Faith, Freedom and Frags

What happens if Ron Paul loses?

The Ron Paul candidacy has consistently surprised me (and I've followed Ron for years). All of my sisters are on board, a fair chunk of my friends and I even had a random older lady follow my car to find out where I got my bumpersticker! The fundraising has been amazing. I remember when we were excited about $1 million in a week, and then November 5th we raised $4.2 million in one flipping day. And look out for Dec 16th.

All that being said, I still know it is a long shot that Ron will get elected. So, I ask, is there a point to all of this if he does end up losing?

Some say the mainstream candidates will adopt some of his positions. I find this unlikely. But there are some other, crucial advantages:

First is the educational factor. Many "newbs" are drawn to Paul's war position, or his civil rights stance, or his fearlessness and straight forward talk. Then they learn about his other positions. They have probably never even heard someone question the Fed. They didn't realize that our "free market" is actually more of a corporatocracy, with large corporations shaping legislation for their personal advantage. They come for the war and stay for the variety of unconventional but compelling ideas.

Second is the organization factor. We now all know each other. Friendships, mailing lists, groups, and trust has been developed. When someone similar comes along in the future, we will be ready to go.

Finally, and I think most importantly, is Paul's opinions are very much "on record". If the dire predictions of Paul and his supporters do come true and the American Empire flunders and falls, when it is time to rebuild EVERYONE will (or at least should) know who predicted it. If the dollar collapses and we plunge into depression. If our government goes bankrupt from fighting overseas wars we do not need to be in. If we head even further down the police state path.

All these things were predicted now. Even if you are a doubter, or think Ron and his supporters are nut jobs, remember the predictions. If they are right, we will welcome you to the freedom movement with open arms.

Nifon disbarred, but don't think that fixes everything

Mike Nifong has actually been given justice. His vicious prosecution without evidence has not only been stopped, but he has been removed from office and has been banned from practicing law.

The media (and the bar) have been playing this as if it restores justice into an otherwise pristine system. They want you to believe that Mike Nifong was some rogue, and that prosecutions for political reasons and with little or no evidence rarey ever happen.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Duke players where able to defend themselves at great cost, financially and personally. Thousands of others do not have such resources at their disposal. Plea bargains are used ruthlessly, and many plead guilty to crimes they did not commit simply because they are afraid of going to jail because they cannot defend themselves well.

In the Nifong debacle, he was apparently motivated by appealing to minorities and women. But the much more common politicial motiviation is to appear "tough on crime". For that reason prosecutors are interested in convictions, not justice. Their victims are not well heeled rich white college students, but very often poor, minority and sometimes barely literate people who they can bully without reprisals.

Do not let this case decieve you: There are many problems with what passes for justice in this country, and prosecutors are very often motivated by self interest, not justice.

Obligatory Ron Paul support post

To the point: Vote for Ron Paul!!! I myself (and my sister, and many other people I know) am registering Republican just to vote for him in the primaries. He is a nine term congressman from Texas, running for President in the Republican party. He basically takes a very literal reading of the constitution and sticks to it, no matter what. Which is remarkable. They call him "Dr. No", since he votes no on almost everything and he is, I believe,  the only MD in Congress (ob/gyn).

He has been against the war from the beginning, not wavering in his opposition once. He voted no on the so called "Patriot Act", twice (both times it came up, he's not stuffing the ballot!). He votes against taxes, foreign aid, big business subsidies, welfare, the UN, gun control, and giving medals out to noble people at taxpayer expense, though he will offer his OWN person money instead.

I haven't officially endorsed Paul's run yet, as it almost seemed too obvious. He is the only politician I ever have actually given money to (and I will again). He is ALL over the nets, do a search on him on any of the major sites to find a simply embarrasing amount of media and blog coverage, though the MSM is trying hard to ignore him, hoping he will just go away.

It's almost dizying to have a the politician I support getting actual press and even some respect. He has stood his ground, even in the face of ridiculous acusations and mischaracterizations of his positions. I know he is highly unlikely to win, but maybe he can at least change the way people talk about politics in this country.

Inflation in Zimbabwe and MSM bias

I've followed Zimbabwe (morbidly) for years. None of the misfortunes visited upon that country in the past 10 years have surprised me for a second. They were telegraphed by the policies of Robert Mugabe, murderer, thief and one of the most evil men on the planet.

Their most recent misfortune is extrememely high inflation. As in, the cost of everything doubled in one month.  I saw this in news articles by major media sources. But I was confused as to why this was happeneing. I know, as an economist, that such inflation can only be caused by the government printing a ton of new money, though it can certainly be exacerbated by taking away farms from productive people and giving them to cronies. But look at these articles, none of which mention printing money:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8P69SIG1.htm

The above article was reprinted in dozens of other sources, NO mention of money printing

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070519/business/business3.html

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/05/17/zimbabwe.html

http://www.lankabusinessonline.com/fullstory.php?newsID=317801223&no_view=1&SEARCH_TERM=1

Interesting, the TITLE of the above article mentions the "Money printing Zimbabwe central bank" but nothing is mentioned in the text of the article.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21753241-2703,00.html

Remarkably, this article mentioned that Mugabe got his economics degree at the University of London, and that he believes printing money helps to keep prices down!!! Remind me not to get a degree there.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/df072b2a322e6e6f275459d37c9d807c.htm

There is a small mention of some money printing at the very bottom of the article, which is ridden with economic fallacies.

The real story is here:

http://www.zimbabwejournalists.com/story.php?art_id=1717&cat=2

And here (scroll down to Zimbabwe):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation#Hyperinflation_around_the_world

It turns out, for anyone willing to do research, that Robert Mugabe has been printing TRILLIONS of dollars every year. TRILLIONS!!

That is the true reason for the inflation. Yet, in the articles I linked to above, it is hardly mentioned once, and never is the amount of printing even hinted at.

Now, why would that be? My personal take is that people in this country are fed the line that inflation is caused by increased wages and employment. Essentially, the line that what is good for the average joe worker is BAD for the economy! That prices were stable (as in, did not get higher AT ALL) for the first 150 years of US history is never brought up. The writers of these articles are either deliberately avoiding mentioning the link between printing (or "introducing" as the fed does) money and inflation because they want to avoid upsetting people, or, more likely, it simply doesn't even occur to them! Wake up folks, the Federal Reserve is taking money out of your pocket every fricking year, to benefit big businesses and government at the poor and middle class' expense.

Gun Control at the workplace

My workplace, like many others, has a "no guns allowed" policy. It goes so far as to prohibit employees from having guns in their cars when they are parked on company property, no matter how they are stored.

It is a farce, of course. First off, it's not like they will ever search peoples cars. Second, I cannot see how it would deter any kind of workplace shooting. It's not like there ISN'T a policy against shooting co-workers. The prohibition against guns at the workplace will, at the very best, simply ensure that no one could fight back if someone were to show up with a gun. Like has happened at workplaces and schools across the country.

Not that I'm worried about someone shooting up my office. Not that I'd carry. Not that I'm advocating folks carrying their handgun to meetings. Geeze. Just that I don't see the point of the prohibition. If you don't trust your co-workers to not shoot you, what the heck are you doing working with them? I do not know a single co-worker I wouldn't trust to not shoot me, frankly, no matter how bad we've disagreed in the past. And if you have people at your work you wouldn't trust with a  (licensed) gun, I would recommend finding a different job.

Don't forget that in states with legal concealed carry, random people you see on the street could be carrying a gun. Yet it's your co-workers you are worried about?

There seems to be this magical belief that the very presence of a gun makes people in more danger, like the gun is possesed by evil spirits. No, the gun is carried by people, and it is the people who you must make decisions about. Gun control makes the decision that ordinary, law abiding people are dangerous lunatics that can't be trusted, but police and military can do no wrong. Think about that.

Why I'm not blogging (much)

After much thought, I've realized why I'm not blogging very much anymore. What I really wanted, and still want, from blogging is discussion, not just my own voice in the wilderness. I truly want to understand other peoples point of view. Right now there are so many opinions and views I disagree with, and I seem to have less and less understanding of how they could possibly believe the crazy things they believe (yes, I know I'm the one with the crazy beliefs).

But I haven't been getting that, and more interestingly, I have not seen it in any other places. Usually a blog is manned by an individual, or multiple individuals of a very similar ideology. The discussions that do happen are usually in comments sections or on forums. And those are very much a hit and miss affair. Even when there are good discussions, they almost never continue long enough to reach any kind of understanding. Or, they are overwhelmed by the strident, the rude or the smug, never recovering. I've been involved in several of these and only ended up frustrated.

I want people who truly desire to get to the root of our different world views. I want some people who would commit to a long term discussion, to questions with thoughtful answers, to stopping before typing to make sure you really understood the point. It's not easy, but it's certainly worth trying. Most of what we have these days is just disagreement, not discussion. Even the "tolerant" people are usually as smug and self-righteous as the "intolerant", imagining themselves as superior than those ignorant, unwashed masses.

So, to my friends and the few who read this, I ask if anyone is really ready to talk? Obviously, it would help if you had significantly different views than mine, though I'm sure there's not a soul alive I agree with 100%. But mostly, let's just try and figure out why the other person is so hopelessly misguided! And that does need to be the presumption: misguided, not evil, or stupid, or selfish, or clueless. You guide a "lost" person by first going to where they are, and then traveling with them to known territory. And you may find out in the process that they're not lost at all.

Any takers?

Subjective vs. Objective and Xbox 360's

Apparently, some enterprising folks have bought Xbox 360's solely for the purpose of reselling them at what looks to be a considerable profit. While I do not understand paying $600 or even $1000 just to get a gaming console a few weeks sooner, I see nothing wrong with people providing this service to others. If they wish to pay so much, it is good for them that it is available.

Since I continue to stay away from much of what counts for official "news" these days, I have been following games and technology as much as ever. So now I get my economics lessons from there instead.

There is a conception among many people (and for a very long time) that certain goods or services have a "fair" or "reasonable" price. From my observations, this amounts to little more than animism, assigning human like attributes to mere physical objects. The way I see it, ALL value is inherently subjective, in that it is ONLY subjects (aka, conscious entities) that assign value to anything, and that there is in no such thing as objective value, since objects in and of themselves cannot place value on anything.

Take a glass of water, for instance. There is no way to reckon any kind of objective value to it. It ALL depends on the context and the person assigning value to it. I may not value it very highly, a few pennies if it isn't some kind of bottled water. But if I were in the desert for a couple of days, I might give up everything I have to get that glass of water. The value of an object is determined not only by how much the subject cares for it (preferring Mozart to Bach, for instance), but also where in time and space that object is.

Here's the kicker: I believe that all moral values are ALSO entirely subjective. This might surprise those of you who know my religious beliefs, but I think it fits perfectly. I have determined that it is not the moral values of God that are objective, but it is that God himself values certain things, and He is, essentially, the only subject that matters (He being eternal, infinite and having created all objects in the first place). I find this actually fits rather well with Christian, Jewish and Islamic understandings of God, and particularly the Christian attitude of seeing God as a Person to whom we can relate. God is not bound by rules or morals outside of Himself, rather His preferences (yes, just what he likes and doesn't like, the way you prefer chocolate to vanilla) determine morals in the only sense that matters.

Feel free to call me crazy, blasphemous or stupid, but it'd be nice to get some feedback on this one.

Bush, FDR and Presidential lies

You can't make this stuff up.

Jonah Goldberg, big man over at the National Review, has essentially argued that "Hey, so what if Bush lied? So did FDR!". I don't understand why he stops there and doesn't continue with "and so did Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln", but hey, a lot more people read his stuff than mine.

He argues that being a responsible President means lying once in a while for a good cause. If the American people are reluctant to get behind the latest war not on our soil, nothing wrong with a little brazen deception to get them over those silly moral scruples.

Even if  I conceded that WWI, WWII, Iraq, the Spanish American and the Civil War (or whatever you wish to call that conflict) were worthy causes, why is it that Jonah entirely fails to see the precedent set here? Why is he (and every idiot conservative these days) so unwilling to imagine that we might not always have a "good" President? Seriosuly, if we just credulously back whatever President is lying to us today, how long before we are looking back and wondering how we could have done something so awful? (like, say, murdering a few million people).

Now to rip into liberals. What is with all the wailing about a President who lied us into war? They seriously didn't see that coming? They too just credulously lapped up whatever the President dished out, and most of them have only been "brave" enough to come out against the war after the majority of the American people are already doubtful. Pathetic, ineffective, sniveling little spineless jerks. They no more dislike war or even this war than Bush does, they just smell political blood and are coming in for what they hope is the kill.

Evil lurks around us constantly, according to the State and those who love it. If it's not the Huns, the Rebels, the Philipinos, or the Spanish, it's the Nazis, the Soviets or the Terrorists. There is always SOME horrible enemy about to destroy our way of life, and I suspect there always will be. Just give them more power, sacrifice a few more liberties, look the other way a few more times, and our country will be safe and made great yet again! Even WWII, where there was some serious evil to fight, ended up not with us liberating the world but instead leaving half of Europe under tyranny and giving us an even greater threat to fight and to use as an excuse to curtail more liberties, support a "totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores" and basically argue that Liberty is for chumps.

Sorry about the somewhat incoherant rant here, I must be in some kind of bad mood. Tired of being called a chump, maybe.

Churches and "Tax Exempt Status"

Am I the only person who finds this absolutely horrifying?  (registration may be required)

Essentially, the IRS is harrasing a (rather excessively) liberal Christian church because the pastor made speeches against the Iraq war right before the 2004 elections. This, they are arguing, constitutes political activity and could mean that the church will lose it's tax exempt status.

Is this really where we are now? What a pastor (or any religious leader) says from the pulpit is monitored by the government and used to punish the church? This is freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? Huh?

The church didn't even specifically endorse a candidate or policy. But so what if they did? Do you have any idea the kinds of things advocated in the churches of the thirteen colonies? These were hotbeds of discussion and advocacy of all kinds of positions. And why the heck shouldn't they be?

This comes back to taxes. John Marshall, arguably the most influential Supreme Court Justice ever, said "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... [is] not to be denied". What clearer evidence do we need than seeing the freedom of religion and speech directly attacked, using solely the heavy hammer of taxes? This is considered justified and good by BOTH political parties, and it makes me sick. If political speech is specifically attacked by this attrocious policy, what can't be? Excuse me while I go weep for our country.

Homeschool and "qualified teachers"

As might be guessed by most of my positions, I am an advocate of homeschooling, and more generally, any non-public form of schooling. My wife and I intend to homeschool our children (when we have them) for a multitude of reasons I won't go into now.

Now, I just want to address one of the most common, but IMHO, the most irritating arguments against allowing parents to teach their own children: they aren't qualified.

The NEA (national teachers union) in particular holds this view, though that is hardly surprising. It essentially goes like this: Teachers in public schools are required to have 4 years of training to teach children. What makes parents think they are qualified without any training at all to teach their children? A particularly lame example is here.

The simplest argument which I haven't seen enough of to refute this goes as follows:

Public teachers must:

1. Teach 20-30 children at once.
2. Teach children they have never met before.
3. Teach children from dozens of different backgrounds.
4. Teach all 20-30 children the same curriculum, no matter how disparate their abilities.
5. Conform to numerous state and federal laws and testing requirements.
6. Teach children with almost no influence over their home life (amount of sleep, reading encouraged, help with homework).

Homeschool Parents must:

1. Teach their own children only.
2. Teach children whom they have known since birth.
3. Teach children with one identical background.
4. Teach children the curriculum that makes sense for them based on their abilities and interests.
5. Conform to few state laws and no federal laws.
6. Teach children for whom they control every aspect of the home environment.

To say that homeschool parents are not qualified because they cannot do the job of a public school teacher is actually to gravely insult public school teachers! Clearly, a public teaching job is orders of magnitude more difficult than a parent teaching their own children.

There's one more argument I find so offensive that I'll address it here too: Homeschool can be used to mask parental abuse of children.

This one is offensive (implying very nasty motives of all homeschooling parents), but also persuasive because, if you're being honest, it's got to be happening somewhere. The obvious arguments, and it amazes me that these do not occur to people the moment they write this insulting statement are as follows:

1. Many, many children are abused while going to public schools, and this in no way benefits them.
2. Some school teachers use TEACHING as a way to mask abuse of children, and as a way to have access to a steady supply of abusees.
3. The chances of being harrased or abused in school are alarmingly high.
4. There are very few proven instances of homeschool being used as a mask for abuse.

All I ask is that homeschooling be judged the same way as public schooling, and, IMHO, once it is you simply can't argue that it is the more dangerous of the two.