Afghanistan for generations?

What should those conditions for leaving be? Usually it should be something like unconditional surrender (unlike what we did in Iraq where we literally let the army go off and do their own thing) or there not being anyone left alive to surrender (which I really think should be our policy with the Taliban, since they are far beyond the capacity to reason and be dealt with in any civilized manner).

But more importantly the reason for this is that Congress has let the power to declare war, a power given by them and only to them by the Constitution to the President. Giving this kind of power to one person is far far too dangerous and far far too short sighted to be practical. Congress needs to either declare war in Afghanistan and Libya, reasserting this is their power and not the president’s (any president’s, this is not just a problem with Obama) or they need to pass a law ordering the immediate withdrawal from both theaters (honestly, I think we’ve botched these area so much it might just be best to carpet bomb the enemy controlled area and leave).

This will have the advantage of putting more oversight on any war, requiring more planning, and making it clear what our objectives are and when we can and cannot leave.

Leave a comment

Filed under Laws the GOP should pass, Tyranny, War on Terrorism

In Defense of the Possibility of God

I recently got into an argument with an atheist (it’s not that hard to do, they are not reasonable, are arrogant and think they are reasonable, it’s the perfect recipe for argumentative idiots). The short version of their argument was that I could not prove that God existed, thus such a belief was based on faith, ergo false. There are several problems with this, which my interlocutor did not wish to acknowledge. 1.) That his belief that there is no God wasn’t based on faith, after all he couldn’t prove God didn’t exist, 2.) That faith is not a perfectly logical basis for belief where reason does not offer an answer and 3.) That a lack of definitive proof doesn’t mean that I have no proof for my position. I’ve dealt with the arrogance of atheist faith already. That faith is a legitimate basis for belief where reason offers no answers is obvious as from a just a prima facie case (especially where you need an answer to proceed), but I would like to deal with that third point. Yes I do not a have a perfect argument for existence of God that proves the existence of such an entity that is self-evident once you read it…but I do have evidence that the preponderance of which greatly suggests the existences of something greater than this bag of flesh and bone, and this we call God. And it is this evidence which strongly suggests that something is there is what justifies my faith that fills in the blanks that the evidence cannot.

I’ll begin with the famous argument. The argument by cause. Best recounted in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Five Fold Proof of God (you should read it) it goes something like this: Everything is caused by something else. Where did the egg come from? A chicken laid it. As anyone who knows this problem you quickly reach the problem of an infinite series of chickens and eggs going back for an infinite amount of time or you have to have a first cause. A first cause is something that simply is, always has been, and needs no cause in or of itself. It’s an either or. You either have an infinite series of causes going back for all time (which seems to violate everything we know about physics) or you have a First Cause that exists out of time and out of the physical world. I mean most scientists will go back to the Big Bang as the first cause…but what caused the Big Bang? Same problem comes up when you use all those wonderful multidimensional, quantum mechanic, holographic universe explanations…what started that? Whatever started it we call God.

However while the argument by cause gives a logical reason to believe in some kind of creator, it doesn’t tell us anything about said creator. It could be Cthulhu for all we know.

Further there is a second form of the argument by cause called the argument by design. This argument has been overused by a lot of morons who can’t accept that the modern theory of evolution does explain just about every form of life on Earth all the way from the first cell to highly evolved primates. It explains all the myriad of variations and cool adaptations. Even the weird ones! (Okay the platypus does show God has a sense of humor, but evolution can explain how something like that could be created by natural means). However, evolutionary theory does have two really big problems. The first is that jump from random chemicals to self replicating cell. That’s an infinitely large jump there…and if you go watch Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled it’s endlessly entertaining watching atheists try and explain how only science is needed to make this infinite leap. The other problem that evolution can’t seem to describe is that jump from very bright primate to self-aware homo-sapiens that can think in abstract terms. It’s again another infinite jump science can only explain by saying our self-awareness isn’t all that special (i.e. deny self-evident truths, more on this later). These two massive jumps seem to indicate the presence of something intelligent at the very least had a hand in the first cell and then said “Let there be evolution” and then lent another hand for that spectacular jump between primate and human.

There is also a certain problem of physics. I have been told by friends who are physics majors that the Big Bang does present a bit of a problem for physicists. The problem is that if there had been one-one-billionth of a percent more antimatter created in the bang than there was that the explosion would have driven everything so far apart that nothing would have ever formed together into galaxies, stars, planets, and us and if there had been one-one-billionth of a percent less antimatter created then there would not have been enough energy to drive the universe apart and the whole thing would have collapsed in on itself. I am not a mathematician or physicists so I can’t say with absolute certainty that this is true, but if it is, boy did we hit the interstellar lottery. (Three times, creation of the universe, random chemicals form a functioning cell, jump to self-awareness). Or perhaps there was some intelligent force nudging us in the right direction at the right times. (Oh, if you get in to theoretical physics there is also this problem that time, which relativity teaches us is as fluid as any other dimension, only seems to move forward when there is no particular reason it should…now why would that be?)

So I can suggest existence and intelligence, but is this all I’ve got? Nope.

I have this fascinating thing called near-death experience. I’ve blogged on this before, but here’s a quick recap: Near-death experiences are a fascinating bit of proof. People who have near-death experiences come back with information, about the real world, that occurred at a distance they could know if they were alive (knowing things that occurred miles away) sometimes with knowledge they couldn’t have information to (the blind can come back reporting they’ve seen things, things that can be accurately described and verified) all while they’re brain dead and there are no electrical signals going through any part of their nervous system. Neat trick…or it could be that the soul exists and continues after death. And if there is a soul not bound by death, it certainly suggests something even greater than just the physical universe…like, I don’t know, God.

Then you add in research into reincarnation and past life memory that can’t just be easily dismissed. You add in all those wacky aspects of quantum mechanics which suggest that thought affects reality, which in turn logically suggest thought, like the soul is not bounded by the physical universe. And that research shows prayer does actually have an effect on recovery from disease and surgery. All of this seems to suggest some higher purpose in the whole existence thing doesn’t it?

Put together, I’ll admit that it’s not incontrovertible…but honestly it does seem to suggest that it is likely that something along the lines of God exists. Certainly the evidence seems to lead more to there being something than there being nothing. Certainly it doesn’t indicate which religion’s conception (if any of them) is correct…but atheism seems to be lacking on counter evidence.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”


Filed under Atheism, Faith, God, New Age

Another Round of Friday Reading

So here are some highlight from the week that you make have missed with all the coverage of Osama and Obama not spiking the football while going to Ground Zero.

Andrew Klavan On Conservatism in American Fiction.
This one is a bit long, but if you have 40 minutes to listen to the lecture I would suggest you do. I don’t agree with everything he says (I think he give too much credit to 20th century writers as being worth a damn) but he have to love statements like “Ayn Rand is a wonderful philosopher, a terrible novelist, but a wonderful philosopher.”

Seven Reason to Oppose Higher Taxes. Title says it all.

Teachers push Marxist Agenda. Wow. Wow. I love how they use they suggest critical thought leads to Marxism with a straight face. For the rest of us who are, I don’t, sane, Marxism and critical thought are diametrically opposed. Anyone still think we don’t need to fire a shitload of teachers in this country?

Our Kind of Class Warfare by P.J. O’Rourke. Always have and always will love the

San Francisco wants to outlaw circumcision. You know it was bad enough when it was the wacky Christian right that wanted to tell us what we can do with our genitals…now the Anti-Semitic left is getting in on the fun…yes I do believe this is being motivated by the Anti-Semitism that permeates the left (just look at Obama’s willingness to sell out Israel at any turn). Up next in the city by the bay: All Jews will have to wear stars on their clothes.

Thomas Sowell on the Economy.

Most sane people know that when two or three Arab terrorist organizations get together it’s just means that it’s going to be a bad day in Israel. But for Jimmy Carter, this country’s most famous Anti-Semite, it’s a good day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Books for Conservatives, Capitalism, Economics, Reading Suggestions, Teacher's Union

Paul Krugman almost gets it right…almost….

Good lord in heaven. Paul Krugman is almost right about something…it’s a damn good thing I don’t believe in the Book of Revelation or I just might count this as a sign of the apocalypse.

Let me explain in his latest article “Falling Dollar Phobia” he points out that just because the dollar is falling isn’t necessarily bad because it can lead to more exports being bought which in turn will raise the economy. On this he is right. Although he states it as a fact and the truth is that it’s only a possibility. The problem with this is that the economy is never dependant on one single variable. Just because the dollar weakens doesn’t mean that we will export more. If for instance the rest of the world is also doing poorly, which it is, then exports might not go up.

Krugman doesn’t seem to realize that the falling dollar itself isn’t a problem, it’s a symptom of a much bigger issue. Issues like bad business policy, bad tax policy, bad spending policy, bad foreign policy, bad credit rating, and the very big possibility of more economic bubbles to come shortly. But why should Paul deal with that when he can actually sound sorta kinda like he knows what’s he’s talking about.

Then of course there is his flip statement about why should we be worried about the dollar when we have unemployment to worry about. Technically a good point. Bad point when raised by someone whose theory of how to fix the economy is to have the government throw more money at it. Has Krugman ever proposed measures that would actually lower medical insurance costs for employers? Nope, he wants ObamaCare which will bankrupt everyone. How about simplifying the tax code? No. How about less useless red tape? How about less BS environmental regulation that does nothing to help the environment? Weakening unions? Support charter schools so the American populace will be better educated? Lower welfare payments? Nope, no and uh-uh. Paul, it’s great you can see we have an unemployment problem…now all you have to do is admit that you and your cronies are part of that problem.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Debt, Economics, Paul Krugman is an idiot