Tuesday, September 30, 2008

The End of the World

To take a spiral dynamics perspective on what seems to be happening right now, we may be on the cusp of moving into an integrationist society, like toward the beginning of the 20th century, we moved into an egalitarianist society in many places (ranging from soviet-style communism to welfare statism), and into the classical liberal society after the Renaissance (moving from the authoritative period prior). But those were all little jumps -- this one, if it is coming, is going to be a major jump. The end of the world? In a real sense, yes. The Mayans and many others have predicted the end of the world in 2012. I'm beginning to think more and more that they are correct. The end of the world, though, simply means a major transformation of the world into something truly new. A social jump from first to second tier would certainly qualify. The art of such a level, I would suggest, would be integrationist, like the dominant (in social power, not numbers) psychology and new society. If I am right, I do hope that I am both part of the cause of the end of the world, and part of the new world as well.

1999 Article on Fannie Mae Predicts Current Crisis

Here is an article from 1999 talking about Fannie Mae pressuring banks to offer subprime mortgages under pressure themselves from Bill Clinton. The CEO at the time was Raines.

"In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''"

How interesting -- a free market economist predicted this would happen. Well, it's not so much interesting to me as expected. Seeing that a free market economist predicted this, it doesn't sound much like a market failure as a government failure. Again.

What I Would Do

To solve this economic problem over the long-term, I would pass an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the federal government from being involved in the economy (leaving the state governments to provide whatever economies they wished), eliminate 95% of all non-military spending (I figure at least that much is un-Constitutional), and tell companies that they are all on their own, to profit or sink as their decisions may cause. I would certainly never go into debt to bail out billionaires and their companies, which will result in the government either printing money, resulting in high inflation, being in debt to foreign countries like China, who we do NOT want to default on (talk about a good reason to go to war with us), or raising taxes in the U.S., which will only hurt the poorest in this country through higher prices for goods (the rich and companies don't pay taxes -- they just pass the costs on in higher prices) and harm the economy.

Chavez and Obama Agree on US Economy

Nice to see that Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama agree that this financial crisis is a result of "market failure." Aside from the provable fact that this is not the case at all -- that this is in fact an example of government failure -- the very fact that Chavez believes it is almost definitive proof that it's not true. Of course, if any Marxist came along and pronounced that the sky was blue, I'd look out the window to make sure it hadn't changed, they and their ideologies are so disconnected from reality.

Monday, September 29, 2008


Jonathan Gottschall has written an interesting piece on Homer and the history behind his poems. He also has written a new book on thte topic titled "The Rape of Troy: Evolution, Violence, and the World of Homer." which I haven't read, but look forward to reading.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Nukes for Chavez?

As if it's not bad enough that North Korea and Iran are on the fast-track to developing nuclear weapons, but it seems Venezuela now wants to join in. I believe they only want to produce nuclear power about as much as I believe that to be true of the Iranians. Hugo Chavez wants to rule South America with a nuclear fist -- and it looks like Russia is willing to help. Are we going to be brave enough to do another blockade like we did with Cuba? Of course not. Nobody thinks Chavez is that big of a threat. But there's no bigger threat than a big fool, let alone a power-hungry fool who already has too much power. Are we ready to fight a world war on this scale?

Great Depression II and World War III?

Will israel attack Iran soon? Maybe, maybe not. At least, probably not with U.S. support. However, there have been rumors suggesting that Israel is afraid of an Obama Presidency, and might attack Iran to affect U.S. politics. I can understand why they would be afraid. If you think the Bush presidency has been a miserable failure at getting Iran to comply with anything, wait until you see an Obama Presidency that doesn't think that such a small country matters to the U.S. (Yes, I know he "corrected" that statement, but he did that under political pressure, while the first statement was in fact an expression of what he really thinks -- which is a good rule to follow in understanding any politician.)

I'm afraid that Bush has set up a situation where an Obama Presidency -- or even the threat of one -- could put the U.S. in a serious war. The current situation is looking eerily like the lead-in to the Great Depression and WWII, including the likelihood of a Democratic President who will fumble us all into the very situations that will cause a depression and a world war.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Substance and Refinement

"When substance overbalances refinement, crudeness results. When refinement overbalances substance, there is superficiality. When refinement and substance are balanced one has Great Man." -- Confucius.

No one has ever accused me of superficiality. Crudeness, yes. That is perhaps why I have tried so hard to become a good poet, a true poet, so that my speech and writing may become refined.

Plato too believed what Confucius said. That is why he sought to create a philosophical rhetoric -- as the former element was substantive, and the latter element refinement. True wisdom repeats itself across cultures.

Waste In Public Schools

There is a program in the Richardson ISD here in Texas to buy kitchen sets for Kindergarten classrooms. The sets are about $500 each. However, Kindergarten students are not allowed to play during school time. If they use the kitchen set, that is considered playing. The teachers, however, cannot get rid off the kitchen sets because they were bought through the aforementioned program.

It is illegal to get rid of the kitchen set, but it is also illegal to let the students use the kitchen set. So it sits in the room, unused. Worse, it teases the children by its presence, since they can never use it -- though of course the teacher isn't likely to tell them they can never use it.

There are over 40 elementary schools in RISD. My wife's school has 4 Kindergarten classes. That's about 160 Kindergarten classes. That's at least $80,000 for something it is illegal for students to use being in the classroom, whether teachers or principals want it or not. So don't tell me that the problem with the public schools is that they need more money.

Capitalism vs. the Free Market

I regular reader has asked a very important question: what is the difference between free markets and capitalism. Most people do equate the two, and in lazier moments even I mistakenly use the term "capitalism" rather than "free markets," as I support the latter, but do not necessarily support the former.

The first thing to note is that the term "capitalism" was coined by Karl Marx. It describes not an economic system alone, but a politico-economic-social system. In this system, the government -- which is either run by or at least influenced by the bourgeois -- has laws on the books specifically designed to protect the economic interests of that class. The term "free market" describes a kind of economic system only -- an economic system that can exist under various forms of government.

In one of the papers I'm reading for the conference I'm going to on spontaneous orders, the author observed that the invisible hand of the free market worked exactly the same way in 1777, after the publication of Wealth of Nations, as it did in 1775 -- but that politics was never the same after Marx. Indeed, capitalism is a political idea; free markets are a kind of economic spontaneous order that arose naturally through the interaction of people through exchange.

Friday, September 26, 2008

Assets and the Government Bailout

Here's what I don't get: why does the government have to buy the mortgages? All the companies the government is looking to bail out have assets. If the boards and CEOs running the companies want to stay afloat at all, couldn't they just sell off their assets? I would guess that a lot of small- and medium-sized mortgage companies would be willing to buy them. A few people might even be willing to start up a mortgage company to buy up what would undoubtedly be some great deals. Instead, the government is buying the assets at a much higher price than they would be worth in the market. Which seems odd, except that the government is also picking and choosing who they are bailing out, and those they are bailing out all have very strong, very deep connections to certain politicians. Sounds like it's payback time for various forms of donations to certain politicians to me. I'm guessing there is a huge scandal here the media is going out of its way to ignore. And this seems to be a scandal that laziness cannot excuse, as it seems that it's taking them more effort to ignore it than to see the scandal sitting right there in front of them. So why are they ignoring it?

Thursday, September 25, 2008

Reason on the Financial Crisis

Reason Magazine interviews some free market (or, as I prefer, economic realismists) economists on the financial crisis.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Bush's Decisive Action Could Ruin Us All

Bush is urging "decisive action" to avoid recession. Decisive action should work wonders at weakening the economy much more than it already is. But only if we believe all of world history. If we want to ignore all of world history when it comes to economics, then why not throw $700 billion or more down a hole and torch it? This is the problem with mythology ruling over facts in history. The myth is that FDR's decisive action got us out of the Great Depression, and that if there had been decisive action by Hoover, there wouldn't have been a Depression. The reality is that Hoover was taking decisive action -- so much decisive action that FDR was accusing him of pushing us toward communism -- and that it was precisely that decisive action which made what would have been a slight downturn into a massive depression. FDR then turning around and continuing those policies only made things worse. Fortunately, the Supreme Court declared the New Deal unconstitutional (it was), and unemployment dropped form a high of about 25% to about 8% in the year FDR had finally replaced enough SCOTUS judges to get the New Deal passed. The result? Unemployment jumped back up to 15%. The Depression ended only after we entered WWII and employed people as soldiers or arms builders. If the truth of decisive action in regards to the Great Depression were common knowledge rather than the myth perpetuated by the lying Left, Bush wouldn't be idiotically pushing for decisive action now. Of course, if SCOTUS had been able to hold off FDR's programs until WWII, we would be in the current financial mess we are in, since this mess we are in can be traced back to those regulations and the creation of a central bank. Just like with the USSR's entire command economy, the sector of the US economy that had been turned into a command economy collapsed 80 years after having been implemented. Is that a rule of nature, that a command economy collapses in 80 years?

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Subsidizing Fools

In the end, this bailout Paulson is pushing through is going to keep the same fools in place and power on Wall Street. What kind of sense does that make? In a free market, they would all be in the poorhouse, where they belong, for such shenanigans.

Good for Joe Biden

With friends like Joe Biden, Obama almost doesn't need people like me. Of course, Biden was right about the "McCain can't use a computer or e-mail" ad, because the ad is actually making fun of McCain for being physically disabled enough not to be able to use them -- which is the truth, since he does in fact use them quite a bit through proxies who can do the physical stuff. So good for Biden for standing up against making fun of the handicapped -- even if he did pull back a bit on the criticism later.


Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said that the government's unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare alone comes to a staggering $99.2 trillion, or $330,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. And that's just those two programs. Read the entire article. The government is and has been cooking the books -- lying to us -- in regards to the deficit and debt owed. There is a much bigger collapse coming, and it's not going to be merely economic. And yet the Left wants these same people in charge of health care, etc.

On the Wealthy

We learned to hate the wealthy when
The wealthy were all thieves
And rulers with the strength to take
Whatever they should please.

The wealthy, when they gained their wealth
From voluntary trade,
Were thought to get their wealth the way
The ruler thieves were paid.

So then we turn back to the thieves
WHo promise that they'll take
THe wealth from those who earned that wealth
Then lie: "It's for your sake."

We've come to trust the ones who made
Us never trust the rich
And, rather than take a hand up,
Lie beaten in a ditch.

Exchange is new and power's old
So it feels natural --
But if we keep believing that,
We'll live still in the Fall.

Monday, September 22, 2008

Kelly Jolley

Kelly Jolley a philosophy professor at Auburn, espouses the very teaching philosophy I espouse. Good for him for 1) getting a job at all with that teaching philosophy, and 2) sticking ti it when everyone was telling him to tone it down.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Beware of the Feds Owning Your Mortgage

Part of the mortgage bailout plan involves the federal government buying up mortgages with a high probability of defaulting. Let me ask you people out there who have these kinds of mortgages (I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that many if not most are among the poor): do you want the same people who run the IRS to own your mortgage? I mean, if you default on a company, that's one thing; if you default on the federal government, I'm guessing federal prison time might be involved. I think it's a terrible idea to owe money to people who use force rather than exchange to get things done. Further, if the feds own your mortgage, they own your property. What is it called when the government owns the property but lets you live on it? Socialism? Fascism? I do NOT like where this is going.

The Racism of the Left II

A third of Democrats define African-Americans as "lazy" and "violent." This is not surprising to me, since I have said for years that the Left is full of racists. Just take a look at the programs and reforms they propose and see the effect on minority groups. Walter Williams once observed that the Klan could not have done a better job of designing a program that would decimate African-American families and communities as our own welfare system has done. Further, a smaller percentage of Democrats than Republicans votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it was Democratic governments in the South that fought for segregation. The postmodern Left pushes for more and more group-identity politics, insisting that different groups have nothing in common, whether those groups are based on race, gender, etc. The purpose of that is clear and simple: divide and conquer. Get everyone fighting with each other, then promise each group that they will get what they want if they only elect the Democrats, and you get a Democrat majority. In the meantime, the Left not only support a divisive world view, but also support a form of economics that is designed to create a permanent underclass. Throw in support from such organizations like Planned Parenthood, which has a history of specifically targeting minority communities to encourage abortions (and a founder who saw the mission of the organization as eliminating minorities), in addition to programs that tell minorities that the Great White Man must rescue them from themselves because they just aren't good enough to make it on their own, and the racism of the Left becomes clearer and clearer.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

The Racism of the Left

I'm obviously a bit behind in learning about Sandra Bernhardt's comments about her wanting Sarah Palin to be gang raped by her black brothers should Palin ever come to New York.

A few things:

1) why isn't the Obama campaign publicly denouncing this comment?
2) why isn't the African-American community outraged at this incredibly racist statement equating blacks with being rapists?

I guess it's okay to be a racist just so long as you have the right (er, that should be "Left") beliefs on economics.

How much outrage would there be if someone made the comment that the Obamas better not come down to Mississippi because Michelle would be gang raped by a bunch of Klan boys. Make that joke and see what happens. There would be outrage from every quarter -- yet Sandra Bernhardt can make this exact same comment, only about a conservative woman, and it's laughed at and excused.

We are seeing just what the Left is really made of. Of course, I've known this for a very, very long time. I can't believe that some governor from Alaska is what is making the Left expose themselves for what they truly are.


$700 billion dollars. That's how much our government is going to spend on bailing out a bunch of companies run by incompetents and who were in large pert put in this position because of the regulations currently on the books. What the financial sector of the market needs is deregulation, not more regulations. They need to have failure privatized. Meaning, companies need to know that they will be allowed to fail. And the government needs to let them fail. The situation we're in now, the government has only postponed the inevitable. And, worse, like a fault line prone to earthquakes, the longer we put things off, the worse the quake is going to be.

The federal government doesn't have almost a trillion dollars to spend. It does not have $700,000,000,000. So where will it get the money? It will borrow it. That's another $700 billion added to the debt. How will it pay off this debt, which will come due some day?

1) taxes -- which will take more money out of the economy and create a worse economy overall
2) print money -- which will result in massive inflation
3) default -- considering how much of our debt countries like China own, this is the last thing we want to do. Can you imagine defaulting on a trillion dollars to China? We would be at war with China -- and they would be in the right.

Some wonderful choices given to us from the ghosts of socialism past. The interventionist state does not work. Socialism doesn't work. Centralized financial planning works no better than overall economic planning does. I hope -- but doubt -- someone will get the message and get the government out of the economy. I expect instead that we will get even more regulations out of this. When the collapse does finally happen, it will be the Great Depression II -- only in an even more globalized economy. But don't worry -- Obama plans to hurry things along by raising taxes and imposing tariffs. That worked so well during The Great Depression. It didn't make things worse or lead to WWII at all. Please ignore history. Nothing to see here.

Thursday, September 18, 2008

Tent Cities

The Democrats pushed for more home ownership among the poor. The result? The collapse and government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and an increase in tent cities. Anybody who still believes the Democrats are "for the poor" is either blind or an idiot. There are perhaps other options, but I'm trying to be optimistic here.

On Virtue and Rights

Here is an interesting article about rights and virtue ethics. I think it makes an important point in that just because you may have the right or freedom to do something, that doesn't mean that you should do it -- or that others should not be able to judge you for acting unvirtuously. By all means, be a coward, but don't expect anyone to either applaud you or to not judge you for being a coward. That is part of being a social species, having people expect you to act virtuously. And acting virtuously is part of being a member of a society.

Too many people think that liberty = license. Or that it means that you can do anything you want free of the judgement of others. Neither one are true. In fact, unvirtuous action often restricts your range of action, thus reducing your freedom. If fewer people want to work with you because you're a whiner, then you have fewer options in life. Thus, you have less freedom. Also, if you follow the second point to its logical conclusion, if you have the freedom to act as you wish, and so do I, then I am free to judge you, that being an act I am free to do. So the second point is contradictory.

In any case, though I may not agree with all the details of the article, I am in agreement that we could use a strong dose of virtue ethics in this country. Of course, hard times do build character, so if the economy continues to go down the path it has been of late, we might see a resurgence of virtue soon. And if the people would realize that it's the government that caused what is now happening, we might replace the corrupt idiots in charge with some people of virtue.

Allowing Yourself to Be Robbed: The New Patriotism

So you're unpatriotic if you don't want to pay more in taxes? According to Joe Biden: “it’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.” I suppose that this would be the government pending rut the Democrats put us all in -- and which he and Obama promise to continue full steam ahead. So here's Joe Biden's message: if you complain about us robbing you so that we can pretend to do things to get more votes from the poor and minorities through fostering resentment, then you're not being patriotic. In other words, we should just lie back and enjoy it while we're being raped.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

RIP US Constitution

Today is Constitution Day. I would celebrate it, but it seems inappropriate to celebrate something which has been rendered practically dead. When 99% of the federal laws on the books are unconstitutional, you might as well declare the Constitution dead. To tear it up at this point would be a mere formality. The only things we follow in it are the technical details on who can run for what office and when they are in office.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Central Planning Fails Again -- This Time, It's Us and Our Financial Markets

I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot when it comes to the economy. McCain? "right now we are the victim of greed, excess and corruption in Wall Street." No, we are the victim of government regulations that allow companies to profit from their good decisions, but find themselves in no danger if they make bad decisions, as the government is there, promising to bail them out. Profits have been privatized, but losses remain in the public sector. Is it any wonder our financial institutions are collapsing? What kind of decisions would you make if you knew all your bad decisions would have no consequences for you, but that if what you wanted to do worked out, you got to keep the profits? I bet you would be willing to do all sorts of risky things -- or downright idiotic ones. And then there is Joe Biden saying what all this means is that we need more regulations. The same group of people who couldn't figure out how to "privatize" companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without creating a situation where they would certainly collapse want to regulate companies even more. The lesson here is not that we need more government, but that the involvement of government in these companies that have been collapsing is what caused the collapse. Government control in the economy in the U.S. was about 30 years behind that of the Soviet Union. It looks like our collapse is right on time.

Monday, September 15, 2008

Obama , Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Economy

Two of Obama's main economics advisors, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson (who resigned back in June due to some of this scandal being brought to light), were former CEOs of Fannie Mae. Raines was even fired from his position at Fannie Mae. And no wonder, since he overstated earnings by 50% during his tenure. Considering the situation they put their company in (and, yes, it was them as well as those in charge during the collapse who are responsible for the collapse), should anybody be taking advice from them about anything regarding the economy? I mean, they did such a bang-up job with Fannie Mae.

"Property Records Show Mr. Johnson Has Received More Than $7 Million In Loans From Countrywide Since 1998, The First Coming In The Waning Days Of His Fannie Mae Tenure" (Glenn R. Simpson and James R. Hagerty, "Countrywide Friends Got Good Loans," The Wall Street Journal, 6/7/08). Ironically, those loans seem to have been "subprime." Certainly they were loans made directly by the CEO of Countrywide. Now, does this necessarily mean something sketchy was going on? Of course not. But it seems there's a pretty tangled web involving the mortgage market, its collapse, and Obama (who also received a pretty good deal on a house, as I recall). Countrywide, by the way, has been one of the companies at the center of the mortgage market breakdown. So two of Obama's advisors were involved in creating the very mortgage crisis Obama is trying to use to his political advantage. More, they made millions off of running Fannie Mae into the ground, and have used that money to try to get Obama elected.

Did I mention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were major donors to ACORN, who is currently engaged in voter fraud in Michigan and Ohio (odd how voter fraud is constantly associated with them), and that Obama worked for ACORN? I did? Seems like an interesting -- important? -- connection. But don't worry, that's just one more thing for the MSM to ignore.

It also seems that Secretary of Treasurer Paulson briefs Obama on what was going to happen with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae long before they did so with McCain -- though McCain had actually requested a meeting with Paulson earlier. Paulson is a Nixonian, which in my book makes him a Democrat, so we shouldn't be too surprised. But this connection does seem to clarify the connection I made earlier with the scandal and the White House in regards to Obama. I was only joking then, about this being evidence that Bush was supporting Obama -- but it seems that there is in fact an element in the White House who is connected to Obama and who does want him to win the election. Seems like my jokes are a bit too close to reality.

Palin and Obama's Rejections of Reality Based on Their Religions

Some are trying to make a big deal out of Sarah Palin's religion -- the same people, you may please note, who tried to downplay Obama's religion -- particularly her apparent disbelief in evolution. At the same time that the Anglican Church is trying to apologize for its opposition to Darwin during his lifetime, a significant number of Americans still do not believe in evolution. It seems Palin is one of them.

Now, those of you who have been longtime readers of this blog know what I think about evolution. But I don't think not believing in evolution disqualifies you for political office. It disqualifies you for being a biology teacher, but knowing that life evolved has nothing to do with making good political decisions. I am far more concerned with the fact that Obama does not seem to believe in spontaneous order economies, which is going to have far greater repercussions on our lives if he's elected than does Palin's (dis)beliefs if she's elected Vice President. Palin's religion does not allow her to believe in evolution, but Obama's religion -- government (and dialectical materialism) -- does not allow him to believe in spontaneous order economics. I will note that ironically neither one believe in something explainable and understandable through general systems theory, and that both are in different ways rejecting time-based understandings of the world.

The question is: which silly rejection of reality matters more in a political leader? I'm going to go with rejecting the one who rejects economic reality. That politician is the more dangerous one for the material well-being of everyone.

On Price Gouging

Yesterday, the mayor of Houston complained that FEMA was taking too long with getting supplies such as ice to Houston. If our government would allow market forces to take over, the pricing system would have sent signals to the rest of the country that ice and other supplies were needed in Houston, and they would have everything they needed there within hours. Of course, those price signals that result in the rapid delivery of products to places where they are needed is called "Price gouging," which the mayor and too many other politicians also complain about. Idiotic "price gouging" laws result in supply shortages during crises, which the politicians then complain about. Some people aren't happy that there are those who are "profiting from other peoples' misery," but the fact is that such profiting results in goods being where they need to be when they need to be there. Also, that logic is a slippery slope. I'm pretty miserable when I'm hungry. Does that mean food should be free? Only Michael Moore would say "yes."

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

Biden on When Life Begins

I'll admit to having been back and forth on the abortion issue. And if people want to have a debate on when "life begins" in regards to the abortion debate, then we should have it. But Joe Biden has demonstrated he is a relativist of the worst kind when he said that when human life begins is a "personal and private" matter. That statement is ridiculous on the face of it. While one may not agree about when life begins, the answer to that is an objective part of reality and is not up to an individual person's subjective whims. While we may not yet agree about the nature of that objective reality, it is an objective reality. It is just now up to us to figure out what that reality is.

The two issues here are "human" and "life." A cell capable of dividing is alive. Period. That is an objective fact. End of discussion. The real question, then, is what is a "human"? Is any cell with human DNA a human? Or are we only talking about cells that have the potential to become a human being, meaning we can reasonably leave out blood cells, cancer cells, etc.? So we have to differentiate between a human and a human cell. It may be that a fertilized egg, though, is a human precisely because it has human being telo -- its goal is the creation of a human being. Because of this goal, because it is teleological, the Catholic church argues, a fertilized egg is a human being.

Certainly there are other arguments out there. I heard a bioethicist argue that one could use the legal definition of when life ends to determine its beginning. With brain-death, a person is legally dead. Thus, he argued, when brain function begins, life begins. If one is looking for a compromise, this seems a reasonable one. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that the soul enters the body upon birth, so for them abortion isn't an issue at all. This is consistent with the Greek concept of soul, as their word for soul, psyche, means both "soul" and "breath." Catholics believe the fertilized egg is ensouled, so there's no room for negotiation.

The modern Catholic church is quite consistent in its pro-life stance. They oppose abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment. As a Catholic, Biden is supposed to believe this too. And he's supposed to believe it's an objective fact. Thus, the Church's outrage at his statement.

I have another reason to show concern: if determining when human life begins is "personal and private," then one could easily argue that someone is not truly human until they acquire language. Thus, infanticide up to the point of language acquisition would, logically, be allowed by Biden.

And never mind about Obama. This discussion is far above his pay grade.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Conspiracy Theory of the Day . . . Week . . . Month . . . er, Year?

President Bush just has Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae bailed out.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae both were active supporters of ACORN

ACORN is a community organization group that 1) has been taken to court for voter registration fraud, and 2) Barack Obama worked for.

I'm not saying there is a causal connection here. These could be completely coincidental. Or am I just sounding like Putin when he claimed that the U.S. government pressured Georgia to act as it did to force Russia to act as it did because the White House wants McCain to win. Undboutedly Bush does prefer McCain to win, but my 3 facts above are more suggestive of Bush wanting Obama to win than Putin's Georgia story -- which exposes who Putin wants to win more than anything else.

RIP US Representative Democracy?

Even though the Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline here in Texas to get on the ballot, and were not shown to be on the ballot the day after the deadline, magically they appeared a week later. I guess rule of law means nothing in this country anymore. Worse, I sent a letter to the editor to the Dallas Morning News last week about it, and so far it hasn't been run. I guess the two major parties getting on the ballot due to someone obviously breaking the law isn't news in Dallas. I would think it would at least have prompted someone in the news department to look into my claims, to do a little investigative journalism, but no . . . you can't count on the mainstream media to do their jobs anymore, either. The fact is that if they are allowed to stay on the ballot, that shows that we do not have rule of law, but rule of these two political parties. We should all be very frightened by that, because that essentially means our representative democracy is a fraud. I'm the first one to say i can't believe I'm saying this, but I fear it's true.

Obama's "Muslim Faith"

In a recent interview on ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama refers to his "Muslim faith." A very interesting slip. Are we t side with Freud on such things? Let's review: lived in Muslim Indonesia and went to a Madrassa there, went to a "Christian" church led by a pastor who used to be a Muslim and was still extremely friendly with Farrakan, and now this slip.

If he thinks of himself as Muslim, that in and of itself doesn't bother me. Him lying about it does.

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Nationalizing Two Mortgage Giants

So it seems that the U.S. government nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two mortgage companies created by the government an then "privatized." I put privatized in scare quotes because when the government privatizes anything, they typically do it in such a way as to ensure failure, so as to "prove" that the government should really be in charge. The argument that they are "too big to fail" only reinforces my belief that monopolies are government-created and -enforced entities, and that monopolies would not exist in a free market.

The official line is that these two companies failing would cause too much disruption in the market. But what would these two companies do to avoid total failure? They would sell off many of their assets, including, of course mortgages, to other companies. So those who had mortgages with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would continue to have the same mortgages -- only they would be writing the checks to other companies. And if the two companies sold off everything and did go under, so what? All that would mean would be that there would be a burp in the financial market, which would recover quite quickly once everyone saw that their failures wouldn't affect much, since all their assets were owned by others. Further, it would allow smaller mortgage companies to have a change to grow into larger ones. There would be more competition overall, since these two government-created and -supported giants would no longer be around to bully everyone else. The market would adjust, and the mortgage market would be stronger than ever. Now that won't happen.

On top of everything, this will cost the taxpayers literally trillions of dollars. How is requiring more tax money going to help the economy? This is Leftist logic: if you want people to be rich, take more money from them; if you want a stronger economy, reduce its value.

The Bush administration is the one who has done this. This is why I'm a libertarian. The Republicans have stopped even pretending to be pro-free market.

Saturday, September 06, 2008

Pray the Gay Away?

While attacking Palin for being a working mother, the Left is pretending to be shocked that Palins' church thinks that they can pray the gay away. This makes sense only if you believe that being gay is a choice. Why anyone would choose to be gay in any culture where they are persecuted is beyond me -- to my mind, the fact that there are gay men and women in countries where they are killed for behaving that way strongly suggests to me that it's not entirely a choice. Sure, once can choose not to engage in this or that behavior, but to say that someone whose natural disposition is to be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex is like demanding that people not engage in political behavior, or that an artist not engage in artistic behavior. The fact that homosexual behavior occurs in other species also shows that it's a natural behavior. Of course, I've said all this before here and here, but sometimes things bear repeating.

The Misogynistic Left

Howard Gutman, an original member of Obama's finance committee, criticized Palin for "putting her career above her family." He goes on to criticize her for agreeing to run for V.P when she has a pregnant daughter and a baby with Down's Syndrome. Would he have said this if she were a man? Of course not. As Susan Estrich rightly points out, for some reason, a man can have a career that makes all kind of demands on him, no matter the situation at home, and nobody says a thing. McCain has several adopted children -- nobody says he should stay home with them. Should Barack Obama stay at home and take care of his two daughters? Or MIchelle Obama? But this is typical. Gutman is a Leftist, and he knows far better than Palin what she should be doing with her life and career. Or it this mere politics? Would he have said these things if she were a Democrat running for the V.P.? Of course he wouldn't. That would make him a sexist. But if she's a Republican . . . Don't believe these people when they say they are feminists. They are proving themselves to be baldfaced liars.

GOP Convention, Palin, the LP

In case you're wondering why I haven't said anything about the GOP convention speeches, it's because there was nothing interesting in any of them. It was all about the character of McCain, how he was a hero, etc., and introducing Palin. The little that was said was neither new nor interesting. We all know that McCain will do a couple of things to annoy the Republicans if he's elected President, etc. Palin was an interesting choice -- my wife said weeks ago she hoped McCain would pick her (good call on her part, it seems). In the end, though, Palin is a way of consolidating the base, as McCain really needed.

I will say, though, that the choice of Palin has really exposed the Left for what they are. When they say that she should stay at home and raise her children, they show that they were never really feminists in the first place, just Leftists looking to use feminism to aid in their divide-and-conquer approach to politics. We got to see just how sexist the Left really is -- just as we would see how homophobic they all actually are if an openly gay candidate ran for office as a Republican.

The choice of Palin convinced my wife to vote for McCain. I'm still voting for Bob Barr.

Coincidentally, there is a chance to see if the rule of law actually means anything in this country with a situation here in Texas. It seems both the Democrats and Republicans missed the deadline to be on the ballot in Texas -- but then, a week later, they suddenly appeared as candidates. If their paperwork was filed after the deadline, then by Texas law they cannot be on the ballot -- though of course people could still write them in. The LP is challenging this, meaning we will see if the law actually will be enforced. My guess is that it won't be. That should terrify anyone who believes in rule of law.

Lysenkoian Education System

The people who refuse to recognize that genetics is an important aspect of intelligence, personality, and overall human nature are of the same mentality as Josef Stalin in his rejection of Medelian genetics and his support of Lysenko. Unfortunately, these people are in charge of your educational system. The refusal to recognize merit is of the same mentality, as is placing students together in grades according to age rather than ability. Placing students together according to age makes as much sense as placing them together according to height.

Friday, September 05, 2008

Blog Poll So Far

I'm impressed that twice as many Obama supporters as Barr and McCain supporters combined view this blog -- at least, according to the poll I have at the bottom of this blog. But where are the comments? I have almost nothing good to say about Obama and the Left, and nobody leaves comments?

Thursday, September 04, 2008

The Demonaic Soul, or the Postmodern Left

Apparently the Bhagavadgita is against everything the postmodern Left stands for, their entire world view:

BG 16.7: Those who are demoniac do not know what is to be done and what is not to be done. Neither cleanliness nor proper behavior nor truth is found in them.

BG 16.8: They say that this world is unreal, with no foundation, no God in control. They say it is produced of sex desire and has no cause other than lust.

BG 16.9: Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.

BG 16.10: Taking shelter of insatiable lust and absorbed in the conceit of pride and false prestige, the demoniac, thus illusioned, are always sworn to unclean work, attracted by the impermanent.

BG 16.11-12: They believe that to gratify the senses is the prime necessity of human civilization. Thus until the end of life their anxiety is immeasurable. Bound by a network of hundreds of thousands of desires and absorbed in lust and anger, they secure money by illegal means for sense gratification.

BG 16.13-15: The demoniac person thinks: "So much wealth do I have today, and I will gain more according to my schemes. So much is mine now, and it will increase in the future, more and more. He is my enemy, and I have killed him, and my other enemies will also be killed. I am the lord of everything. I am the enjoyer. I am perfect, powerful and happy. I am the richest man, surrounded by aristocratic relatives. There is none so powerful and happy as I am. I shall perform sacrifices, I shall give some charity, and thus I shall rejoice." In this way, such persons are deluded by ignorance.

BG 16.16: Thus perplexed by various anxieties and bound by a network of illusions, they become too strongly attached to sense enjoyment and fall down into hell.

BG 16.17: Self-complacent and always impudent, deluded by wealth and false prestige, they sometimes proudly perform sacrifices in name only, without following any rules or regulations.

BG 16.18: Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion.

BG 16.19: Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.

BG 16.21: There are three gates leading to this hell — lust, anger and covetousness. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul.

I mean, this is a description of the Left's ideology laid out beautifully. The postmodern Left and the demonaic are one and the same -- as Milan Kundera also points out in "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting." It's amazing sometimes how often works of wisdom agree.

Demoniacal Education

From the Bhagavadgita (Ch. 16):

The attributes of a divine nature:

"Fearlessness, purity and sweetness of temperament, the judicious apportionment of knowledge and discipline, charity, endurance, sacrifice, study of the wisdom texts, austerity and integrity, non-violence, truthfulness, absence of anger, renunciation, tranquility, overcoming narrow-mindedness, pity for all living creatures, freedom from greed, mildness, a sense of shame, steadiness, splendor, mercy, firmness, purity, absence of hatred or excessive self-esteem"

The attributes of a demoniacal nature:

"Deceit, arrogance, excessive self-esteem, anger, as also cruelty and ignorance"

"Neither engagement in worldly action nor withdrawal from it is understood by the demoniacal. Neither purity, nor good behavior or truth is present in them."

If I didn't know any better, the author of the Bhagavadgita sounds like he's laying out the attributes of the students turned out by the U.S. educational system when he's talking about the demoniacal. All they teach is excessive self-esteem, resulting in ignorance (you can't correct, lest it harm their self-esteem). Without knowledge, truth is not possible. Nor is good behavior, for that matter. And too often, excessive self-esteem results in arrogance as well. Perhaps it is because the people in charge have demoniacal natures -- as doing this to children is cruelty.

Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Ron Paul's Absence

I loved Fred Thompson's speech at the GOP convention last night. If that Fred Thompson had run for the Presidency, I have little doubt that he would have been the nominee. I would have been a lot happier with him as the nominee as well. Thompson-Palin is a ticket I could vote for.

In the meantime, Ron Paul is having an alternate convention in the same city as the GOP convention because the Republicans won't let him speak. Why? He did get more votes than Thompson, after all. I don't know how they can justify not having every one of the candidates for the nomination speaking at the convention. It's a rather stupid snub, as the Ron Paul people could easily vote for Bob Barr. And if they are more loyal to their ideology than they are to a political party who is snubbing their ideas and their candidate, they should.

I will.

Tuesday, September 02, 2008

Obama's Pathetic Argument

This is truly pathetic: "Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months." Not true. She's been a mayor and a governor, both executive positions. And Obama has NOT managed his own campaign. His campaign manager has done that. Seriously, is this all he has? Besides, Palin is only running for Vice President, while he's the one running for President with no executive experience. It would have been better for Obama to not have commented at all on this rather than to have said something so ridiculous.

Anybody supporting Obama -- let alone Obama himself -- has NO business criticizing Palin for lack of experience. I'm tired of experienced politicians running the show anyway. My beef with Obama is that he's a Marxist, and he hasn't gotten the memo that Marxism is a failure, not being based in reality.

Monday, September 01, 2008

Gustav Weakens; God Laughs

Seems like God wasn't too amused with the comments of the like of Michael Moore and weakened the hurricane right before it hit the coast. The hurricane moved into warmer waters and weakened? That looks more like the hand of God at work than the coincidental timing of Gustav striking the U.S.