Puntocracy

Bradley Manning and Julian Assange

2012-01-19T11:13:00.000-05:00

The problem with history is that so few people read it or understand it so society is doomed to endlessly repeat the mistakes of the past. We see this in the wars that have plagued Europe for a thousand years, we see it in the political corruptions that brought down Rome and Byzantium, we see it in the rigid tyrannical governments that have dominated the Middle East, and now we are seeing the lessons unlearned from the French Revolution being taught once again by Julian Assange and the Cold War Lessons being taught once again by Bradley Manning.

Guy Burgess was a homosexual and member of the “Cambridge Five.” A Soviet Spy ring headed by Kim Philby. This group spied for the Russians before, during, and after the Cold War. It was composed of both MI5 and MI6 intelligence officers all of whom had hard left ideals beginning in their University days. Of these Burgess was certainly the most unstable and unpredictable and in addition to his overt homosexuality he was an alcoholic.

Burgess was the son of a Naval Officer and attended Eton, The Royal Naval College, and Cambridge. His poor eyesight kept him from continuing his military training. One would have thought that his obvious homosexuality would have kept him out of military training as well as his subsequent career in the foreign and intelligence services, but it didn’t. While at Cambridge he became a strong supporter of the communist party and joined a debating society that was strongly Marxist. With the rise of Hitler, Burgess renounces Communism and joins a Pro-Nazi group, apparently in an effort to hide his pro-Marxist and pro-Soviet views. He begins his career working for the BBC and with the opening of WW II he is transferred to MI 5 to work on war propaganda. His career progresses with assignments in the Foreign Office and for MI 5 in Washington DC.

Even though the events in the USSR compromised his hard left ideals regarding equality and wealth distribution he continued throughout his career to feed secret information to the KGB. His access to secret information was never questioned or compromised in spite of his obvious homosexuality, his past political record, and his raging alcoholism. He ticked all of the boxes normally used to prevent a person access to sensitive information, which brings us to Bradley Manning – a highly unstable young man.

Manning’s father had been in the Navy and Bradley had wanted to join the Army from the time he was a little boy. However, early on he refused to say the pledge of allegiance and rejected all references to God. He was outspoken in class and would frequently have altercations with his teachers. He was small and tormented at school for being “queer”. He threatened his father with a knife and as a result he left the family home living in his truck and holding several low paying jobs. Finally he joined the Army in 2007 and after basic training he was sent to Fort Huachuca where he was trained as an Intelligence Analyst. While there he was reprimanded for posting sensitive information to friends on YouTube. He was then posted to Fort Drum where he began his first homosexual relationship and was introduced to a group of hackers. During this period he had a falling out with his military roommates and screamed at his superior officers and was referred for medical counseling.

In spite of this track record and questions regarding his fitness to be deployed he was posted to Iraq. By the end of 2009 he was clearly showing signs of his instability and was once again referred to a Chaplin for counseling. He started counseling for his “gender” confusion and complaints about being harassed for being gay. He also announced he was opposed to the war and punched a female soldier in the face. He was told he could be discharged from the Army. Before this happened he had already had begun his contacts with Assange and was fully engaged in betraying his country, endangering the lives of fellow soldiers, and under cover agents. Unlike Burgess who at least had solid and long standing beliefs in communism, Manning had no such justification other than spite and a long standing resistance to authority – any authority. What he was doing in the Army and in such a sensitive position is a failure by virtually everyone who came into contact with him. Today he is viewed by the extreme left as a hero when he has no claim to any sort of moral courage and is in fact a traitor.

Julian Assange is a person who does not believe in secrets and professes that no government has the right to any secret. He started hacking into other people’s computers at age 16 apparently with no moral regret because he believed all information should be public. He was caught and convicted although only lightly punished. His hacking had cost the firms he hacked and various governments thousands of dollars in damages. He does not appear to have seen anything wrong with his activities because much like Robespierre, he is so convinced he is right and that everyone else is wrong that he feels guiltless.

He progressed to programming and a member of the open source software movement, and joined a group of hackers who believe all software should be free and there should not be any private ownership. He had a very unstable childhood and never really stabilized as an adult. Like so many in the Open Source movement he is essentially anti-authority and anti-government and does not see that any government has authority to have secrets or any control over him. Consequently he refuses to accept that his actions have any consequences or could cost lives, but if they do then that is simply collateral damage and the responsibility is the government’s and not his.

Robespierre and Assange have similarities. Robespierre believed in equality and democracy and was a disciple of Rousseau. He was passionate in his beliefs to the point where he abandoned his resistance to the death penalty and enforced his ideals by executing those who he felt were resisting his views on the ideal society. Much like Assange is doing today except Robespierre signed the orders of execution while Assange lets other’s do it. Robespierre was viewed as a patriot just as Assange is viewed as a patriot by some, but the reality is that both betrayed their societies. Robespierre was executed for his actions and both Assange and Manning should be seen as traitors and punished accordingly. They are not heroes.

Relationship of Hatshepsut with Thutmosis III

2011-12-31T13:37:00.003-05:00

In reading a history of Egypt I once again find some "learned" professor calling Hatshepsut a "usurper" and Thutmosis as being "marginalized" and kept out of power until her death. Of course the real truth will never be known but a little logic is sorely needed on this subject. First of all Hatshepsut took Thutmosis as a little boy and raised him as her son. Queen or peasant the relationship between mother and child is a strong one and not easily broken. When Thutmosis II died his son was very young -- generally believed to be about nine -- a boy. It was his step-mother Hatshepsut who adopted him as her son and had him crowned as Pharoah while she assumed the role of regent. Even though women did not figure in the succession a woman like Hatshepsut, who had been raised to rule could easily have eliminated Thutmosis III had she desired the crown, instead she crowned her step-son as Pharoah.

Thutmosis III ruled with his mother as regent for about two years but it was clear that he didn't like the routine of governing. Like most small boys he clearly wanted to be more active and like many small boys today, he was probably interested in the Army. Consequently Hatshepsut recognized the futility of trying to rule through a small boy and sent him off to the Army while she assumed the crown as Pharaoh but without usurping Thutmosis’s position as Pharoah, so she became the co-ruler. For some this idea of sharing may seem like wishful thinking or stretching the truth, but Hatshepsut ruled for 20 years and Thutmosis III was near thirty when she died and was commander of the most powerful army of the time.

Hatshepsut was Queen with a palace guard and she could have been overturned any time her step-son chose to exercise his rights as Pharoah. Instead he remained in the army and commanded several campaigns in the south. Clearly he loved the army and enjoyed the military life, leaving the governance of the country to his step-mother. Had he thought otherwise he could have claimed his right of governance at any point once he was mature. If further evidence is needed the situation with Senmut the Vizier should be considered. Senmut functioned as the Vizier with almost total power almost from the beginning and certainly had been tutor to Thutmosis while he was prince and even as Pharoah.

Historians have long speculated that Senumt was the lover of Hatshepsut, while this may be true any close examination of Hatshepsut’s actions indicate that she truly believed that she was descended from the Gods and it is unlikely she would have taken on any commoner as a lover. But even if she had it also seems equally clear that he would never have been a candidate to marry her or her daughter or to share power with Hatshepsut. Yet the history of the time shows Senmut’s climb to power from nothing to Vizier and it seems equally clear that he was motivated by power. But Senmut suddenly disappears from sight after a visit with Thutmosis III at his headquarters in the south. Senmut visits Thutmosis then vanishes after this meeting and he is never again mentioned. What happened is not recorded but this meeting and his disappearance seem to be related.

What actually happened at this meeting is lost in history but it doesn’t require a vast leap in logic to assume that Senmut urged Thutmosis to overthrow his step-mother and to assume full power. To anyone kept in the background this might have been a golden opportunity to reclaim what was rightfully his, but for a loving and dutiful son this was an act of treason. However, Thutmosis did not take action against Senmut but undoubtedly he notified his step-mother of what had been proposed by Senmut. Given the disappearance of Senmut immediately after this visit it seems logical that Thutmosis was happy with things just as they were and viewed Senmut as disloyal to his step-mother and a traitor, but it was Hatshepsut who took action not Thutmosis.

This then opens the question that if Thutmosis loved his step-mother then why did he obliterate her statutes and images? For some this is viewed as an angry response and an illustration of how much he hated her. This is the lazy man’s view of events and really doesn’t seem logical when everything is considered. First she was buried in one of the most spectacular tombs in the valley of the Kings. Also not all of her images were destroyed and those that were destroyed were not destroyed until some time after Thutmosis took power. Thutmosis III claimed to reign from the time he was crowned meaning that he viewed the entire period during Hatshepsut’s reign as his, which of course was true. During this period it was common to mark milestones, battles, and accomplishments with statues and writings in temples and on walls. It was these where Thutmosis obliterated Hatshepsut’s name and images claiming these as part of his reign and accomplishments. Other images and references remained intact so these actions were probably not done in anger or retaliation but were politically motivated.

It seems clear when all of the evidence is considered that Thutmosis III loved his step-mother and that they had a sound and loving relationship throughout her life. Thutmosis III was a warrior and is viewed in History as the Napoleon of Egypt. Any General that powerful would not have been marginalized or kept out of power if he chose to take what was rightfully his. Instead he was satisfied leading the army while she took on the burden of daily governance. He clearly loved his step-mother just as she loved him. The idea that Hatshepsut usurped the throne and kept Thutmosis sidelined is an assumption that doesn’t seem to conform to the known facts.

The Euro-Zone Crisis

2011-12-09T10:38:00.001-05:00

So the 27 member Euro-Zone members did not reach an agreement on any solution to the ongoing Euro-Zone debt problem and Chancellor Merkel and Germany are being seen as killing the Euro. Why this surprises anyone is a mystery because Germany is the only stable and successful economy in Europe – or at least Western Europe. Essentially the solution has two parts – strict rules governing the fiscal and economic policies of the members and the issuance of “Euro-Bonds”. These bonds would be supported and guaranteed by the Euro-Zone members.

This seems simple and straightforward unless of course you are German. The Euro-Zone members are in love with their socialist programs, they like their 6 week vacations, short work weeks, high salaries, and early retirements. Even feeble attempts to rein in some of these government programs has led to riots in Greece and Italy – the governments might see the necessity for these changes but the recipients – the voters – do not. Of course the German voters see things quite differently since they are the hardworking taxpayers whose taxes have already gone to bailing out Greece and their irresponsible financial commitments. The German taxpayers are simply tired of being the financial savior of countries whose irresponsible financial programs have left them virtually bankrupt and expecting Germany to bail them out.

The Euro-Bond is a great solution for those irresponsible countries because the bonds would be guaranteed by the collective membership. Of course the largest guarantor would be Germany while the greatest abusers would be given breathing space without making any major changes to their cradle to grave programs. Chancellor Merkel sees this as a bad idea and at best a band-aid because it would merely avert the immediate crisis without actually improving the long range economic situation plaguing Europe.

The reality is Western Europe is not competitive in the world markets. Only Germany has an export economy supported by hard working taxpayers, while countries like Greece have tax policies that are laughable. In Greece the individual taxpayer is allowed to simply state how much they earned so the tax revenues don’t even approximate the cost of their government programs. The French – like most socialist governments – see employment as the objective rather than productivity and competitive position. So their solution has been to reduce the work week hours to well under 40 and any thought of increasing that has led to near riots. The supreme irony there is that France still sees itself as a world power and a peer – if not superior – to Germany. Of course France isn’t a basket case like Greece but it is nowhere near the economic power house of Germany.

Germany is emerging as the dominant force in Europe and is rapidly accomplishing the objectives that they failed to achieve in two world wars. Germany is increasingly determining the policies that Europe must follow and the only European government that seems immune to German dominance is the UK. The Fourth Reich is being born.

Greece & The Euro-Zone

2011-11-17T14:58:00.003-05:00

The French drove the campaign for the Euro thinking that with a unified Europe the incessant wars that have characterized Europe for a thousand years would stop and France would once again be the dominant force in Europe and Germany would be contained. Alas the Euro-Zone had fatal flaws from the outset and instead of France becoming the dominant force in Europe it has turned out to be the Germans. Now the Euro-Zone must dance to the German tune because it is Germany who has the money necessary to keep the Euro from collapsing and it is this power that is being displayed in the Greek Debt crisis now rocking the Euro-Zone. But Greece is just the tip of the socialist iceberg that is threatening Western Europe. Eastern Europe isn’t affected because they learned their lesson about Socialism and Communism from the USSR, a lesson Western Europe did not heed, so a review of Greek Socialism seems to be in order.

Greek Underground
For the 2004 Olympics it was necessary to install a modern transportation system in order to avoid the mass traffic jams that characterize Athens. The cost of this system was roughly $2.4M of which the Greeks paid very little with the bulk of the money coming from the Euro-Zone. One would think that the revenues from this system would eventually pay off the debt, but that is an outmoded capitalist concept. In Socialist Greece they have the “honor” system where they installed “honesty machines” where the passengers are urged to pay for their passage. Apparently the Greeks are not very honest because virtually no one pays so not only is the new underground not paying off the debt it isn’t even covering the maintenance costs – so the underground is totally supported by the government and the government is supported by tax revenues. In a capitalist country the government would simply raise taxes to cover the cost but Greece is a socialist paradise where taxes are more of a nuisance than a reality.

Greek Railroad
If the Greek Underground is a disgrace the Greek rail system is even worse and typical of how socialism operates. The average salary for railroad employees is an incredible $90,000 which includes cleaners and track workers. This is a salary treble the average private sector salary. The wages – just the wages – for the Greek railroad system is $750M but the annual ticket sales is only $120M. In a capitalist society this would call for immediate action but not in socialist Greece where the government is focused on employment and not profit.

Greek Tax Policies
While the Greeks aren’t paying for their underground tickets they aren’t paying their taxes either or at least no where near the amount of taxes they should be paying. In fact only 5000 people out 12 million admit to earning over $100,000 a year where studies have shown that more than 60,000 people have investments over $1.5 M and this doesn’t include money in overseas banks. How is this possible? Very easy since the individual taxpayer is allowed to state their own earnings for tax purposes and these are rarely challenged. Consequently many Greeks state their taxable income to be below taxable threshold of $15,000 even they own vacation homes, boats, and other luxury items. To call the Greek system corrupt is just accepted and is so accepted that there is a semi- official rate for bribes for passing false tax returns and each Greek family is estimated to spend an estimated $2500 per year in bribes. If this isn’t bad enough the Greek shipping magnates – some of the wealthiest people in the country are tax exempt because of the benefits they bring to the country even though the Greek shipyards are virtually idle employing about 500 people.

Greek Pensions
Naturally in a socialist country pensions are very dear to the people who expect the government to take care of them even if they don’t pay taxes or work very hard to earn the pensions. In Greece the retirement age is 50 with a pension of 95% of their last year’s earnings and this includes pastry chefs, radio announcers, hairdressers, and masseurs whose work is classified as “arduous and perilous” to justify the 95%.

Greek Schools
Once Greece was allowed into the Euro-Zone money began to flow into the country and into public life making life better for all Greeks. This allowed salaries to increase without requiring more production and this impacted virtually all aspects of Greek life including the school system. In a socialist country performance is not measured because the objective is employment and not efficiency. Consequently the Greek school system hired more people to manage the system so now that system is overstaffed and employs four time more teachers per pupil than Finland who has the highest rated educational system in Europe. Not surprisingly the teachers, who are in fear of being discharged are hopelessly ineffective so now parents must hire private tutors for their children.

Greco-America
Does any of this sound familiar? Is America on a similar path to financial disaster? Consider the power of the unions who demand ever higher wages without increasing productivity and quality. Consider the educational system now dominated by unionized teachers who are turning out graduates who cannot read, who have no clue of history or geography. Consider the growing underclass supported by first one welfare program than another. Consider the large pensions and salaries being paid to public employees that far outstrip those of private industry. Consider the growing demand by the underclass for higher taxes on the rich to pay for their welfare system. Consider the growing interference by the government with private industry. All of these things are indications that our government is slipping inexorably into the financial quagmire that we find in Greece.

Germany Resurgent

2011-11-16T14:13:00.000-05:00

Historically Europe has been the battleground of the West with France and Germany playing dominant roles with Britain and Russia playing important but secondary roles. This pattern has existed up until 1991 with the creation of the Euro-zone which was intended to link Europe financially in an effort to prevent any future wars due to the interdependence. This effort recognized the nationalism within the zone so the interdependence was strictly financial. It left borders intact along with languages but most importantly it left financial controls intact, meaning financial policies continued pretty much as they had in the past but with a common currency.

Unfortunately Europe has been held in thrall by its socialist programs – generous social programs that rewarded workers with lavish health and retirement benefits without demanding a great deal of work. While the taxes have been high in order to support these programs tax collection has been a challenge and the great national game has been to avoid paying taxes. The result has been the cost of government has far exceeded the revenues and the imports have exceeded exports. But the European problem isn’t totally theirs alone. China manipulates its currency keeping it an artificially low rate which drives its export based economy. The US has allowed the government to increasingly get involved in the financial structure which has caused instability both at home and abroad. But the serious problems remain in Europe because the objective of the common currency was unification and stability and the creation of an economic power – United Europe – to rival the United States – politically and economically. All of these objectives are seriously threatened.

The Maastrict Treaty created the Euro as a common currency but left the countries control of their individual fiscal policies. This meant that the countries in the Euro-zone had their own tax policies and would not share banks but would share interest rates. This allowed countries like Greece to continue their socialist programs supported by borrowed money but without any control over the value of money. In effect the Euro remains under central control but at the expense of national sovereignty. The result is the fiscal crisis in Greece and the imminent crises in Italy, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal. But these financial problems are jeopardizing the objective of a Unified Europe as well as the Euro itself, because of the resurgence of nationalism.

The Maastrict Treaty was intended to unify Europe and suppress the nationalism that has plagued Europe since the fall of Rome. But unlike the other members the German economy was designed to be export based unlike the other members in the European Free Trade Zone. . Germany became the dominant financial force in the Euro-zone and the unwilling source of financial support for the less responsible members. This is a role the German people quickly tired of as they couldn’t see why they should subsidize the irresponsible Greeks while the Greeks see the Germans as manipulating the financial system in their favor. The first bailouts by the Germans did not go well with the German people and when it became obvious that more bailout money was needed the Germans demanded action. The result was the creation of the European Financial Security Facility (EFSF) which raises money on the bond market and funnels that money to the weak Euro-Zone members, but the EFSF is run by Germany and it is the Germans who call the tune – not the French and certainly not the weak governments who depend on German money.

With the EFSF in place Germany can demand economic reforms before loaning money and are doing so. These reforms are austerity reforms which strike at the very heart of the socialist programs in place in these countries. In effect they can’t continue as they are without financial aid and they can’t get this aid without meeting Germany’s demands for reform. At a stroke and without firing a shot Germany has achieved the control over Europe that has been it’s objective since Bismark. The result has been a rise of nationalism that threatens the Euro and the concept of a unified Europe. At the very least the generous socialist programs that the Europeans have enjoyed for a long time cannot survive without extreme restructuring. This means fewer government jobs, longer work weeks, reformed pension plans, and higher taxes that are actually collected. These reforms are being resisted in Greece and Italy but when implemented will bring them more in line with the rest of the world. The question of what the European Union might become is now less relevant that can it survive at all without significant changes.—changes dictated by Germany. Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

ASK MR. MANAGER

2011-10-31T09:48:00.000-04:00

The time has come once again when we turn to “Mr. Manager” to explain exactly what manager’s mean when they say such things as “people are our most valuable asset” or “we are looking for entrepreneurs” or “we want people who are not afraid of taking a risk” or the ever popular “we don’t shoot the messenger”. As everyone – including Mr. Manager – knows there is a huge difference between English and Management Speak. While the words sound the same the interpretation or meaning in Management Speak can be quite different from what the average employee may have understood. For example exactly what DOES a manager mean when he says people are our most valuable asset?

Well the typical employee hears and interprets this statement as focusing on “people” while the manager focuses on the word “asset”. The employees will see this statement as showing care and concern for the “people” and as an expression of concern and dedication to those who do the work but this isn’t precisely what is meant in Management Speak. While it is true Mr. Manager shows care and concern for his “people” he does the same for his Ferrari, after all one doesn’t mistreat an “asset” because it depreciates its value. So the focus by the Manager is not on the word “people” but the word “asset” because to the Manager these are interchangeable terms.

The proof of this assertion lies in the actions taken by the Manager when he is called to task by the accounting team and told he has to reduce his overhead, budget, or burn rate. Now the Ferrari, like most of the tangible assets have depreciated so the disposal value is much less than the cost of replacement, but not so that most valuable asset – the people. Disposing of a few hundred people immediately reduces the payroll, the travel, the healthcare, and all of the associated overhead. All of this falls to the bottom-line and thus demonstrates that People truly are the most valuable asset.

When the boss says “we are looking for entrepreneurs” or “risk takers” does that mean he wants people who are creative and willing to take a risk – as in high risk high reward? Mr. Manager can assure you that when the boss says he is looking for entrepreneurs he is telling the absolute truth. The boss is searching for entrepreneurs with the same verve and enthusiasm as the FBI is looking for serial killers with the same objective in mind – to eliminate them from society. Entrepreneurs are people who take risks, who see new ways, who – in short – upset the apple cart and threaten the status quo. No manager worth the name is going to tolerate having his apple cart turned into applesauce by some wild-eyed loose cannon who is out to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and show higher authorities that his boss is a moron. So yes indeed, the boss is certainly on the look out for entrepreneurs so he can give them the rewards they so justly deserve.

Periodically the boss will assure the staff that he is always looking for input from the rank and file and that he will reward good performance and sound suggestions. At some point, usually at some large gathering the Boss announces that he wants suggestions and that he wants to know what we think. Of course this is another one of those times when the English and the Management Speak don’t mean the same thing. The employee hears the Boss asking for the employees to give him assistance in determining the future – he hears a request for input and suggestions. But that is English and when you filter this through Management Speak, you immediately realize that while a cat might look at a King, it isn’t recommended procedure for an employee to take this statement seriously and to suggest anything to the Boss. When the boss says he is looking for input it is in the same category as the flashing “Applause” sign you see in TV studios. The Boss is willing to accept your compliments, applause, and congratulations but any actual advice is about as welcome as a bad case of hives – in fact your advice might just bring on the hives.

Of course the boss is always telling the employees that he wants their input and feedback and that he will reward their performance. Mr. Manager can assure you that when the Boss says “we reward performance” he is telling the absolute truth. Of course, you have to understand what is meant by “performance”. The more effusive your compliments, the higher your performance rating, while the more you actually offer advice or move outside of the established boundaries set by the boss, the lower your performance rating will sink. So my little Grasshopper, don’t be deceived when the Boss seeks your advice. When that happens, you smile, bow your head, and mumble that you cannot hope to improve upon the wisdom and brilliant incisive thinking that the Boss displays everyday. Assure him you hope to achieve only half of his wisdom and your performance rating will soar – as will the rewards.

It seems to me that you are telling us that we shouldn’t be candid when dealing with the boss, even though he tells us that he “won’t shoot the messenger”.

Well my little Grasshopper “We don’t shoot the messenger” is one of the most common management phrases that Mr. Manager is asked to comment on. Obviously your boss actually won’t shoot you – it’s against the law, besides it makes a mess on the carpet and possibly his Armani suit as well. But just because the boss won’t actually shoot you doesn’t mean that he is anxious to hear what you have to say. However, no manager is going to shoot the bearer of good news, effusive compliments, or outright flattery. Therefore, if you find yourself in the position of having to deliver bad news to the boss be sure that you wear your bullet proof vest. Well – not really because as we said it is unlikely the Boss will actually shoot you but come armed with some one to whom you can attribute bad news – sort of a human shield. Once the bad news is delivered don’t confuse the Boss’s silence or dumbfounded expression as acceptance. More than likely the boss is sitting there in stunned amazement at your complete lack of understanding of the issue instead. So while he won’t actually shoot the messenger he certainly will comment to his management colleagues on your lack of insight, reliability, and inability to grasp complex management problems. So in Management Speak, he really doesn’t shoot the messenger anymore than your typical crime boss actually disposes of an undesirable colleague – it just seems to happen.

I was due for a performance and salary review but my Boss promoted me from Bottle Washer and Coffee Maker Associate to the more prestigious position of Associate Coffee Maker and Bottle Washer and said that he would give me a review in six months. Why can’t he give me a review based on my previous position and another one on my new position in six months?

Mr. Manager must tell you once again that your question by itself shows you are not management material because you do not think like a manager. You look at this as performance review where the boss will tell you how well you are doing and give you tips on how to improve and possibly put yourself in line for his job. (Insert boss’s hysterical laughter) For the manager, the real reason is that he would have to increase your salary. The higher his operating costs the lower his performance bonus and no review means no increase in your salary. So when the boss tells you that he will conduct your review in six months what he is really saying, is that he will conduct your salary review after management bonuses are paid.

So there it is my little friend – all of your questions regarding what the Boss means when his actions don’t seem to fit with his words – have now been interpreted for you by Mr. Manager. Keep studying and watching how REAL managers operate and one day you too can become an oracle like Mr. Manager.

A Review of the Arab Spring

2011-10-27T14:47:00.000-04:00

The Arab Spring continues apace as one Islamic Dictator after another falls to popular uprisings. The US has either quietly stayed on the sidelines as in Egypt and Iran or played an active role as in Iraq and Libya. Although US involvement in Libya was sort of a one off since it was conducted via NATO which is a military euphemism for the US. The US along with the western powers see these uprisings as an effort by the people to be free and struggling for democratic representative government. While these uprisings may establish new representative governments any resemblance to any western style democratic government is wishful thinking. The western powers seem incapable of grasping the realities of the Middle East and Islam. In spite of the politically correct position of the US government and the West, the reality is Christendom ( read the West) is engaged in religious war with Islam.

The Obama administration has declared that all American Troops will withdraw from Iraq. For the anti-war crowd this appears as a victory instead of the disaster it may be because to the Islamic community they won and have succeeded in driving American Forces out of Iraq. Iraq is not politically stable and that instability is being driven by Iran whose objective is to create another Islamic Nation dominated by Iran. It is almost a certainty the current government cannot remain in power once the US leaves and any new government will be Islamic, not secular, and certainly anti-American and anti-Christian.

Currently the West is celebrating the fall of the Gadhafi Government with the belief (read hope) that the new government will be democratic, pro-west, and secular. The first step of the new government was to declare Sharia Law. Of course this doesn’t mean that will stand because like most of the Arab nations, Libya is tribal and each of these tribes is now fully armed and struggling to gain power. It is probable that Libya will remain unstable for the foreseeable future but regardless of who finally emerges as the new dictator he will not be secular or democratic but Islamic and certainly not pro-west. Abdul Jalil – the head of the Libyan transitional government has already announced that he intends to establish Sharia Law in Libya – thus firmly returning Libya to the 8th Century.

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia died recently and now who will be the new Crown Prince is undetermined but the probability is that the logical candidate Prince Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz will be chosen. Saudi Arabia is strictly Islamic and rules with Sharia Law. World opinion has increasingly pressured Arabia to abandon or at least not enforce some of the more barbarous parts of Sharia. While Saudi Arabia has supported the US in some ways that support has largely been because the Royal family is not loved and needs international support. This is why the current Saudi government has been softening its enforcement of Sharia. If Aziz comes to power there is little doubt but he would return to the strict enforcement of Sharia law and reduce his support for the US. With Aziz in power Saudi Arabia could become very unstable and it is feasible that the Monarchy could fall and be replaced by an Islamic dictator.

As a further example of the failed US foreign policies we have Syria. The US was quick to step into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and to support the uprisings in Egypt but have done nothing to support the uprising in Syria. It is no secret that Syria has a well organized and capable military and Assad is supported by Iran. If the people of Syria by some miracle manage to overthrow Assad, can the US expect their support? Not very likely but if Assad manages to suppress his opposition which he is likely to do, he will be indebted to Iran and Hezbollah. He would then pose an even greater threat to Lebanon and Israel. What the US policy is toward Syria has never been very clear and the failure to support the rebels in Syria will strengthen the current government just as it did in Iran and America will once again appear to be an unreliable friend.

Iran is actually Persia and at various times in history Persia has been a mighty empire and it seems clear that the current government is intent on re-establishing that empire, if not directly certainly indirectly. As the Arab Spring progresses Iranian influence has spread from Iran across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. How Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia react to this is to be determined but the intransigence of America cannot make them overly comfortable in relying on America and that is before Iran gains nuclear power, which they are sure to do. And when they do gain nuclear capability there is no doubt they will use it as intimidation on all of the Islamic Middle East in their bid to re-establish the Caliphate and the Persian Empire. In the meantime the American public should not be so quick to celebrate the Arab Spring as an example of the rise of democracy because these governments are not going to resemble anything like western democracies and with a Nuclear Iran as the central power a major military confrontation may not be far off.

Is Wealth Zero Sum

2011-10-24T10:20:00.001-04:00

The postulation that wealth is zero sum, meaning that whatever wealth I have has been gained at the expense of others, in effect total global wealth is finite but is inequitably distributed. This argument rests on the assumption that wealth cannot be created and wealth can be defined and quantified. I submit that this is a fallacious argument.

First wealth can be defined in many ways such as the value of knowledge, a great many friends, honors, respect, or many other abstractions where the “wealth” is self determined or determined arbitrarily by others. This type of wealth is not finite and can be both created and destroyed. Therefore, for any meaningful argument wealth must be defined in terms of tangible goods such as gold, money, art, land, etc. But the postulation is that wealth is zero sum meaning that it is finite when it is obvious that the world’s available wealth today is far greater than it was a hundred years ago. But the professor / philosopher avoids this inconsistency by stating that his zero sum argument only applies to the moment and cannot be viewed in any historical context. But this refutes his argument that wealth cannot be created because global wealth has increased and he acknowledges this. This reduces his argument to the total global wealth is finite at any given moment, which is true at that moment, but in the next moment new wealth can be created e.g. a gold strike, oil strike, new invention, etc. The professor / philosopher acknowledges this but then moves to the more abstract view of wealth common to those who argue that wealth can only be gained at the expense of others – hence that wealth is finite.

The argument then becomes increasingly doctrinaire as he attacks – without noting – capitalism. He argues as follows:

“Material wealth obviously originated in the creation/origin of the universe (that is where the stuff comes from). Once we had the earth and people, people could start acquiring material goods like land and resources. These resources can be made more valuable by the addition of labor, thus creating wealth. They can also be made more valuable by other means, such as creating scarcity and controlling pricing. These material goods can be acquired in various ways, fair and foul. The classic method is, of course, conquest.”

How this argument supports a zero sum conclusion is beyond me because it demonstrates how wealth can be created and shared yielding a wealthier population overall. The actual argument appears to be the inequity of some people being wealthier than others based on the assumption that unethical and even illegal means were used to accumulate that wealth. He leaves no room for wealth accumulation via fair means. But his argument has ceased being the creation of wealth but instead has shifted to the sharing of wealth.
At this point the argument shifts to the abstraction of money “the pieces of paper” whose value is commonly agreed to but his real argument doesn’t appear to be the creation of wealth but how that wealth is created.
“Monetary wealth is obviously a social construct: we made up the financial game and the “creation” of wealth depends on the sort of game being played at any given time. For example, some folks “created” wealth by clever repackaging of toxic assets. Other people “create” wealth by working and investing their money (which is supposed to give them more money). In many ways, this is “fictional” wealth in that we are literally just making this stuff up and its value depends entirely on how far we are willing to all play make-believe. Yes, I play the game-it is a convenient way to handle exchanges in some ways. But, I always remember that it is just a game we are playing (I work, I get some paper, I hand the paper to someone and they give me an apple).”
The point being made here is a little fuzzy to me because everyone knows that paper money is an abstraction whose value is set by common agreement and backed by the government. The creation of wealth followed the same rules when commerce depended entirely on gold and silver currency. It appears that he is simply opposed to how wealth is created and how it is inequitably distributed. But he concludes his argument that wealth is finite by arguing that currency (paper) is finite because printing more doesn’t create wealth but results in inflation. That is true but then at a stroke he reduces wealth to how much money you have and since that is finite wealth is finite and zero sum. That is ridiculous of course because tangible wealth can be created in many ways and the currency is simply a method of measuring the wealth created.
In my opinion this entire argument illogical and rests on false assumptions. And when the argument is reduced to its core it appears that it is anti-capitalism and the unequal distribution of wealth.

.

China -- Red Dragon or Paper Dragon

2011-10-03T08:07:00.000-04:00

From what you read in such prestigious sources as the New York Times you would think that everybody should start learning Chinese because China is not only a rising military power but an economic power house that is overwhelming all competition. But is that a realistic appraisal of the situation? I think a little critical thinking may be in order.

First the New York Times is not noted for its veracity or being in love with capitalism nor is most of the American media The critical thinking seems to be reserved for American business and foreign policies rather than any critical analysis of what lies beneath the public policies and positions of the Peoples Republic of China. In fact when was the last time you saw any reference to China as the “People’s Republic of China”? Currently the PRC is simply referred to as China which may just be laziness of the part of the media but the fact is failing to call the PRC what it is in reality is misleading. The reality is that Communism or Marxism are demonstrable failures as a government. Furthermore Socialism as a governmental form is far from successful as can be seen in the current upheavals in Greece, Italy, France, and across Western Europe in general. The fatal flaw in these political philosophies is that their objective is employment not efficiency and wealth redistribution not wealth creation.

There is no free enterprise in the PRC in spite of appearances. Permitting a family or an individual to set up a noodle stand is not quite the same as opening a factory. The Chinese government permits these small businesses to operate more like a safety valve on a steam engine – the internal pressures on the Chinese government are immense and growing. These pressures are both political and economic but the economic ones are by far the greater.

In the PRC the government owns everything – there is no true private ownership. The government owns all of the factories, the land, and all means of production from rice to warships which mean that they are the sole employer and that they control all prices. But the PRC, like all governments is faced with a finite amount of revenue that must cover their overhead, but unlike capitalist governments they cannot raise taxes because that is just taking from one pocket and putting it in another. Consequently the PRC is forced to increase revenues from exports which means they must compete in a global market for both labor and goods. To date the PRC has been able to maintain the fiction that they are a competitive powerhouse but in reality they are operating a giant Ponzi scheme.

The PRC is manufacturing and exporting vast amounts of product because foreign manufacturers are sending thousands of jobs to this “low labor cost” market. But the manufacturing centers are along the coastal areas where the quality of life is far superior to the internal quality of life. This is leading to a growing influx of young people seeking a better life which in turn is causing pressures on housing as well wages as the cost of living increases. If the wages increase the competitive position vanishes and that foreign investment will move to other low labor cost markets. The PRC has attempted to deal with this issue by subsidizing the manufacturing which means that the cost of goods being exported are a) below cost b) at cost or c) with low margins. This in turn has led to quality issues but the real problem is that these subsidies are draining financial resources from the interior infrastructure. While the internal infrastructure cannot be improved the major problem is that it cannot even be repaired. The PRC has suffered greatly from major floods and earthquakes which have left much of the interior in need of repair, which means the government is faced with some very difficult decisions. They cannot reduce the subsidies without raising prices which will create a demand for higher wages which will drive foreign investment away. They can fail to quickly repair the damage but the rural areas are already restive due to their quality of life versus that of the coastal areas. What ever they decide there will be major changes in the economy of the PRC.

And this brings us to the Chinese Military. As Talleyrand once said regarding Napoleon’s military exploits “the problem with an army is that it eats” and thus the PRC has this issue to deal with as well. Armies are pure overhead. They cost a great deal to feed and equip while providing nothing in peace time, so they must be employed or reduced in size. The PRC cannot use their army by adopting an expansionist policy nor can they reduce its size because they would still have to pay the soldiers being released because the government is the sole employer. But there is another less visible issue and that is the military itself. Generals do not like to see their power reduced but more importantly the soldiers themselves are the sons and daughters of farmers and small shop keepers. These are the people who are suffering from a poor quality of life which is aggravated by the damaged infrastructure. A Failure to alleviate the suffering in the rural areas could easily transfer to a restive military, so the central government cannot ignore the problems of the interior and they are caught on the horns of this dilemma. If those weren’t problems enough there is another historic problem that has plagued China for thousands of years and that is corruption. Nepotism, bribery, and kickbacks are a way of life and part of the Chinese culture. The PRC does what it can to stop this and do prosecute and act on the most outrageous examples, but the problem is endemic and undermines trust in the government.

So China – the People’s Republic of China – is perhaps more of a Paper Dragon than a real one. While they appear to be crushing everything in their path, the reality is that Communism and Central Planning are demonstrable failures. The PRC cannot continue to sustain the house of cards they have built indefinitely and their dominant position in world trade must eventually collapse from the internal economic pressures.

The Arab Spring and Islam

2011-08-25T10:08:00.001-04:00

The entire Middle East is in turmoil as the people rise up in rebellion against the incumbent rulers. Unfortunately the western world sees this as a spontaneous effort by the people to achieve freedom and representative government. Actually this view rests on an appalling lack of historical knowledge as well as any insight into what Islam is all about. From the beginning Islam has swept all of the secular powers in the Middle East out of power and made great inroads into Europe and Asia but at no time did the Islamic rulers ever establish any semblance of a representative government or allow any of the freedoms so cherished by the West. Instead there has been just one repressive government after another and the Arab Spring is unlikely to produce anything close to a democratic government with all of the freedoms the west associates with democracy. In Iraq where American power overthrew a brutal dictator the new government is struggling to establish a representative government but is being challenged by Imam Al Sadr who wants an Islamic style government. In the meantime Christians are being persecuted along with any Jews that remain, so regardless of who emerges with the power it is unlikely to look anything like any western style democracy.

The people in the west, particularly those who subscribe to the pseudo-religion of multiculturalism and political correctness, watch these rebellions through western eyes and with virtually no understanding of what is actually happening. In the Arab world loyalties are very different than in the west and Libya is an excellent example to observe loyalties in the Arab world. In Islam loyalty is to the family – not just the nuclear family but all of the aunts, uncles, cousins, and nephews. The second loyalty is to the village and the third level of loyalty is to the tribe. Loyalty to a country if it exists at all is pretty thin and in spite of all of the flag waving in Libya this is essentially a tribal war and not a civil war in terms of the people versus the government. This is a group of western tribes who have held power for forty years being challenged by the eastern tribes who think it is time they held the power. Once the current regime in Libya is gone the new one is unlikely to establish anything resembling a truly democratic government. It will be an Islamic government with the only unknown being how extreme will it be.

Somehow the politically correct crowd in the west excuses the excesses of Islam on the basis that these are extremists and that at its core, Islam is a religion of peace. The naïveté of this position is astonishing given the 1500 years of evidence. The reality is the Muslim Moderates the politically correct cite as examples of Islam as peaceful simply don’t understand Islam. The true Muslims are those that are conducting the war against Christians, Jews, and Infidels. They are not “extremists who have perverted the teachings of the Koran – no -- in fact they are following Islam and the Koran to the letter. In reality it is the moderates are not adhering to the teachings of the Koran and it is unlikely they would be tolerated by Mohammed if he were alive today. Of course it is possible that as the Arab Spring progresses these moderate Muslims might come to power but it is highly unlikely given the history of Islam.

The mobs in the streets of Syria, Libya, and other Arab states are all male although in Egypt you might see a few women but even there the majority is male. Does anyone expect for the new regimes to suddenly give women equal rights? Will women be free to dress as they choose and go where they please? Will there be freedom of religion? Will Christian missionaries be permitted to proselytize in these countries under the new regimes? Will the new governments allow freedom of the press or will the government continue to control what the people hear? Will these new governments be friendly to the west or will they continue the jihad? Will Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and the multiple jihadist groups stop attacking the west? The reality is that nothing has changed and it is unlikely anything will change. Islam has been at war with Christians, Jews, and the infidels since the 7th Century and their attacks will not cease until they have conquered the world, which is what they believe is the command of Allah.

The western powers can help overthrow these repressive regimes and hope things will change but it is very unlikely. It is more probable that the former repressive regimes will be replaced by new repressive Islamic regimes perhaps not as extreme as the Taliban but certainly not resembling anything like a true democratic government with all of the freedoms associated with a free and open society.

Germany and the Fourth Reich

2011-07-29T13:40:00.003-04:00

With the rise of Hitler in the 1930’s Germany attempted to establish the Third Reich militarily as it crushed all of Europe except Russia, which it left devastated. With the fall of the Third Reich the Europeans led by France attempted to constrain Germany while striving to return France to greatness. This effort to control Europe led to the creation of the Euro-zone and the Euro as the common currency. Alas as usual the arrogance of the French created a situation that instead of containing Germany and increasing French power, it has had the opposite effect. The European governments are socialist with populations that are not driven by a strong work ethic but with a strong expectation that the government will take care of them. This has given the hard working Germans a tremendous advantage as they work and make money while the rest of Europe vacations and wallows in their socialist giveaway programs.

Following WWII the Europeans treated Germany as a defeated foe and exploited Germany as Germany rebuilt but this exploitation was mostly financial as they used Germany’s financial growth to gloss over the growing problems with their socialist economies, mostly led by the French whose idea of sacrifice was to work more than 32 hours a week. The Germans accepted this situation for a long time but with the cost of Germany reunification and the end of the cold war Germany began to reassert itself and ask why they were carrying most of the financial burden for the Euro-zone? In fact the current financial crisis in Europe has made several things abundantly clear. First there is no central control and the European Congress is more show than effect. Secondly the only economy in Europe strong enough to exert control and influence financial policy is Germany, and finally, there is little prospect that the weaker European countries will be able to recover financially without some external control and the only logical country to exert that control is Germany.

The French led the charge for the Euro Zone thinking that they would be in charge and would dominate Europe, but they didn’t anticipate what happened when the Euro was introduced. The Maastricht Treaty created a common currency but it also allowed for national control of finance, banking, and fiscal policy. This meant that the countries had their own tax policies but would not share banks but would share interest rates. While the Euro-Zone would share a common currency there was no one in charge of the economy or to set central fiscal policy. But while Europe had been living off of Germany for years they simply assumed that Germany would just continue supporting the rest of Europe financially so there was never any attempt to curtail spending or to align taxes to all of those expensive socialist programs. While that was bad enough it seems that with the lower interest rates – due to the shared interest rates in Maastricht – some of the Euro-Zone members – like Greece – went on a borrowing spree as interest rates dropped and the cheap credit flooded the Euro-Zone.

But now the Germans have had enough. They have had to cut back on many of their socialist programs to maintain Euro-Zone fiscal stability. But they no longer feel that they should support and pay for the fiscal irresponsibility of the Euro-Zone members while they are having to sacrifice to subsidize this irresponsible behavior. The result has been the creation of the European Financial Security Facility (EFSF) which raises money on the bond market and funnels that money to the weak Euro-Zone members, but the EFSF is run by Germany and it is the Germans who call the tune – not the French or the Euro-Zone members. Under the EFSF the financially stressed Euro-States can now access the needed funds but only with German permission, because this is not under the control of the European Union. In fact the EFSF can act independently of the EU in any future financial crisis. The reality now is that any distressed European State can get any money they may need but by doing whatever Germany tells them to do.

The reality now is that any Euro-Zone state who accepts financial assistance from the EFSF means ceding financial control of their economy to Germany. This means that these countries will be forced to accept German austerity programs but the fine print shows that the conditions imposed by Germany don’t have to strictly be financial. In effect Germany now controls the Euro-Zone economy and with that control they can now dictate policies that extend beyond the financial -- if they choose to do so. Failure to accept German direction simply means that Germany can cut off the flow of money which would devastate the weak socialist governments. Germany has attempted to establish control over Europe militarily with the last attempt being Hitler’s Third Reich but now it seems Germany has established control over Europe without firing a shot. Rather than out shooting the French and the rest of Europe they have simply out worked them. Welcome to the Fourth Reich

Love and Marriage

2011-07-22T11:44:00.003-04:00

Marriage seems to be on the decline as more and more people opt to “move in together” and act like they are married. Of course this is just a euphemism for no strings attached sex. When challenged regarding why not get married the response – usually from the man – is there is no need because those are just words that have no meaning and won’t change anything. Of course the rebuttal to that is “if the words have no meaning then why not say them?” Obviously the answer is they do have meaning not just morally and legally but psychologically as well. It is true that the marriage vows are just a verbal contract but they might be the most binding contract anyone will enter into and that is the reason why the “lets live together” bunch avoid it, because it is a firm commitment that closes their option to just walk away when they become unhappy.

For some reason more and more people seem to think they have a right to happiness-not just occasionally but permanently – they think they should never be unhappy and if things and circumstances make them unhappy they feel free to just walk away and find some one else who makes them happy. Of course this is an unreasonable expectation as anyone who has been married longer than a few years can tell you. Marriage is filled with highs and lows as well as compromises and sacrifices, but in the end it is worth everything if you just stick it out. Marriage begins with passion, fun, adventure, and the expectation that this will go on forever and it does for a while. But that passion and excitement is not love and the fun and adventure quickly fade and become routine. And as that routine sets in things change – for some it changes for the better but for others it becomes boring which in turn leads to unhappiness and divorce due to the expectation that they should never experience unhappiness or sacrifice. These people never really experience love because they cannot separate sex, passion, and excitement from love. The problem seems to be that people get confused about love and think that movies portray love – they don’t.

Every day and in many ways husbands and wives show their love. Every time a man squashes a bug or disposes of a mouse or just takes the trash out, he saying “I love you”. Every time the wife picks up the dry cleaning, prepares a meal, or insists you see a doctor for that scratch she is saying “I love you”. Marriage is all about love – real love – where the other person’s health and happiness comes before your own. Where you can sit quietly with the other person and say nothing but can’t sit alone without knowing where the other person is. Love is when nothing can be fully enjoyed without sharing with the other person. Love is not Hollywood just as it is not constant excitement and romance – love comes quietly and sustains you through the bad times just as it magnifies the good times. The words in the marriage vow mean something and will bring lasting love and happiness when they are followed.

Living together is not marriage and does not represent any sort of commitment and no matter how long this arrangement lasts it will never yield the level of love that marriage provides, because it never shows any commitment to be there during the bad times. But once married and willing to stay through the bad times the effort and sacrifices are worth it and yield a life time happiness because the marriage rests on a foundation of love.

Rome and The US And The Roots of Decline

2011-07-16T10:13:00.003-04:00

History And Realpolitik

Sometimes it is truly frightening to watch world leaders make decisions and take actions that history clearly demonstrates are doomed to failure. In 2002 a book was published “Warrior Politics” which was an essay on “Realpolitik” In this short book the author uses historical references gleaned from some of the worlds great thinkers and philosophers to put the 20th century into perspective. Certainly the 20th Century will go down in history as a pivotal period. It included the rise of Communism and its ultimate failure. A failure still not recognized by many academics and politicians who still think Socialism and Communism are viable political structures but previous failures were not due to any inherent flaws but because the implementers were incompetent. The 20th Century saw genocides on massive scales, not just in Germany but in Asia, Eastern Europe, and Russia as well.

Without doubt two of the most important events in the 20th Century were the two world wars but it is worth noting that these two wars parallel the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage. In the second century BC Carthage was the dominant power in the Mediterranean but that power was being challenged by Rome After the first Punic War Rome imposed an unjust peace on Carthage which directly led to the succeeding wars which were costly in lives and treasure. This is precisely what happened in the 20th Century. Germany was a newly minted country and a rising power in Europe. This drive for power brought it into conflict with France and England and gave rise to WWI. But the allied powers failed to see the parallel with the Punic Wars and imposed the unjust Treaty of Versailles. But the allied powers failed to see the parallel with the Punic Wars and imposed the unjust Treaty of Versailles Germany. This treaty led directly to WW II.

But these are only the most obvious lessons to be gleaned from history and as the 20th century fades into history we find the 21st Century leaders repeating the mistakes of history. We find the US – much like Rome – embroiled in a seemingly endless series of wars. The Pax Romana taxed the Roman Empire just as the Pax Americana is taxing the American Empire – and for many of the same reasons. America is engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, China, India, and Pakistan. But for what purpose and for what advantage to America? The glib answer of course is that these are necessary to protect America both economically and militarily, which of course would have been the response of any of the Caesars. But there are no specific answers coming out of Washington, because there are no concrete advantages to America. Why is the US subsidizing Palestine (Hamas) when they are clearly the group who are the aggressors against Israel and have never shown even the slightest indication that they want peace. In fact the only thing they want is for Israel to vanish and all Jews (and Christians) to be driven from “Arab Lands”. We entered Afghanistan for the purpose of capturing Osama bin Laden, that is accomplished but once it was clear he was no longer in Afghanistan what was the purpose of us lingering there? An even larger question is why didn’t the US kill all of the poppy fields? The answer has been this would have turned them against us – are they for us now? Aren’t these fields the source of much of the drug trade throughout the world and the revenue source for the Taliban? At least the Romans could justify their military excursions on the basis that conquests generated greater revenues for the state, but for the US these military adventures are costly.

One of the major reasons for the ultimate decline of Rome was the rampant corruption at the top. The Justice system was corrupt as the politicians bought votes, and the politicians were engaged not just in power struggles but in lining their own pockets. Does any of that resemble the US Congress today? The voter roles are clearly corrupt and this is so widely accepted that it is a joke. Key politicians pay no taxes (unless caught) and enact legislation to enrich themselves and to pander to special interests. The Justice system may not be for sale but it certainly is out of control. The courts have begun to act as a legislative branch via their interpretation of laws which has given us rules that are totally counter to the majority will.

The result is American prestige is declining just as America has entered into a decline. Any sense of shame or moral authority is gone via Court decisions that permit everything in the name of free speech. People increasingly look to the government for help and support rather than rolling up their sleeves and taking care of themselves and their families. The Congress has lost any sense of fiscal responsibility as they spend money on special interests while borrowing money to give away. Rome was not conquered it rotted away and there is a message there that should not be ignored by our Congress or the American People.

China and Economics

2011-07-02T12:45:00.002-04:00

The idea that China is rapidly taking over the world economy is a widespread belief, but like so many things related to Socialism and Communism the realities are frequently ignored by pandering press. Currently the focus is on Greece and Europe where all of those socialist dreams are rapidly becoming an economic nightmare as it becomes apparent that government spending cannot exceed tax revenues. But there are other socialist countries where the stark reality of economics is beginning to rear its ugly head and China is one of those.

China – like so many other nations including the US, unleashed a flood of “stimulus” money in 2008 for the purpose of stimulating its economy which had been hard hit with the global decline. This stimulus money mostly went to local governments with the intent that this money would be spent on the infrastructure. This money vanished but with no real improvement in the infrastructure and by 2010 the local governments were $1.6 trillion dollars in debt, mostly in bank loans with a substantial portion of those loans being bad debt. Many of those infrastructure projects are sunk in debt and incomplete and those that have been completed have done little to stimulate or support China’s economic growth as they are simply “bridges to nowhere”. The reality is that no government can continue to make loans that are not paid back because eventually you run out of money. Greece and Europe (and soon the US) are in the throes of that reality and China is not far behind.

Cart Water’s and American Investment Banker and a specialist in China, points out that 55% of the Chinese GDP was from infrastructure investment – meaning bank loans which in a Communist country means the government. But governments do not make a profit and this is true even in communist countries and the collapse of the USSR is an example of how governments cannot run anything at a profit. So the Chinese government is trying to shore up its economic house by shifting much of the local government debt off of their books while the state owned banks re-capitalize using state guaranteed profits generated by the spread between interest rates on savings and interest charged on loans. Chinese law allows the banks to roll over their bad debts indefinitely so they can gradually pay down these debts. This is a communist country where the government controls everything so it is easy for the government to rig the system, which is just building a house of cards that cannot stand forever.

Of course in a rigged system the banks make money no matter if the loans are bad loans but the reality is those loans don’t go away and as that debt load grows the government will find it harder and harder to lend more money for investment in the infrastructure necessary to maintain their economy. That economy is highly dependent on the industrialized coast cities and their industries which are government subsidized. But China remains a largely rural economy and the disparity in income between the interior and the coastal region is creating unrest and demands for infrastructure and quality of life improvements that the government cannot meet in its leveraged state.

But the work force in the Industrial cities is demanding higher and higher wages which is placing the government into a difficult position. A failure to meet the demands for higher wages will cause the workforce to become even more restive than it already is but raising the wages reduces China’s competitiveness in the world labor market while reducing their ability to satisfy the rural area’s demands for improvements in infrastructure and quality of life. The government has made some attempt to increase wages but this has caused some manufacturers to abandon China and move to lower cost labor markets. This migration out of China is causing unemployment and empty factories which is having an impact in the rural areas because the government can’t fund the necessary improvements in the countryside and those unemployed workers were sending money to their rural families but that has ceased adding to the unrest. There have already been riots and unrest which the government is attempting to keep out of the public eye but they recognize the gravity of the situation.

Socialism and communism alike cannot and do not work in the long term. Europe is nearly bankrupt and faced with the reality that their extravagant government benefits cannot be sustained in the face of higher costs and greater longevity of their populations. Attempts to reduce these benefits even slightly had resulted in riots and instability. This is a lesson not wasted on the Chinese but the fear that China is going to take over the world seems unfounded.

China and Economics

2011-07-02T12:45:00.000-04:00

A Review of Management

2011-07-01T13:58:00.001-04:00

With unemployment high and manufacturing increasingly moving off shore American products and unions are under attack for high costs and low productivity. Union labor is viewed as unmotivated, illiterate, and giving a great deal less than a days work for a day's wage. Productivity is low and growth in productivity is either non-existent or modest. Labor unions continue to demand high wages and benefits while an increasingly ineffective management structure seems to be confused, inept, and unable to come to grips with the death grip unions have on both government and industry. The once formidable American management teams which dominated world markets are now struggling to maintain themselves in those markets which they once dominated.

What is the problem?

Why do so many American businesses seem to be operating out of control?

I believe the chaos which now pervades American business is caused by years of ineffective management, rigid union practices, and an outdated business model. The contemporary American business model was founded on a Socio-Political model which has been in vogue throughout history and it has only been recently that this model has shown itself to be seriously out of step with industry, business, and society.

It was this socio-political model which gave rise to the labor movement and established the concept of "Labor versus Management" which has characterized western industrial societies from their inception. It was this model which Karl Marx referred to when he spoke of exploitive capitalists and predicted the inevitable death of capitalism. There has always been this conflict between the governed (labor) and the governors (management), but how it has contributed to the decline in the American economy can best be seen in retrospect. When we look backward we can see that the symptoms and danger flags have been there for a long time.

• The separation of management from the work force, both physically and philosophically.
• A business focus, which has largely ignored any but financial issues.
• A persistent and longstanding antagonism between management and labor
• A high cost labor force governed by seniority and not performance
• A labor force with ever increasing demands for wages and benefits
• Failure by management and labor to recognize globalization and its impacts

The effect of these factors has been cumulative over a long period and the results are now becoming apparent. We are seeing reductions in quality, lower productivity, and increasing unemployment as jobs move overseas to lower labor markets. Much of this malaise is attributed to high labor costs, a declining work ethic, waste, mismanagement, and a wide variety of other reasons. However, rather than being the problem, these may be symptomatic.

The problem may be that as our culture and markets have changed, our management model has not. It has continued to follow the authoritarian form it has had since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Western business is founded on a business model whose roots are in 18th century cultural concepts rather than those of the 20th Century much less the 21st. Only recently have the cultural conflicts inherent in the American model, become obvious.

American management has consistently failed to recognize the underlying source of worker dissatisfaction or to deal with it in any effective way. Historically this dissatisfaction was glossed over with higher wages, improved benefits, and other concessions. Only rarely were these concessions tied to any increase in productivity or quality. Labor negotiations and concessions were oriented toward rectifying surface problems associated with worker dissatisfaction rather than coming to grips with the basic causes of the problems.

The result was an upward spiral of costs factored with lower quality and productivity. American management failed to recognize that the underlying source of worker dissatisfaction was tied to the authoritarian model and its failure to incorporate the worker into the business process. The worker was kept out of the "decision process" and pacified with increased benefits. As these costs increased they were simply passed on to the consumer. This simple solution was an endless spiral until foreign manufacturers began to provide serious competition with higher quality goods at equivalent or lower prices. Suddenly management and labor were confronted with a completely new set of circumstances which they were ill prepared to face because the current American industrial model pits labor against management. Therefore the possibility of establishing a partnership between labor and management, as a solution to the crisis, has never been seriously considered.

It is the union labor contracts that have driven American Labor out of global competition. When management made it clear those productivity improvements, fewer job classifications, and reduced wages and benefits were necessary the unions refuse to cooperate. This resistance left management in the position of finding ways to improve productivity and profits without the support of Labor, which caused management to turn to off shore suppliers and technology as a solution. However, it quickly became apparent that productivity increases due to technology required more than capital investment and off shore work came with some significant quality and management issues.

To be competitive the American Management Team found that this new work force had to be more educated and more computer literate which did not describe their unionized work force. This new labor force was made up of technicians rather than craftsmen and efforts made by management to convert the existing labor force to technicians were rebuffed because the union craftsman ratings were hard earned and represented lifetime achievement for many. Failing to convince unions that retraining was in their best interest management began to recruit new and more educated employees.

These new technically trained workers were not union oriented and certainly not satisfied with the autocratic management style employed with unskilled workers. These new workers were less loyal to the company and expected to have a greater voice in the process of operating the business. Initially management failed to understand this aspect of this new work force but they also had problems coming to grips with a work force where the workers frequently knew more than their managers, and wouldn’t tolerate being patronized.

As the work force changed from unskilled to skilled the union leaders saw their membership decline because these new technical people had even less patience with them than they did with management. The result of this failure of labor and management to recognize the changing environment has been a growing irrelevance of labor unions and a management structure that seems increasingly unable to cope with the competitive situation. This has resulted in a chaotic situation which is due, at least partially, to the continuation of a model which has failed to reflect the changes in the labor force and our society. Many of the managers, who are experiencing this confusion today, recognize the failure of the old ways to solve today's problems and are grappling for a solution.

The failure of Theory X, Theory Y, Theory Z, and Managing by Objectives has led to a mini-revolution in management. Gone or going is the centralized workplace and increasingly the workers are working from home offices spread around the globe. This means the organization has become virtual and the managers must manage based on metrics and milestones. The labor unions continue their decline because virtual workers in a virtual organization have little interest or need for a union. Of course this requires a completely new management style but this is increasingly the management style of the 21st Century.

NATO or Naturally America Takes Over

2011-06-19T14:15:00.001-04:00

Although I am a great admired of Harry Truman the man, I am much less impressed with some of his legacy, namely the United Nations and NATO. Like so many progressives (read socialist or neo-Marxist) I’m sure he labored under the impression that he was establishing a foundation for world peace. Many at the time thought that WW II was a result of the failure of the League of Nations and America’s failure to join. This of course is the typical reaction by France and Britain as they refuse to ever assume any responsibility for the disasters they created in Africa and the Middle East with their arrogance and meddling. Their unjust treaty of Versailles was the direct cause for the rise of Hitler and the desire of the Germans to retaliate against their oppressors. It is highly unlikely that even if America had joined the League of Nations WW II could have been avoided. But certainly President Truman must have felt that his United Nations would provide a forum to prevent any future wars. Of course he was proven wrong even in his life time.

The United Nations has morphed into a corrupt organization that is nothing more than an impotent debating club where nothing ever gets done and their peace keeping activities not only have universally failed to keep the peace but seem to have no function whatsoever other than cosmetic. This organization has become dominated by Islamic States led by strongmen, Presidents for Life, and terrorists like Arafat masquerading as heads of state. Yet the United States continues to participate in this charade which is bad enough but the US is expected to pay for its demonstrable anti-American activities. This is a failed organization that has clearly outlived its usefulness, must like that other misguided dream of Truman’s – NATO.

NATO was created in 1949 for the collective defense of Europe – aimed primarily at defending Europe from the Russian colossus to the East. In fact the role of NATO was summarized by the first Secretary General as “the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down”. While that may be a flippant remark it is also painfully accurate but in that accuracy also lies the truth that it is no longer relevant, a burden on the US military, and a constant irritant to the Russians. Russia is no longer the USSR and generally thought of as no longer being a super power, but that is just whistling in the dark. Russia is and has always been powerful and while it is distracted now as it grows into something similar to a democratic state, it is not a military threat to Western Europe.

The Germans have grown into a major economic power with an invisible military. Germany dominates Western Europe and the Euro-zone economically while France and the majority of Western Europe sink into their socialist quagmire of entitlements, over taxation, and irrelevance. So the only real function of NATO is to “keep America in” meaning that NATO is in fact just the United States acting under the euphemism called NATO. It is America that funds NATO and it is American soldiers who act under its banner. The military and defense budgets of Europe are virtually non-existent and their military is hardly capable of defending themselves much less providing any meaningful support to any joint activity like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. The military support coming from these NATO nations is at best cosmetic because with the exception of the UK they do not conduct active military operations in any major way. In general their troops are kept away from any real danger, because their governments can barely accept any military involvement and they participate only to keep the American money flowing into their military and NATO.

The fact is that America can no longer nor should any longer be expected to keep the peace world wide. If Europe needs defending then the Europeans should do it themselves and pay for it themselves. If South Korea needs to be protected from the North then they should do it with their troops and their money. If they think they need UN protection then let the UN field and pay for the troops not America. What purpose is served by maintaining a major military presence in Germany and Japan? These represent a drain on the American treasury and a misuse of American Troops that could be used more effectively in other places. NATO has seen its day and that day has past. It is an expensive anachronism and no longer serves America’s interests.

The Arab Spring of 2011

2011-06-08T09:58:00.003-04:00

The Arab Spring is worrisome on several levels. It seems that few in the Western World understand the dynamics of the area and American foreign policy over several administrations seems to be based more on wishful thinking (my opinion)than any true understanding of how things work. There is a reason why these countries have been unstable for generations if not for centuries. The Ottomans ruled this area for 500 years but did so with an iron hand and disagreements and disagreeable people were dealt with harshly. The Arab world is tribal in nature with fierce opposition between tribes. Khadafi (sp) in Libya is hanging on to power because his military is drawn from and led by his tribe. The opposition is not some group or groups of people grasping for freedom and democratic government, these are people who think it is time for their tribe(s) to rule. Once Khadafi is out nothing will change and in fact there is a high probability that Al Qaeda could seize power because of the fragmented opposition to Khadafi.

The West and America in particular seems to labor under the misconception that the Arab World is in turmoil because the people want representative government and freedom. There is nothing in the history of this region that would lead any thinking person to that conclusion. Even if "democratic" governments come out of these conflicts they will not resemble any democratic government that would be recognizable by the average American. Their press will be controlled, the government will be corrupt, the legal system will be controlled, there will be no freedom of religion,no freedom of speech, and in general what will emerge is the usual Islamic strongman dictator clinging to power for life or at least for decades.

America is withdrawing from Iraq leaving behind a fragile "democratic" government. It is unlikely that government will survive and very likely that a civil war will occur driven by Al Sadr and other religious leaders. It will be Sunni versus Shia and tribe against tribe with the Christians and Kurds playing a minor role. People seem to forget that the British and French tried to bring democratic governments to this area following WW I and it failed. Those goverments collapsed into strong man dictatorships run by "Presidents" for life. The best thing America can do now is to cut our losses and leave these people to sort it out for themselves. The alternative would be to stop playing this ridiculous game of moral superiority and attempting to establish our rules over them. They regard our freedoms and rules as weaknesses and act accordingly. A few public executions, mass bombings, and an emasculation or two would send the only kind of message these people understand because those are their rules and the rules they understand.

The upheaval in the Arab world is driving out dictators who supported America but what they are being replaced by may be -- and probably will be -- much worse for American security than what it has been under the dictators. Egypt is abandoning their peaceful coexistence with Israel, Syria is in play over Lebanon and Israel. The Iranians are pushing their anti-west and anti-Israel agendas in the background. Our foreign policy is non-existent or at least doesn't give the appearance of being a coherent policy.

Royce

Ayn Rand in Summary

2011-05-22T11:19:00.002-04:00

Several days ago I was challenged for being an ideologue without actually understanding conservatism or acknowledging the extreme views of Ayn Rand. As part of this discussion I was asked to respond but in something short of a white paper.

Ayn Rand is a very complex person while paradoxically seeming to be simplistic and predictable. I agree with others in that Rand’s philosophy can be summed up as “Objective Materialism”, but what this means probably falls into the same amorphous category as ‘socially conscious”. Do I find her views “appealing?” Yes and no – I think Rand makes some very valid philosophical points but that doesn’t mean that I subscribe to all of her positions, which can be extreme. Some of the left have asked that I distill Rand’s philosophy into a set of bullet points. The bullets below represent my effort to do so, but condensing Rand’s philosophy into a series of bullets probably cannot provide any in depth insight into her philosophy as a whole. So here is my (pathetic?) attempt to summarize Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

1. Probably the simplest and easiest way to view Rand’s philosophy is to summarize it as the struggle of society and government between individualism and collectivism. Where the individual has a right to be himself and to retain the fruits of his labor while the collectivist represents the right of government to take the fruits of the individual’s labor and use it for the “greater good”.

2. Rand sees the collectivists as destroyers of capitalism and the profit motive who if left unchecked will cause the ultimate collapse of society itself. Although Rand died before the collapse of the USSR I think that bears out her conclusion.

3. The Philosophy of Objectivism essentially is a defense or advocacy for reason, individualism, capitalism, and the free market economy while establishing a rejection of government coercion through laws and regulations intended to further government control and support for the greater good of society.

4. Much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy can be summarized as describing the inherent conflict between Marxism (Rand was a strong anti-Marxist) and Capitalism in the form of a free market and individual rights over the collective.

5. Rand’s Magnum Opus “Atlas Shrugged” actually was a treatise on how fascism, communism, and socialism or any form of government control of society is fatally flawed at its core and ultimately destructive to society as a whole. She feels that any form of coerced self-sacrifice is destructive to society.

6. Perhaps the most controversial part of Ayn Rand’s philosophy is her rejection of God or any sort of higher being. In her philosophy she rejects anything which she sees as claiming authority or control over the individual or the individual’s mind. Whether or not she is an outright Atheist is unclear, but this position puts her at odds with much of the conservative political movement.

7. Rand’s philosophy when examined at its core echo’s the position of Frederic Bastiat (The Law) which postulates that no man or government can obtain anything of value from an individual through force either physical or legal. In effect the rights of the individual are paramount (read rights of property) and that the individual has the fundamental right to the fruits of his labor. In effect Rand supports laissez faire capitalism – a free and unregulated market. Rand (and Bastiat) reject any legislation based on enforced or coerced altruism (e.g. equalization of opportunity) which Rand sees as a triumph of special interests over those who produce value (the individual).

8. Another summarized view of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and what probably makes it attractive to the political conservative is her position that society must protect itself from the parasites and “looters” (her term) who are represented by the “tax the rich politicians”, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government economic planning, onerous federal regulations, and most of all any form of wealth redistribution. That latter point in and of itself makes her philosophy attractive to the political right.

I think the above is a brief summarization of what passes for Ayn Rand’s philosophy called Objectivism and Individualism. There is undoubtedly more than what is shown here but I think these brief paragraphs demonstrate why she is attractive to the political right. Now it can be argued that her positions are extreme and that a society composed entirely of individuals beholden to no one but themselves could not be sustained anymore than the collectivist society that she condemns. On the other hand it can be argued that the US was a great deal richer and freer before the federal government became so powerful while the failure of the collectivist society is demonstrated by the failure of the USSR and the growing woes of the socialist European nations

Bin Laden -- Some Observations

2011-05-09T16:04:00.001-04:00

As the details regarding Osama bin Laden continue to unfold it is becoming obvious that his rejection of things western left him vulnerable. Here was a man, a man of great wealth, living a more or less hypocritical existence. He has rejected all things western and called on his followers to live by the Koran. He rejected the Internet, cell phones, satellites, while using them to further his objectives of the overthrow of western society. He lived in a “mansion” we are told but the photos and videos showing his living conditions would have led to his indictment in the US as a slum lord. He feared capture and death while producing videos showing him in various militant poses with weapons. The real irony here is how he lived at the end. Hitler died in his bunker from self administered poison. His dreams of a super race and a Third Reich were crushed by bombs while he was rejected and betrayed by his own military. Stalin apparently died of natural causes but his was an existence of fear and mistrust because he feared all of those around him. So his life was hardly the kind of life anyone would wish and at the very end his own daughter betrayed him. Saddam Hussein ended on the gallows after being dragged out of hole in the ground. For Bin Laden he had effectively been in prison for the last five years, not venturing out beyond his walled compound. Apparently in his rejection of all things western he had failed to read his Shakespeare or he would have learned the lesson of King Lear. Bin Laden had divided his power and those to whom he delegated his power wielded it on their own leaving him ignored, living in squalor, and left to die surrounded by his two remaining loyal followers. So bin Laden followed in the footsteps of all of those mass murders who preceded him.

The pages of history are strewn with examples of how those who misuse their power seem to come to bad ends, destroyed by their friends, allies, or even by their own over reaching for power. Perhaps the lesson is that while empires may be build on blood and treasure individuals cannot achieve a positive place in history using the same methods. Caesar came to power over the bodies of his own citizens but was assassinated by his friends, because he could not bring himself to restore the republic. Napoleon came to power much the same way but he too could not lay down his power and set up a democratic government. George Washington is the only historical figure who having achieved total control over a government and country set aside his power in favor of a government of representatives. In the end, bin Laden ended like all of his predecessors, alone and undefended.

Characteristics of a Good Manager

2011-03-29T12:14:00.003-04:00

Alexandra White was once a member of my team and someone who I greatly admired. She wrote this piece as a description of what a good manager should do. I was very flattered and posted this because I think she has summarized the characteristics of what mamagement is all abou, characteristics she felt she learned while part of our team.

What Makes A Good Manager
By
Alexandra White

Back in the height of the "dot-com" explosion, I joined a small start-up software company. From the first day, I remember the electric, creative energy that crackled through the place, the cubicles decked out with personal décor: lava lamps, full-sized tents, rubber chickens, colored twinkle lights, and even surfboards. Everyone wore jeans and t-shirts. I had looked down at my pale grey suit, my polished black heels, and thought, I'm not sure I fit here, but I'd like to try.
After a few months, I was walking down the hallway, admiring how someone had outfitted their cubicle entirely with fake fruit, and another employee, Nate, stopped me. He wasn't in my group, but I knew he was a talented coder who had been aggressively recruited after just one year of college. He looked distraught.
"Hey, can you help me with something?" he asked. He told me that he was having trouble with another coder, Eric. Eric was supposed to quality check the work of more junior coders but wasn't following through and had also been showing up late each day and leaving early without explanation.
Nate had tried to talk to Eric, but Eric simply brushed him off and was ignoring his emails. Nate and Eric reported to different managers, and Nate had already asked his own manager for help, but his manager had shrugged, saying, "You're in charge of this project, so you need to handle it."
"From what I can tell," I said, "I think you need to escalate this."
Nate looked at me. "Okay," he said. "But what do you mean by 'escalate'?"
Then it hit me. Nate had never been part of a corporation before; the typical internal procedures of a company, and the "chain of a command" were foreign to him. So on the whiteboard in his cubicle, I briefly sketched out the organization structure and explained what it meant to "escalate" problems.
I realized then that while Nate had superior technical skills, no one had yet taught him some of these basics—what I've heard some people dismiss as "soft skills"—communication, conflict resolution, etc. I was amazed that Nate's manager would put Nate into a leadership role without the support or guidance to navigate or solve problems.
I recalled this story with Nate when my friend Joseph Banks cited Google's recent analysis to help their leaders be better managers.
Over the last 20 years in working in technology companies, I have had my share of strong and weak managers, and I agreed with many of Google's findings about the ingredients of what makes a manager good. It inspired to make my own list of some of the basic aspects of a good manager.
Respects you as a person. A good manager realizes that although you are an important company asset, you are also a human being. Even mild attempts to get to know you, even if it's just to inquire how your weekend was, and actually listen to the answer, can make an employee-manager connection feel more like a relationship and less like a business transaction. Some of my managers used humor to build rapport and reduce work pressure. Years ago I was working with a very difficult client, and at the end of a harrowing week our manager surprised our team with coffee and doughnuts. "I selected a lot of chocolate ones," he said. "Chocolate makes everything better." And for a few minutes, our tough situation really was better.
Has your back and defends you when necessary. As in the Google findings, I believe a good manager supports you in times of conflict and has your best interests at heart. A group of colleagues and I were once an assignment to fix a problem within one of our internal groups. Our lead contact felt threatened by us, and kept calling our manager to complain. Our manager listened and then informed him, "You asked me for help and I sent you help. If you don't let my team do their job, I will put them on the next plane home. Then you'll be left to solve the problem, and we both know how that will end up. So, please--get out of their way."
Compliments publicly, critiques privately. I've witnessed managers criticizing and badgering employees on group conference calls, as if being embarrassed among peers would motivate them to improve. I have yet to find a colleague who feels inspired to try harder after being backed into a corner. On the flip side, public recognition for good work usually has a twin benefit of 1) making the employee who gets the praise feel valued and 2) making other employees think, 'Hey, I'd like that kind of attention, too.'
Helps you navigate corporate structure and culture. In reflecting on that story with Nate, I'm still amazed that his manager virtually left him out in the cold, not helping him understand the structure of the organization and how he might solve problems. While I know some managers prefer a "sink or swim" mentality, I think that technique often backfires. A good manager helps you understand the political landscape, the communication protocols (e.g., do people prefer email or phone calls,), and gives you insight into the company's culture. A good manager wants to set you up for success.
Inspires you to do your best work. Great managers recognize your talent and strengths and also areas where you need to grow. As with the public compliments, private critiques, a great manager helps you identify those opportunities that might challenge you, and offers constructive feedback to pinpoint what aspects of your approach might be holding you back.
Gets rid of "bad apples." A huge decline in morale occurs when a team who works closely together is "stuck" with members who have terrible performance, an awful attitude, or questionable ethics. While employees cannot expect that all colleagues to be wonderful, it is truly detrimental if a manager continues to allow "bad apples" to remain on a team, without implementing a performance improvement plan, or if necessary, removing a problem employee.
Asks, "Do you need my help?" My favorite managers don't micro-manage me, but let me know I have a lifeline if I need one. Good managers know it is not a sign of weakness to ask for help. A savvy manager checks in with an employee and says, "How's that going? Any help you need from me?"
Says "thank you." For some managers, no communication to employees is good news--it means everything is fine. But most people appreciate having their value acknowledged now and then. Over the years, I've seen all kinds of physical rewards offered—clothing with company logos, shiny plaques or desk ornaments, coffee mugs, and framed appreciation certificates edged in gold. While some people might enjoy these items, most people I talk to really just want someone to say, "Thank you for the work you do." (And yes, some cold hard bonus cash doesn't hurt either!)
Being a good manager is difficult, and I remain in admiration of those who do it well.

Rome & The Republic

2011-03-10T14:18:00.001-05:00

The study of history has largely been abandoned in the American education system, particularly any study of ancient history but there are many lessons to be learned by simply examining the mistakes of the past. The parallels between ancient Rome and modern America should give pause to our political leaders today. Rome was a Republic that lasted for 482 years. It had an elected body—the Senate led by two Consuls. This was a very successful government until overthrown by Caesar in his drive for total power, but Rome itself lasted for over a thousand years and during that period experienced many problems and situations America faces today.

Rome was expansionist in that it conquered and incorporated territories into the Empire. But Rome was careful to preserve the cultures and leadership of those territories. Kings were left in place but most importantly Rome was careful not to tamper with the local customs and religions, that is until they ran up against the monotheistic Jews and Christians. This religious tolerance was not again experienced until the founding of America who incorporated religious tolerance into the Constitution. The Romans tolerated the Christians at first but the Christians simply would not accept the polytheistic views of the Romans. Eventually the Christians prevailed and the Roman Empire became Christian. Today America tolerates all religions including Atheism and Islam. However, just as the early Christians refused to accept the religious tolerance of the Roman Government so does Islam refuse to accept any religion except Islam. The Muslim community pleads for peace and understanding just as the early Christians did, but it should be noted that the Christians did not Christianize Rome through violence but through creeping influence and conversion until Rome was Christian. How will Islam impact America and America’s religious tolerance?

Rome accepted other people and cultures and the city itself was overflowing with people from all parts of the Empire. The Goths, Gauls, Visigoths, Britons, and others were not trying to overthrow Rome, they wanted to be part of the Roman Empire. They wanted to share the wealth and standard of living that characterized Rome. But in the simplest view, Rome simply could not accept this influx of people and cultures. Today America is under assault from thousands of people crossing our borders not to conquer us but to share the wealth and enjoy the stability of the government. This was a problem the Romans could not resolve for many reasons. They were preoccupied with foreign affairs, various wars, corruption in the government, failure in communications, unemployment, and a weakening economy. All of these issues exist in America today and it doesn’t appear that our government is any closer to solving them than the Romans but perhaps it might be worthwhile examining what the Romans did and try to not do those things.

Initially the Roman Senate was elected by the citizens of Rome and it represented their interests but gradually the Roman Senate became a self-serving group filled with corruption. Posts were bought and sold with the understanding that the person filling the post would enrich himself through corruption. The American Senate isn’t quite that bad – yet, but does the American Congress represent the people who vote them into office or do they represent the special interests and wealthy contributors who pay for their elections? The Romans never resolved this problem and whether America can is yet to be seen.

At one time Rome had over a million men in the Army spread across the Empire. This military presence was very expensive to maintain and it required a huge tax base just to maintain it. Nevertheless this huge Army was simply not enough to protect the borders or to maintain the integrity of the Empire. Today American has a huge military spread around the globe protecting America’s and in most cases international interests. This is being done with American money with only token amounts from other countries in the form of soldiers and money. Can America continue to support NATO? Can America continue to pretend the UN has any relevance and authority? Can America continue to play world policeman? The Romans couldn’t can America?

The lessons are there – is any one listening?

2011-03-06T09:50:00.002-05:00

Periodically I run into something from my childhood that is long forgotten and placed on some dusty mental shelf. Something that suddenly brings into sharp focus the things that shaped me as a child and I recently encountered one of these artifacts -- this poem written my Rudyard Kipling. I first read this poem either in the eighth grade or freshman year and have long since forgotten it but in re-reading it as a retrospective on my life I am amazed by its accuracy and how it describes so much of my life.

Everyone is faced with challenges throughout their life and they never get easier, especially if you elect to lead others. Leadership is not for the weak or faint of heart because to stand out you must stand up and in standing up you present a target for those who lack the courage or temperament to lead. This short poem captures what leadership is all about.

Cal

Rudyard Kipling
If

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;

If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man my son!

What Is Art?

2011-02-15T08:48:00.001-05:00

The common position seems to be that ART is in the eye of the beholder, meaning a pile of elephant dung painted royal blue is art if the painter says so. Then again what is the value of art? The answer once offered by an artist was that the value of his work was what a purchaser was willing to pay for it. From this we could conclude that nothing is ART unless someone is willing to pay for it. This would eliminate many of the artists whose work we see displayed as art even though they have never sold anything. They have been called an artist by some gallery owner using their elephant dung monstrosity as bait to shock the media into giving them free publicity so they can draw real buyers into their gallery to see real art, which brings us back to the original question of what is ART?

Art of course takes many forms and there is a range from amateur to great art and this applies to virtually every type of art from paintings to music to sculpture and everything in between. Perhaps one of the easiest ways to illustrate this range of artistic endeavor is to look at literature. On the one hand we find Shakespeare, the Greeks, Milton, and other great and famous authors. These are works cherished by the sophisticated and well read but ignored or scoffed at by the average person who may never have read them or having read them not understood them. Then there is the trade literature, the Clancy’s, Cussler’s, Kellerman’s, and that army of authors we find in any bookstore or airport. These tend to be well written, popular, and make their author’s rich and while technically art are they great art – probably not.

Music is perhaps the one art that most people, especially the young and unsophisticated, come into contact with on a daily basis. These contemporary concoctions have hosts of aficionado’s and technically they are art since people pay for their work, but are they great art? How much contemporary music will stand the test of time, probably not much given the historical record for popular music? Around the turn of the century Rag Time was very popular – the Rock and Roll of its day – but the only composer to survive with any degree of popularity and recognition is Scott Joplin. But not all popular music is doomed for oblivion because much of the music from the various decades survives and retains its popularity today, but while art is it great art?

This opens the question of what is “great art”, who determines it, and how is it defined? Unfortunately “great art” is much like quality in that defies definition but you know it when you see it. If there is an answer to that question perhaps it is that when you see or hear a great work of art you know it immediately. The first time you see a Michelangelo statue you know immediately that this is great work because the people see to be alive but then these are also well executed and realistic but not all sculpture is realistic. What about Calder’s mobiles and stabiles? These are totally abstract and resemble nothing – they just are. So is this great art? Consider Picasso’s abstractions or Dali’s surrealism – are these great art? Who determines this and on what basis?

There probably isn’t any answer to this question other than a shared and common belief that these pieces are great art. Some of this belief is undoubtedly tied to the originality of the work. After all Calder’s mobiles were original – the first of their kind, Picasso’s cubism was original as was Dali’s limp watches. Those that came after were followers so originality of the work plays a part and then later the name of the artist seems to determine if the work is “real” art. Consider the later works of Picasso and Dali – hardly original and certainly not the quality of their earlier work.

Music seems to be a little easier to classify given that the work of many composers rarely out last their lives. When you look at the classical music scene the great standout but there are few of them. When you look at popular music of any era the amount that survives is really quite limited. The music industry gives out awards every year in too many categories to even think about, but how many of those compositions are popular a few years later? How many people even remember who won what even 5 years ago? Popular music is quite perishable and may be art but hardly the great art of Gershwin or Porter.

So what is ART? I guess it is what the artist said – it’s worth what you pay for it and if it sells it is art. Great art stands alone and is determined by time and the appreciation of generations.

Political Correctness -- A Threat to Civilization

2010-12-12T10:16:00.002-05:00

I did not write this, it is a sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta Georgia. I urge you to read this very powerful sermon because it truly describes how our apathy toward terrorism and our determination to be politically correct is endangering not just society but civilization itself.

EHR KUMT First Day of Rosh Hashanah 2010 Sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta

"I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people. We did not apologize for Dresden, nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein, nor for D-Day.

Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna, not just Casablanca. It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent.

Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – I didn’t know.” Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well. Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win….. to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war… yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don’t put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London, from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza, the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour. It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage. When we visited Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews. Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation. We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic, jewel in Kovno.

After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos. At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.

“Shalom,” he said. “Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania.” “Yes,” I replied. “It was quite a powerful experience.” “Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno? The one with the big arch in the courtyard?” “Yes, I did. In fact, we helped them make minyon.” His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory. For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned. “Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch. The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child.”

He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past. His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face. “I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul” (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin’s mentor – he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.) Joe continued “When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’ ”

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right -- his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not.”

We are not in Lithuania. It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island. No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably – I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside. I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks. I am a lover of humanity, all humanity. Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don’t worship at all. I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square, in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeena condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion. Knowing he had little time left he shared the following – “Shal. I am ready to leave this earth. Sure I’d like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I’ve had it. I’m done. Finished. I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has become.”

This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist Triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio. – Yet his twilight observation was – “The worst is yet to come.” And he wanted out.

I share my father’s angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril. We must wake up and smell the hookah.

“Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You’re sounding like Glen Beck. It’s not that bad. It’s not that real.” But I am here to tell you – “It is.” Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris, fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it’s bad. Ask them if it’s real.

Did anyone imagine in the 1920’s what Europe would look like in the 1940’s. Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture? Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Shickelgruber would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Feuhrer in less than a decade? Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw, Vilna, Athens, Paris, Bialystok, Minsk, knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz?

The sages teach – “Aizehu chacham – haroeh et hanolad – Who is a wise person – he who sees into the future.” We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top. From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues. Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers? Should there be a museum praising the U.S. Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee? Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz? Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma’arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero?

Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish. I don’t buy the argument – “When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque here.” America is greater than Saudi Arabia. And New York is greater than Mecca. Democracy and freedom must prevail.

Can they build? Certainly. May they build? Certainly. But should they build at that site? No -- but that decision must come from them, not from us. Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in feet or yards or in blocks. One either feels the pain of others and cares, or does not.

If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start of finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least.

William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote – “After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say – “I want to see the manager.”

Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel. It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank. It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street. It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.

Israel is the laboratory – the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran, Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathesome evil.

As Israel, imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel’s galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and not Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights.

There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel.

There is a message sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively ignoring Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea, China and other noxious states.

There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy.

There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

John Milton warned, “Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible.”

A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone –

“Rabbi. How’re y’ doing?”

I looked up, sort of smiled and replied – “I’ve had better days.”

“What’s the matter? Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?” he inquired.

“Thank you for the offer but I’m just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.

“Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid.” I explained to my visitor – “The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military.”

The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel. The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel. The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel.

Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized. Disinvited to the parade.

Looking for logic?

Looking for reason?

Looking for sanity?

Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we “useful idiots” pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond.

It is exhausting and dispiriting. We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered specie.

Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago – “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.” We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom. It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?

How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that compromise is not a choice?

Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure, is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling. Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.

I was no great fan of George Bush – didn’t vote for him. (By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.) I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right. His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror. There was no middle ground – either you were friend or foe. There was no place in Bush’s world for a Switzerland. He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the Iphone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all. Blink and you lose. Underestimate, and you get crushed.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw, Riga, Berlin, Amsterdam, Cracow, Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.

Enough rhetoric – how about a little “show and tell?” A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story. The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family. Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law. Her punishment was immediate. She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose.

That is the enemy (show enlarged copy of magazine cover.)

If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us. In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha’s disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Transarabian Highway. Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio. On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha’s face should appear with the caption – “Radical Islamic savages did this.” And underneath – “This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Magar Nodal Hassan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR.”

“The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.

We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks discovering particles that would astonish Einstein. We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction. What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real. If we dream it, it does, indeed, come. And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.

Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students…. “Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

During WWII and the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis? Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled? Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil? They did not. There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious. Today it must be our finest hour as well. We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail.

Democracies don’t always win. Tyrannies don’t always lose.

My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. “EHR KUMT.”

Social Engineering Vs Science

2010-11-27T10:45:00.003-05:00

Today we find in the news the alarming statistic that 600,000 people died this year from side smoke, not from actual smoking but just from being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). But virtually no one questions this “fact” because it is based on a “scientific” study. But isn’t the number itself a little suspicious? Couldn’t it have been say 601,000 or maybe 559,000? The even number tells you that this is an estimate and not a real number but as an estimate its accuracy is entirely dependent on the methodology as well as the qualifications of those making the estimate. Who was studied is another key component governing the accuracy of this finding. In the original A Priori study people in primitive conditions using indoor charcoal cooking stoves were included along with survivors of the Hiroshima atomic blast. In addition as an A Priori study all findings counter to the initial assumption were discarded even though many of those studies showed no correlation between ETS and cancer.

In spite of there not being any empirical connection between ETS and cancer the crusade against tobacco and smokers in general continues and is growing in intensity. In fact there is no known cause of cancer. It could be genetic, it could be environmental, it could be viral, but no one knows. What is known is that some people smoke their entire lives and never develop lung cancer while some people die of lung cancer never having smoked tobacco in their lives, but it is these people who are deemed to have died of tobacco related causes. What no one seems to notice or question is that virtually everyone on the planet has been exposed at some time in their lives to “side smoke” be it from tobacco or camp fires. The logical conclusion is that 99.9% of all deaths are smoke related, but that is just statistics or logic -- not science. And that’s the point because the author of the EPA’s report on ETS admitted that there is no science behind the report and that the entire program against ETS is – in his words – a social program.

The fact is that with the death of critical thinking the social engineers have run amok. These social engineers have killed off any semblance of personal responsibility. Teachers can no longer fail students or hold them back for fear of damaging their “self esteem”. This policy has given us high school graduates who cannot read or are functionally illiterate. We have people in college who cannot spell properly or even write a simple declarative sentence with no grammatical errors. But the social engineers haven’t stopped with these simple policy programs, they have actually degraded science to the point that there is no science behind many of these programs.

Perhaps the most egregious example of social engineering masquerading as science is the epidemic of obesity. We are total that obesity is epidemic in the United States and that this is a disease that must be addressed by the government. Social Engineers are very big on government coercion in order to enforce their ideas on how the rest of us should live. Of course the operative word here is “disease” because if a person is over weight it isn’t his fault because he has a disease. How one contacts this disease isn’t noted but it appears to be related to fast food, sugary cereals, tasty high fat foods, and other foods not approved by the social engineers. The solution to this epidemic obesity is to force schools to serve approved healthy foods which the kids won’t eat, to force purveyors of fast food to either go out of business to change their menus so they are only serving approved healthy foods which no one orders. It's much like forcing the auto manufacturers to build electic cars than no one buys. Since these socially engineered programs seemed to have failed no one seems to be calling for more research into how the obesity disease is caught, instead the call is for government intervention. Where is the science behind this epidemic? There isn’t any, but the finger isn’t being pointed at the individual as being responsible for his situation due to his poor decisions – it is pointed at the sellers and advertisers.

Another equally outrageous abuse of science is the disease of alcoholism. People actually die of alcoholism so something must be done to curb this disease. A person doesn’t become a drunkard through irresponsible behavior – he is simply the victim of a disease. Science can demonstrate that consuming alcohol is bad for you and abuse of alcohol can have fatal consequences. But rather than hold the alcoholic personally responsible for his situation the social engineers have decided that the alcoholic suffers from the disease of alcoholism. Unlike tobacco the social engineers aren’t calling for an outright ban on alcohol, after all they do enjoy their wine so banning alcohol isn’t considered. Even though there is a direct and known link between alcohol and several fatal health issues the outrage and call for action focuses on tobacco. The hypocrisy of the social engineers is palpable.

The social engineers are running out of control and it just isn’t about how they are using or attempting to use government to enforce their opinions on how we should live, they are corrupting science. While true empirical science remains it seems to be shrinking while the data miners using statistics are creating the foundation for these social engineers and they are growing in size and power. And all of this is possible because critical thinking seems to be lacking and no one ever seems to question the statistics used by the social engineers.

White Cavemen, Evolution, and Questions

2010-11-14T09:24:00.001-05:00

The origin of man continues to be a source of fascination and controversy even though science has already concluded that life descended from pond scum and man descended from an ape like creature that was a precursor to man. Of course this ape like creature which has been located in Africa is actually a collection of bone fragments surrounded by a lot of assumptions. Then there is the issue of the races – which are clearly -- according to science the product of Evolution. Of course science really doesn’t make any distinction between evolution and adaptation; these are viewed as the same thing. Then there is the question of early man – generically described as “Cavemen” because they lived in caves. But these “cavemen” seem to have lived in Europe not in Africa, but the time span between the Hominids and Neanderthal is literally millions of years, but there is no evidence in Europe of the Hominids nor any evidence in Africa of Neanderthal or “cavemen”. Then what about Cro-Magnon Man, they appeared as fully developed homo-sapiens with no indication of where they came from or how they were related to Neanderthal or the Hominids or even if there is any relationship at all. The rationale for this entire structure rests on these three pillars 1) Theory of Evolution 2) Bone fragments of a Hominid 3) DNA tests showing Chimpanzees and Homo Sapiens share 98% of their DNA. Of course this is logically equivalent to saying that Helium (a gas) is the same as Lithium (a metal) because there is only one electron difference. Of course the other side is that all protons, neutrons, and electrons in the Universe are the identical so technically everything is related to everything else because they are made up of the same “stuff” but what about life itself? Why do some of these collections of identical pure energy particles think while others remain inert as rocks and still others remain pond scum and fail to evolve into animate beings even after millions of years? They – the pond scum -- are believed to have evolved once so why did they stop their march to intelligent life?

The Universe is believed to be about 15 billion years old and the age of the Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. The first simple life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago – which really was just a simple cell with no nucleus. How this came about is a little vague but apparently it was due to some random event but so far no proto cell has been created in the lab. Nevertheless this miraculous cell replicated and ultimately became pond scum. All of this occurred in the Pre-Cambrian Period whose duration spans the time from the formation of the Earth to the Cambrian which began about 542 Million years ago. But this is really about people and cavemen not about all of those creatures that came before.

The first of the apes believed to be precursors of humans occurred approximately 5 million years ago. Various species and subspecies appeared over the next several million years leading up to the Paranthrobus which is believed to be a precursor to the Homo line, which itself has numerous branches and subspecies. These all are bipedal ape like creatures and thus believed to be part of the evolutionary march to Homo-Sapiens. Of course there is not a shred of evidence that any of these species were in fact species or even related to humankind. Even the Evolutionary radical Richard Dawkins concedes that many of these species might have lived concurrently – apparently similar to the equine family today. But the first modern humans generically called Cro-Magnon appeared in Europe 35,000 years ago and the earlier Neanderthals died out at approximately the same time or shortly thereafter.

So there were Hominids in Africa but no sign of “Cavemen” and Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon men first appear in Europe. Apes and Chimpanzees are black while all depictions of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon are white. Is this simply blatant racism or is this depiction the result of the factual reality that Europeans are white? Assuming that the early men found in Europe were indeed white – where did the other races come from? The glib answer is that they adapted (evolved) to their local environments. Meaning that homo-sapiens migrated from Europe to Asia, Africa, North America, and South America, but 35,000 years ago North and South America were not physically connected and even if they were the races would have had to evolve or adapted within that 35,000 years. If that is true then why haven’t we seen modern examples of evolution – has man evolved to the point of perfection and no further change is necessary? What about the animals – how many new species have come into being that have clearly sprung from earlier species? If man can evolve in 35,000 years why not animals – why haven’t they continued to evolve? But we are told that early man – apparently not Homo-Sapiens – migrated to the New World via the land bridge between Asia and Alaska. But the Inuit are clearly Asian, but the Native Americans are not and are classed as the “Red” race. What are their origins? Then we have the “Brown” race which is clearly neither Asian nor “Red”. Unfortunately for all of the evolutionists there is no evidence of evolution among these races – they appear fully developed as Homo-Sapiens with their distinctive racial characteristics in the places where they were found.

So while the Darwinians cling to the Theory of Evolution as a fact rather than a theory the reality is that there are some very serious questions regarding evolution. Adaptation has been demonstrated and is not seriously disputed but there appear to be gaping holes in how one species morphs into another. While the variations in the races can possibly be explained through adaptation there is no evidence that they adapted from some earlier form. The historical record indicates that if they migrated to where they are found then adapted to that environment the evidence is missing. So the origin of the races is unknown and the descent of man from apes is filled with holes and the path from pond scum to humanity is even murkier and unproven.

The Warrior Class

2010-10-31T07:52:00.003-04:00

I have been opposed to reinstating the draft because I felt it wasn’t necessary and didn’t provide us with the quality of troops that we needed. Others have argued for the draft for many reasons but primarily for fear that the volunteer army would not work and the military would be unable to maintain its strength. Of course that has proven to not be the case as the military has met all of its staffing goals even after raising the bar for acceptance. This is very reminiscent of the period just prior to WW II when many men out of work tried to join the military but were not accepted. Today the military is finding than many young men are out of work and are joining the military just to have a job. So the American military forces have plenty of volunteers and the draft is not necessary in order to maintain troop strength.

According to some observers the American military is perhaps the strongest and most battle harden force in the world – a force with no peer. Certainly the Israeli’s and British forces are also experienced and battle hardened but do not match the Americans in size and strength. But after more than 10 years of war the American military force is unequaled and for the first time in our history America is developing a warrior class. This might not be a problem except that the all volunteer American Military has been separated and divorced from civilian life for so long that they no longer seem to relate to civilians. They relate to each other and are dependent on each other for their very lives which separate them from the civilians at home. For many and an increasing number of them the Army has become their life and their family. We are creating an increasingly independent force separated from the civilian life they once knew.

At first glance this may not seem to be a problem and perhaps it isn’t but there are some things that must be considered. America now has an Army composed of harden professionals who know less and less about civilian life. A group of people loyal to each other, accustomed to instant obedience to their leaders, and who have little connection to the civilians they once were. While the American military are sworn to uphold the constitution and not the government there seems little danger in having such a powerful force in our midst. We have been blessed with a long history of capable generals dedicated to America and our ideals, but suppose we had a general whose view of the government leads him to believe that the government is no longer acting within the framework of the constitution or those ideals -- a government that has run amok and is no longer representing the people but has become self serving and corrupt. For some people this may seem farfetched and the product of a warped mind, but consider that already many people regard the current Congress and Administration to be functioning outside of the constitution, to be corrupt, and to be attempting to rule rather than govern. If some general decided he must act in order to restore a constitutional government who could stop him?

With a warrior class loyal to itself, divorced from the civilian life, isolated, battle hardened, and accustomed to instant and unquestioned obedience, who could prevent this general from seizing control of congress, arresting the President, and “restoring” constitutional government? While some civilians might protest many would support such a move and while not all generals and all military personnel would agree it is unlikely they would attempt to prevent it and create a civil war. While I agree this nightmare scenario is highly unlikely it does reflect the downside of a professional army with a warrior ethos.

This brings us to the question of reinstating the draft. If the draft were reinstated it would immediately raise the cost of maintaining the military but it would provide some positive things as well. First it would lower the unemployment rate and relieve some of the pressure on unemployment benefits. It would also bring discipline and structure into many of the youth today who leave high school with no plans, no job, and not much of a future. These are the “at risk” youth who turn to drugs, alcohol, and violence. But perhaps the most valuable thing would be that it would reduce the warrior class mentality by injecting people into the system that don’t intend to stay, who do not share the same military instant obedience attitude, and who will reintroduce the career military to the civilian population with whom they seem to have lost contact.

I want to emphasize that I do not think American is in any danger of experiencing a coup conducted by some general who thinks the government is no longer constitutionally justified. My point is merely to point out that without intending to we have created a warrior class composed of highly disciplined, trained, hardened, and experienced soldiers who seem to have lost contact with the civilian population from which they sprang. Although I have been strongly opposed to restoring the draft, I am beginning to see that it may offer some benefits for America as well as the American military.

Christianity and the Constitution

2010-10-29T12:42:00.002-04:00

There are five great religions Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. Buddhism doesn’t believe in God, Hinduism believes in many gods, and the remaining three believe in one God and share some common beliefs. Of course Judaism and Islam are dedicated to the “law” primarily on diet and circumcision but they diverge sharply on doctrine, ritual, and even on the law. Christians share many of the ethical principles of Judaism and Islam but are very divergent on doctrine and ritual as well as the law. Christians do not ritually circumcise, do not follow the dietary laws, and they practice baptism. While it is politically correct to lump these religions together, Islam stands alone. It is intolerant, its ethical principles are oriented to Muslims , while the Koran is filled with exhortations to violence against infidels and reduces women to little more than chattel. Therefore, any moral or ethical influence on the founding of America is from Christianity or to be precise Judeo-Christian principles and not Islam.

Is America a country founded on Christian Principles? What is it that sets the United States apart from other countries? It is argued that the founding fathers were not Christians but Humanists and Deists and therefore the country was founded on Humanists ideals and not Christian Principles. Of course this argument rests on the assumption that those principles differ from each other, but I don’t think so. In fact I argue they are the same at the philosophical level because Humanism is rooted in Greek and Roman philosophy as well as literature and that literature was written by men who were influenced by Christianity. Therefore, to argue that the founding fathers were humanists doesn’t remove the Christian influence on them and their thinking, but what is “Humanism”?

Humanism
There are many definitions of Humanism but of these the two that seem apropos are “Christian Humanism” and “Modern Humanism.” Modern Humanism rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily on science, democracy, and human compassion. Modern Humanism is both secular and religious in origin. Christian Humanism is a philosophy advocating self-fulfillment within the framework of Christian principles, but devoid of the supernatural elements found in Christian doctrine. Therefore, Humanism and Christian principles are intertwined and to reject one in favor of the other is not possible since they are two sides of the same coin.

Christian Principles
Separating Christian Principles from Christian Doctrine is very difficult, especially in terms of governance, but these appear to apply.

1. Political leaders should make peace and justice a top priority but recognize that force may be necessary as a last resort – “blessed are the peacemakers”.
2. All are equal under the law – “love thy neighbor as thy self”.
3. Freedom of Speech – “the truth shall make you free”
4 Freedom of Religion –“… that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone…”
5. Political leaders should come from the people – “But select capable men from all the people …”
6. Separation of powers – “For lack of guidance a nation falls, but many advisers make victory sure”

Many Christians argue that the very foundation of America is based on Christianity and therefore America is a “Christian Nation” while the secularists argue that America is based on Humanist principles and there is no evidence of any religious influence in the Constitution. The Humanists base their argument on the lack of any direct reference to the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or any religious reference. Those who believe the Constitution reflects Christian Theology cite the reference to a “Creator” exception for Sunday and the overall tenor of the document and background of the framers. Thus the conflict is born. From the decades following the signing of the Constitution we find this conflict unresolved and unresolvable because no one knows what drove the framers to write what they did or what they believed. The mountain of documents following the framing is irrelevant because they are after the fact. Being a “Deist” does not mean the person is an atheist and the failure to include specific Christian references in the Constitution does not mean they were not a driving force or that they were not incorporated indirectly.

Christian Principles and the Constitution

If there is any core principle that influenced the founding fathers it is the people in power are the servants of all. Governments from the time of tribal leaders to the time of Kings rested on power and the exercise of that power by individuals. Power once given or seized elevated those in power over those whom they governed and thus you had the divine right of kings – even in those Christian Countries called Christendom– but it was the founding fathers of America who realized the flaw in vesting individuals with power over others. It was the founding fathers who realized that vesting power in fallible human beings was something that had to be done but had to be controlled.

These were people who believers or not were very familiar with the Bible and in Mark 10:43 they found Christ saying “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant -- for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve”. This idea that the powerful are servants was further elaborated in Luke 22:27 “Who is greater, the one at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table ? But I am among you as one who serves”. On this basis – a Christian Principle – those in whom power is vested are servants to those who gave them power and to insure the leaders served the people the founding fathers incorporated into the Constitution the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances. This was to ensure those in power remained as servants to the people and did not oppress those who put them into power.

But perhaps the first example of the Christian influence on the founding fathers is in the opening of the Declaration of Independence which declares that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal …” But when Jefferson wrote these words equality was not self evident at all and in fact the exact opposite was true. Inequality was all about but Jefferson was declaring that all people are “moral” equals and that one life and one person is no greater or less than that of any other. This principle is stated in Matthew 19:19 where we find “love thy neighbor as thy self” or in Galatians 3:28 where we find “There is neither Jew nor Greek , there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”. Jefferson was acknowledging that his life had no greater value than that of a laborer in the streets. Because all men are equal in the eyes of God, then no man has the right to rule over another without his consent. Among the rights was the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that to secure these rights Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.

While it may be true that the founding fathers were more deists and humanists than Christian they were nevertheless familiar with the Bible and with Judeo- Christian teachings and believed that legitimacy is derived from God and not from man. Thus our rights became “unalienable” because they come from God (the Creator) and not from the people who govern.

The situation is a little murkier when we come to religious freedom. In Ezra 7:24 we find that the government is forbidden to interfere with the worship of God or at least with any organization or group that worships God. But in typical fashion we find further on in Ezra 7:26 that those who do not follow the law of God or the land shall be punished by death, banishment, or prison. While the Bible does offer the Ten Commandments as a basis for conduct and these commandments are honored by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they also direct that you cannot worship idols, other gods, and that “you shall have no other God before Me” Certainly the founding fathers were familiar with the Bible but they were also familiar with history. The very first settlers in America were Christians escaping persecution from other Christians but once established in the New World they immediately set about setting up their own form of religious persecution. Therefore, I believe that while the guarantee of religious freedom was based on the Bible it also reflected the sad history of religious persecution rooted in the Bible. Thus the founding fathers intended to keep religion out of the government and used the Bible’s demands for worship as the basis for incorporating that restriction. At a stroke the founding fathers eliminated apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy from government involvement, thus allowing atheism, paganism, and all other religions to exist under the Constitution. In this instance I think the Bible and the Ten Commandments was seen as a threat to the future of the Republic because history reflected that government mandated religious practice had a bloody past. Therefore, government and religion were separated even though Christianity was the prevalent religion. This is certainly an example of how the Bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs influenced the framing of the Constitution.

Freedom of speech is fundamental to our freedom because it permits us to speak out against the government as well as any idea, law, group, or person within the confines of libel. In John 8:32 we find “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Of course truth is one of those terms that can be perceived but if that perception is false or harms the individual that person is protected by libel laws which are addressed in Exodus 2:1-7 where we find commandment nine “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”. But there are other parts of the Constitution that reflect Christian thinking and morality. In Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution we find the following “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him…” This clearly reflects a theistic view of the authors. This theistic view has been reflected in various court cases regarding Sunday laws and is another example of religious (Christian) influence on the Constitution.

Christianity and America

While the Constitution clearly reflects the Judeo- Christian ideas and principles which were known by the founding fathers, the American Spirit – that which sets America apart from other nations is also reflected in the Bible. Perhaps the greatest thing that sets America apart is the “melting pot”. Anyone from anywhere can come to America and become an American and be seen by other Americans as being an American – one of us. This concept is rare and is the root of many problems in the world today, but this view of the universality of people is shown in Acts 10:34-35 where we find “At this Peter opened his mouth and said: “For a certainty I perceive that God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.” This attitude is reflective of the American spirit of equality and is reflected in our foreign policy.

America has fought two world wars and has fought in many foreign lands but has rebuilt these lands. Unlike other major powers like Rome, Egypt, and the European colonial powers America has rebuilt these war torn lands and withdrawn usually leaving the defeated in better condition than they were previously. This attitude and approach is very unique but reflects the Christian teachings of Jesus (Matthew 22:39) where we find the following “…Thou shalt love they neighbor as thy self”. But this idea is also found in Luke 2:27-31 "But, I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” These ideas and principles form the very foundation of the American Spirit.

Influence of Islam
Because Islam acknowledges the Ten Commandments, Moses, Jesus, and Mary there is a feeling among some that these three religions share morality and ethics and are thus alike. This is totally false relative to Islam. The Koran is filled with hate and exhortations to violence. Even a quick review of the Koran shows that a Muslim cannot continue to call himself Muslim if they tolerate anyone who is not Muslim. In fact they are instructed to kill all infidels. Sura 9:5 says “Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and see them, belittle them and lie and wait for them in every strategy of war”. For the people who resist Islam – meaning all non-Muslims—the Koran instructs Muslims in Sura 5:33 “Their punishment is execution or crucifixion or cutting off of hands and feet from the opposite sides or to be exiled from the land”. This is merely a small sample of the violence that permeates the Koran. This “Holy” text is filled with exhortations to kill all infidels. Based on the Koran itself a person cannot be “moderate” and still be Muslim because anyone who even considers a non-Muslim as a friend or ally is not Muslim but has become heretic and apostate. Therefore, to view Islam as even remotely similar to Judaism or Christianity is to not understand the Koran or the morality of Islam.
Conclusion

Some reject the idea that the Constitution is based on (Judeo) Christian Principles because the founding fathers were Humanists and Deists and well that might be but some were Christian and it seems clear that whether they were actual Christians without doubt they were familiar with Christian Principles, the Bible, and most of all history. What we find is that many concepts found in the Bible have been incorporated into the Constitution. But the founding fathers knowing the abuses and evil that had been practiced in the past in the name of Christ were careful to separate these religious laws and directives from the government of the United States. It is my opinion that the Constitution is based on Christian Principles with some being incorporated while others were deliberately rejected. It also seems clear that from the very outset there was a conflict between those who felt America was a Christian Nation built on the Bible and those who felt America was a Humanist and secular country independent of any religion or religious influence. This battle rages on and will probably never be resolved because it seems to be based entirely on interpretation and opinion. But in the book “God is Not One” we find “The case for Christianity’s preeminence is compelling. The number one best seller is the Bible, is the scripture of American politics, widely quoted in inaugural addresses and on the floor of the House and Senate. And the overwhelming majority of US Citizens call themselves Christians as has every President since Washington”. I conclude and it is my opinion that America is a Christian Nation built on Christian ideals and principles.

Royce Callaway

Sources:
King James Bible
Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis
What’s So Great About America – Dinesh D’Souza
What’s So Great About Christianity – Dinesh D’Souza
What is Humanism – Frederick Edwords
God Is Not One – Stephen Prothero
The Holy Koran
Various Internet Queries

Obama & Racism

2010-10-29T09:40:00.002-04:00

I continue to be amazed how the mainstream media continues to ignore or gloss over the blatant racism and incompetence of Obama and his entire administration. This man has made sure his thin track record is kept in the background and that his early years and writings are kept secret – literally secret. He has never published his master’s thesis and his records at Harvard are kept sealed. He was editor of the Harvard Review – a prestigious position that usually goes to the most promising law student based on their writings but none of Obama’s articles or writings have ever been made public. This is a point totally ignored by the media as they publish paean after paean to America’s first black president. Of course on inspection the color of his skin seems to be his only qualification. Apparently only white folks can be racist because the media has systematically failed to exposed the racism expressed by Obama – racism that would have led to outrage had these things been said and done by a white conservative.

For example Obama spent 20 years attending the Church of Reverend Wright a blatant racist. The media took note of this then simply glossed over it as if it had no bearing on Obama. Of course the fact that he spent 20 years attending that church means either he agreed with the Reverend or he didn’t. If he didn’t then he is a hypocrite and if he did then he is a racist – something the media just ignored. Then during his campaign he referred to his grandmother as a “typical white person”. Had any white person referred to him as a typical black person they would have immediately been branded as a racist bigot but not Obama. Once again the media gave him a pass because they seem to be unable to see this man for what he is – a racist given the highest job in the land with no qualifications whatsoever.

But once in office Obama has continued to demonstrate his racism because when a white police officer doing his duty and acting in accordance with approved procedure arrested a black professor, Obama immediately charged the police officer for acting stupidly and being a racist. This led to his patronizing and condescending “beer summit” apparently on the premise that no white police officer would know how to behave in the White House. Then when the black panthers were charged with voter intimidation he kept his Justice Department from investigating or taking any action. Clearly when the action is white on black it is racism and should be condemned but when it is black on white then Obama does not see that as racist – blatant hypocrisy and racism on his part once again.

Now in a recent speech Obama made to a group of Latino’s – some of whom I’m sure were in this country legally – he stated that Republicans should be sent to the “back of the bus” and then referred to the American Public as “our enemies” -- placing himself as a minority opposed to the white majority. Never in the history of the country has any major politician ever referred to the American people as his “enemy”. This President is a racist that is aided and abetted by a slavish and politically correct media. This is a man who is an internationalist who believes in World Government. He clearly sees the role of government as being paramount to the people’s wishes and that it is the role of government to rule over the people not to govern at the will of the people.

This President is a person who has never held a real job, never met a payroll, and never had to show a profit. He seems to think that the money he so freely spends comes from the mint and not from the people. He has no grasp of practical economics or business. He has been educated by Marxists, socialists, and left wing academics. He has surrounded himself with more incompetent and inexperienced people than any president in our history. He is not just incompetent and a racist, he is an embarrassment.

MUSIC & ART APPRECIATION

2010-10-22T11:18:00.000-04:00

In a recent conversation about management and leadership, it was established that one of the most difficult things that managers and leaders must do is to establish and then to keep focused on the objective. This is difficult enough in a business context but then the question was raised about how can this be done in the context of a classroom where discussion is encouraged and irrelevant tangents can cloud the objective of the class. This led to the question of Music Appreciation as a topic in school and how difficult it is to teach because the students don’t like Classical Music and really have no interest in any music other than popular music.

I think that the problem with Music Appreciation is that it is suffering from a common complaint – one that I frequently encounter in my work. I think both the teachers and the students have lost track of the Mission and Objective(s). I could be wrong but I suspect that the typical teacher strives to accommodate their students (unrealistic or incorrect) objectives which has allowed the class mission to become obscured or distorted. From my managerial perspective I think the Mission in a Music Appreciation class is to teach students “how to appreciate music”-- not to enjoy it--but to appreciate the quality of a piece of music as an art form. They do not have to like it or to even enjoy it to appreciate the ART displayed by the composer. On the other hand the students seem to think they are there to ENJOY music, therefore they only expect to hear or discuss music they like. I submit that is not the objective of the class and if that is their expectation then they do not understand the objective and that the teacher has failed to explain the purpose of the class. They are there to understand and to learn to appreciate music as art and to learn how to distinguish bad art, fine art, and good art.

Beyond this basic confusion I think the typical teacher has wandered off course. Apparently in some classes the teacher has opted to include more black musicians and performers. I submit that is a fundamental error because the race and the performer should have no relevance to the music being presented. The teacher is there to discuss and to demonstrate music as art and art is (and should be) color blind and the performer should only enter into the appreciation of the piece being discussed as a comparison in technique and presentation. Apparently some teachers are now including lyrics as part of the exercise of music appreciation. I submit that while lyrics may be important in the overall enjoyment of the piece, the objective is to evaluate the music and therefore the lyrics are a distraction. Of course there are exceptions, such as Opera, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, Madrigals, and Gregorian Chants but these lyrics are in other languages and thus become part of the art because what the lyrics are saying is largely irrelevant to the harmony.

I would recommend that a class in music appreciation should start with the teacher showing pictures of examples of various art schools, e.g. realism, impressionism, cubism, modern, surrealism, Dutch Masters, etc. The students should be asked to decide which ones they like, which they don’t like, and then challenged to explain why they like some and why they dislike others. Then they should be asked to evaluate the pieces in terms of their value as art, the difficulty in executing the piece, etc. The objective of the exercise is to separate their likes from the quality of the art. For example, I think Reubens and Monet are great artists but I wouldn’t have any painting by either one hanging in my home – I don’t like their work, but I will concede the quality of their art. This is what the students are there to learn and what the teacher is there to teach – they don’t have to like the music to appreciate it.

Another exercise I would offer is to show the music on the page – written out, not played or performed but to just show the notes. Contrast modern pieces to older works or classic works. I would then allow the music to be played but without lyrics. I would ask the students to determine the race of the composers, the complexity of the music, and the quality of the music as art. The point once again is to demonstrate that art is race independent and musical art is in the ear of the beholder.

If the students feel that playing music without the lyrics is unfair or misleading then the teacher should point out that opera music is commonly performed without the lyrics as is Big Band Music and even some contemporary music. If the issue is Rap – which is nothing without the lyrics, then the lyrics should stand alone acappella – ala African chants, Gregorian Chants, and any beat or background is unnecessary because if the lyrics are the art then they should standalone like poetry.

I don’t think the objective of music appreciation is to lead the students to a love of classical music or any particular musical form but to bring them to the point to where they can recognize music – in all of its manifestations as an art form and evaluate it on the basis of being good or bad.
‘
It appears to me that the objective of music appreciation has been lost as the teachers lose sight of their objective which is to teach an appreciation of music as an art form. Instead they are reacting to the student expectation that they are in class to enjoy music that they like, not to learn about music in general. Instead of Music Appreciation it seems to me the idea of Music Appreciation has been allowed to descend into Music Enjoyment, which is a totally different objective.

Germany Multiculturalism and America

2010-10-19T11:12:00.000-04:00

Something very serious happened this week – something that virtually went unnoticed due to the Chilean Minors and the Mid-term elections. This week the Chancellor of Germany announced that Multiculturalism has failed. Chancellor Merkel announced that immigrants are holding back the German Economy. This signals the resurgence of a German National Identity and a change in direction from the EU’s purpose of becoming a unified and homogenized Europe.

This problem of German immigration began shortly after WW II when Germany was short of workers so they created a guest worker program – if this Guest Worker Program sounds familiar to Americans it is. The idea of course was to import workers on a temporary basis with the unspoken idea that when no longer needed they would return to their countries of origin. To some extent it worked because those guest workers from other European countries did return to their home countries but not so those workers who came from Turkey and other Muslim countries. More importantly these “guest workers” brought in their families and quickly became a multi-generational population. But the Germans did not want these immigrants to become part of Germany and certainly in the common European view of nationality they could never become German. To be German you had to be descended from Germans for generations which is true of all European countries – assimilation is counter culture in Europe.

The Germans decided to address this problem with a policy called “multiculturalism”. Which meant these immigrants were encouraged to maintain their customs, religion and language, but were expected to pledge loyalty to the State. This created a large and growing group of non-Germans in the middle of Germany who did not assimilate, did not speak the language, and were not expected to because they weren’t German. This meant that this population of immigrants did not see themselves as German and saw their country of origin as “home”. This meant that they had no concern over the fate of Germany but were concerned about the politics and fate of their home countries Muslim countries. There was no loyalty to Germany and given that the home countries were Islamic and Islam was at war with the West, these immigrants represent a significant threat to national security. The stark reality is that Multiculturalism did not work and Germany is now faced with a significant threat to the German Culture and to the State itself. This admission of failure by Germany will have significant repercussions throughout Europe but there are parallels to be drawn with the American immigration issue.

America is the land of immigrants and until the advent of Multiculturalism assimilation has been the norm. People came to this country in order to be American and there was a process in place to do that. You were expected to learn the history, the government structure, and most of all to learn the language. After a period of time you took a test and became a citizen. You were an American and the American Flag was your flag and your loyalty was to America. But that is no longer true today. Sometime after WW II the liberals – known as progressives – slowly took control and America became the evil Empire. Multiculturalism was the wave of the future and for America to expect any immigrant to shed their language, values, or culture – much less their loyalties was viewed as “imperialistic” and wrong at its core.

Then came the “guest workers” the “bracero’s from Mexico and Latin America. These were the “migrant farm workers” who were here temporarily – but of course not all went back to Mexico at the end of the picking season. That trickle became a flood and many employers took advantage of the situation because these workers were cheap labor. Then the “progressives” insisted that English is not our national language because we are a nation of immigrants and multiculturalism by definition said they could and should keep their own language. As night follows day this meant that the school systems no longer had to teach in English but could teach in some other language and at the very least offer native language instruction for English.

The end result of this policy of multiculturalism is a huge population of illegal Mexican immigrants who don’t speak English, don’t intend to learn English, whose loyalty is to Mexico, whose flag is the Mexican flag, and who demand – and receive all of the benefits of a being a citizen without being a citizen. This multicultural policy is divisive and is tearing Germany apart. This failure to assimilate is partially Germany’s fault for failing to develop a policy for assimilation, but in America there is a policy and process for assimilation, it just isn’t being followed. Multiculturalism has destroyed the American Melting Pot and it threatens to rip America apart just as it is tearing Germany and Europe apart.

Germany is abandoning Multiculturalism as self protection and the time has long past in this country for us to abandon multiculturalism. Schools should teach English, ballots should be in English, and the idea that everything should multilingual should be abandoned. If we fail to reassert our culture and be true to our history we will soon find ourselves a victim of history and the America we grew up with will be gone with the wind.

NeoCons

2010-10-11T13:21:00.000-04:00

I have been fascinated for some time about the use of the term “NeoCon” to describe just about anyone with whom the liberal establishment disagrees. This term is used a pejorative adjective apparently because anyone who dares to think that the wild excesses of the Obama Administration are just that – excesses or that George Bush and his supporters are anything other than jingoistic war criminals are by definition “NeoCons” and thus without any intelligence or opinion worthy of expression.

Well it seems that the term NeoCon or Neoconservative goes back a long way – to 1950’s. Ironically it was originally used to describe those liberals who felt that the Liberals had gone too far left and were disagreed – thus they were moving to the right. Now understand these were not real conservatives – these were just liberals who had come to the conclusion that the welfare programs so cherished by their leftist colleagues had failed. But these “NeoCons” were people who had supported the socialist programs of the 1940’s—the New Deal, Trade Unions, and my personal favorite “Trotskyism” So the Neoconservatives were not real conservatives in the sense that they believed in capitalism, personal responsibility, low taxes, or the people. OH no—these were people who wallowed in the belief that they were the anointed intellectuals who knew how the rest of us should live but came to the conclusion that the left had moved to far left even for them but they remained the bedrock of the Democratic Party. The irony of that seems to escape most of the media today.

These neoconservatives supported the liberal causes like civil rights, integration, and most of the liberal causes and thinking of the post world war period but eventually came to think that the excesses like the black panthers, Weathermen, and other extreme left wing groups were too extreme and began to move to the right – meaning back to the mainstream Democratic thought but by the 1970’s it was too little too late. The extreme left had captured the Democratic Party which continued to support the far left Marxist inspired agenda. So these liberals came to the conclusion that the anti-American, anti-business, counterculture supported by the reformed Democratic Party was too extreme for them. They believed in America and they believed that if America intended to fight in Viet Nam they should fight to win but that the Democratic Party, the Peace Activists, and the Johnson Great Society were not positive things for America. They became the “Silent Majority” which still believed in the Democratic Party Ideals but not the Reformed Democratic Party.

These neoconservatives still believed – as many still do today – in Economic Liberalism but Social Conservatism. But they were unable to convince their colleagues in the Reformed Democratic Party that the party was out of touch with mainstream America. The result was the crushing defeat suffered by George McGovern – the “Peace Candidate” as the “silent majority” voted Nixon into the White House. Thus the extreme left that had usurped the Democratic Party was then much as it is today – deaf to any voice that disagrees with their socialist and Marxist agenda. An even greater irony is that many of the most hated NeoCons today – people like Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith were Democrats who supported Scoop Jackson as the Democratic Candidate for President. Even Ronald Reagan was initially a Democrat.

Admittedly some of these Neoconservatives did drift back to the core Democratic Party but not all. The reality is that the NeoCons still exerted influence but increasingly on the Republican Party as they leaned more toward military solutions as the way to enforce humanitarian improvements in countries like the Philippines and Chile bringing down Marcos and Pinochet. It was these NeoCons who influenced the foreign policies of both President Clinton and President Bush. They pushed hard for Human Rights and the need to bring democracy to the world and charged both Administrations of lacking “moral clarity” and more importantly a failure to act forcefully in America's interests. Thus these once far left liberals – the bedrock of the Democratic Party – have become in the eyes of their former ideologues -- apostate and worst of all “Republicans”. The reality seems to be that the true Republicans have been overshadowed by these NeoCons who now dominate the Republican Party.

Ironically it appears the Tea Party – which is made up of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents comes closer to the actual philosophies of the original Democratic and Republican Party’s than those party’s do today. How this will ultimately work out is to be determined but it seems that the Obama Administration moved the Democratic Party to the breaking point and whether it can survive without dramatic change is highly problematic. But the same goes for the Republican Party – they cannot continue allowing the Constitution to be twisted by the courts into some unrecognizable thing nor can they continue their tendency to serve lobbyists rather than the people.

So if you voted Republican and are called “NeoCon” there is a great probability that the person making the accusation has no clue what a NeoCon really is.

The Question of Photons

2010-10-04T09:04:00.000-04:00

I have been intrigued by much of the research into laser weapons, photon weapons, and light in general. Perhaps the most intriguing question I have come across recently was the statement that photons have zero mass – which seems to invalidate the age old equation of F= MA because if M is zero than F is zero but more importantly Einstein’s equations were demonstrated when light was observed to bend in a strong gravitational field – thus photons have mass. But the response to this question was that photons have zero mass at rest but it has mass in motion. This of course means that the photon lies inert in some body but when that body has energy applied the photon escapes as light with mass. So now the question is how do you know that the source has inert photons? Just because they escape when energy is applied is not in and of itself evidence that the photon was in the source object but could just as easily have come from the energy source. But then this opens up another question and that is Newton’s law regarding the conservation of mass and energy. The photon must have existed somewhere prior to being observed but then if it has no mass but gains mass through motion then isn’t that a creation of mass or is it a conversion of energy to mass? If that is true then isn’t E=MC<2 either not true or is there a dimension to this as yet unobserved because that equation describes the force unleashed by this conversion which was the atomic bomb.

But the explanation of this also includes the statement that a photon gains mass through “momentum,” where the momentum is the product of the mass times the linear velocity (m=MV) but momentum has both magnitude and direction so it is a vector which complicates things somewhat but the essential question remains even when V approaches the speed of light although again this tends to complicate matters still further due to the law of conservation of momentum. However, Physicists have declared that while a photon at rest has zero mass it does have a non-zero momentum but this seems like a stretch given that momentum is based on velocity and a photon at rest cannot be in motion and if it is in motion then by definition it must have mass.

This leads me to some other questions for example we are told that when energy is applied to an atom the electrons surrounding become excited and jump to a higher ring but almost immediately they drop back losing energy as light. But if that lost energy shows as light (a photon) and that photon has mass where did that energy come from – the external source? Did the electron gain mass when it jumped from an inner ring to an outer one? If it didn’t and its mass did not change then did the energy absorbed by the electron convert to the photon mass? But how does that fit
with Einstein’s equation?

Although electrons are thought of as “particles” Quantum Theory increasingly leads to the conclusion that an electron is more like a force than a particle which leads to the conclusion that an electron’s mass is a product of its motion – in effect the momentum of the electron determines its mass and the momentum is determined by its velocity. But when you heat an object it may grow hot, distort, or suffer some change but the total mass doesn’t increase, but then mass is not truly weight but includes resistance to motion. Consequently a photon by definition is traveling at the speed of light and thus its mass must be infinite according to Einstein but doesn’t really just prove that a photon and thus our reality cannot go faster than a photon? On the other hand if you did exceed the speed of light doesn’t that just mean it would become invisible?

This brings us to the question of motion. Our entire universe is in motion from the galaxies to the atom. The atom is surrounded by electron rings which are in motion so it would be logical that if a photon resided within the atom it would have mass since it isn’t at rest because the atom and electrons are not at rest. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the photon emitted by shift in electron energy is the result of the energy applied from some outside source exciting the electrons, but since that energy is converted to mass has the source of the energy been reduced in mass or energy?

If the excited electron never took on mass when moving to the higher state and never lost any mass when returning to its former energy level then where did the photon’s mass come from? It seems to me Physicists are trying to have it both ways. Light can be viewed as either a wave or a particle but if light is a wave it is in motion and thus must have mass. But if light is viewed as a particle it must have mass because it is in motion. In order for a photon to have a zero mass it must be at rest and in that case where does this at rest photon exist?

Dhimmitude and You

2010-09-30T13:23:00.001-04:00

Our fearless leader aided and abetted by a spineless congress and an adoring media is gradually undoing America or at least what most Americans think of as America. He has declared that we are NOT a Christian Nation without ever saying what we ARE as a nation. For some the issue has been his socialist (nee communist) philosophies, for others it has been seizure of businesses, and still others the issue has been his arrogance and obvious lack of control over any situation. His administration is totally out of control and he seems unable to act without reading his instructions from the ubiquitous teleprompter. His administration and the media have dismissed his birth certificate as a non-issue, they have dismissed his Islamic roots as untrue or at least irrelevant, and they have ignored his lack of any past record on anything – the man is a total blank who increasingly seems like a ventriloquist’s puppet rather than a real boy. You expect any day to see his nose grow. However, as bad as these things may be there are more insidious things going on in the background – hidden in these multi-thousand page bills being pushed through congress are some very interesting things – things never discussed in detail and when discussed never examined critically and that brings me to Dhimmitude. Of course this word never appeared in any legislation but it is there although disguised – so what does this interesting word mean?

The word itself stems from the Arabic where it is an adjective which means “protected” and refers to a non-Muslim who is subject to Sharia Law, but this neologism springs from the French where it denotes concession, surrender, and appeasement towards Islamic demands. The Islamic community is sworn to kill infidels, to support the (Islamic) poor, etc. but Islam has been at war with the Infidels since its inception in the seventh century. In fact the Prophet Mohammed – before he got religion was a warlord who funded his activities by robbing caravans and then robbing and murdering Jews (do you see a pattern there?). But as we know and as history shows -- wars cost money so in an environment where the majority is protected by Sharia Law from any of the usual revenue raising schemes, the money has to come from somewhere and where would that be – the infidels – who are Dhimmi!! In exchange for not being murdered as demanded by the Koran the infidels (read Jews and Christians) pay a tax. This tax has historically been used by the Ottomans to fund their military and wars.

So how does this affect Americans and what has Dhimmitude have to do with it. Well it seems that the new healthcare legislation created by our non-Muslim President governing a non-Christian nation contains some interesting exclusions. The new healthcare bill – which doesn’t go into effect until 2014 – requires all Americans to buy healthcare insurance or go to jail EXCEPT those people who can demonstrate a religious basis for their refusal. This includes people like the Amish, Scientologists, and --- are you ready -- Muslims!! Muslims are forbidden to do a lot of things including buy insurance which they view as a form of gambling. They are Dhimmi, which means that all you folks out there will be paying for the healthcare of the entire Islamic community while they pay nothing while funding organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Yes it is true this legislation only pertains to “American” Muslims but Americans are generally unaware that Muslims do not view any nation state as superior to Islam so their first loyalty is to Islam not America or any other nation.

Now the Snopes bastion of truth acknowledges that this is indeed in the legislation but they don’t give it a “true” ranking because the legislation hasn’t gone into effect and may be challenged in court – long after our non-Muslim President has ridden into the sunset. Our country and our values are under attack and are being undermined by a complaisant congress, a somnambulant media, and a President clearly controlled and scripted via teleprompter. Vote wisely and remember who voted for these bills without ever reading them.

Aliens From Outer Space

2010-09-26T09:38:00.001-04:00

Recently the idea that life on Earth was introduced by Spacemen has become more and more popular as the scientific (and non-scientific) community struggles to describe the origin of life. This is exceedingly important because a failure to provide an explanation jeopardizes the Theory of Evolution. One of the key points regarding this theory is precisely what is meant by life? Are we talking about life in general – that is those first protoplasmic pond scum life forms from which all life has evolved or are we talking about humans? At first glance this question may seem to be ridiculous because the Darwinians insist that all life descended from pond scum so Alien Space Men would have had to introduce the scum and then to have guided the evolution from scum to atheists, but this seems to ask for a great deal of planning and patience given the time frames. In fact it is that time frame that seems to be the problem.

The universe is estimated to be 15 billion years old but the Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. This means that those Aliens would have had to evolve from something in the first 11 billion years. Of course that is a long time and certainly it would seem to be enough time to evolve from pond scum to faster than light space craft, but is that realistic? The first signs of life on Earth are 3.8 billion years old so those space creatures – assuming that evolution is correct and applies universally – would have had to have to have started their climb up the evolutionary ladder approximately 7 billion years after the big bang. Perhaps that too is possible but it does begin to stretch the bounds of credibility.

We are told that the universe contains hundreds of millions of galaxies and billions of starts and thus billions of planets – some of which must be Earth like based on probabilities. Thus we are left with the idea that the highly evolved Aliens living on a planet lost among those millions of galaxies found Earth and the Sun among those billions of other stars and planets and then decided to launch an experiment in evolution? What is the probability of one our scientists picking one of those millions of galaxies, selecting a star at random, and then finding that that star is suitable for a life experiment? More importantly recognizing that that planet selected at random whose atmosphere was poisonous was suitable for seeding primitive life – what are those chances? But there wasn’t sufficient oxygen to support life until the Mississippian 360 million years ago. So these Alien Space Men would have had to have been incredibly lucky to find the Earth and then the patience necessary to launch an experiment spanning billions of years. Therefore, it seems more plausible that life on Earth was not introduced by Aliens but some scientists think that life was deposited on Earth via some asteroid or other space debris, perhaps it was but that doesn’t explain how life was created it just shifts the point of creation from Earth to points unknown.

But what about humans – did we descend from pond scum or were we “introduced” by some Alien Beings? Of course this puts us back at the probability of some super intelligent civilization finding the Sun and the Earth thorough some random process. Even if this highly unlikely event was true the questions become – why did the Aliens introduce humans and to what purpose? Furthermore, human evolution spans several million years – assuming of course that humans are in fact descended from apes but then are those apes descended from pond scum? Did those Aliens genetically modify those apes discovered in Africa so they would evolve into humans? Does that sound logical to anyone? Anyone? It strikes me that whatever happened and however we came to be it wasn’t the result of Spacemen, probably wasn’t a random event leading to pond scum, and the answer may never be found in science.

The Nation of Islam

2010-09-25T13:49:00.000-04:00

The recent attempt by yet another Arab terror group to break the Israeli embargo has served to highlight the problems that Israel faces but more importantly it acts as a reminder of how fragmented Islam is. This issue of Islamic infighting was covered in great detail in a strategic report which I have digested in the following comments and added my own editorial observations.

There is little doubt but Israel is once again losing the battle for public opinion but that was the objective of the entire flotilla exercise from the outset, even the selection of the contraband was intended to further the case for public outrage. But when you look behind the blather what do you see? What you see is very little action, lots of talk, and interestingly enough no calls for military action against Israel other than the usual Hamas terrorism.

The reality of the situation is the powers outside of the Middle East will continue to blather away against Israel but any significant action by the Islamic nations in the area is unlikely because they are so divided among themselves and have such divergent relations with Israel and each other that any effective coalition against Israel doesn’t exist and is unlikely to exist in the near future. Of course the nuclear threat from Iran exists but that threat is mitigated somewhat by the world at large. Consequently while the tide of public opinion rises against Israel it is unlikely that little action will be taken and the Israeli’s will continue their policies unchanged.

Since it was the “humanitarian” effort to bring aid to the Palestinians it is probably best to examine the relations between the factions within the Palestinian community. There is of course the Palestinians themselves who can be classified as victims – not of the Israeli’s but of their own political groups, Fatah and Hamas, neither of which seem to care about the plight of the people. These two groups are at war with each other and with Israel. Fatah dominates the West Bank while Hamas dominates the Gaza Strip and Israel occupies the middle ground. The result is that these two Palestinian groups operate as if they were separate and hostile countries – countries with distinctly different ideologies.

Fatah is secular and springs from the socialist movement started by Nasser in Egypt and aligned with the old Soviet Union. Fatah was the dominant faction in the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which was an umbrella group headed by Yasser Arafat until his death. But upon his death the PLO was left with a corrupt bureaucracy but no leader, no coherent strategy, and worst of all – no agreed upon ideology. The result was the PLO ceased to exist and fragmented into the Hamas and Fatah factions. Hamas is an Islamist (Shia) organization supported and subsidized by Iran. Hamas rejects Israel’s right to exist but the “liberation” of Palestine is not the paramount objective – the objective of Hamas is to establish an Islamic state, which makes it hostile to Fatah.

Fatah is Islamic but secular at its base. While it preaches the destruction of Israel it is much more pragmatic and seeks a true country of Palestine and is much more willing to negotiate with Israel. But Hamas and Fatah are irreconcilable in their ideologies and Hamas views Fatah as corrupt making both groups easily manipulated by Israel as well as other outside forces. Hamas sees any set back to Fatah as a victory just as Fatah views any failure of Hamas as a win for their side. Currently the world focus is on Hamas and their clear public relations victory so it is only a matter of time before Fatah will find some way to undo these gains by Hamas. It is this deep division between the Palestinians that makes Israeli efforts to pit one against the other as almost unnecessary since they are at war with each other.
But the Palestinian situation is actually a microcosm of the Arab states surrounding Israel which have issues of their own. Jordan, Syria, and Egypt surround Israel and publicly condemn Israel, the Israeli Embargo, and support the Islamic cause – at least publicly but underneath things are much less clear.
Egypt may be the oldest country in the world and while essentially an Islamic state it is a secular country and totally hostile to Hamas. Hamas is an intensely religious organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood – a semi-secret organization responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat among others. The Muslim Brotherhood is considered by the Egyptian government to be its greatest domestic threat and President Mubarak has moved against Islamic extremists and sees Hamas and their ideology as a threat since it could spread to Egypt. Thus Egypt has maintained its own blockade of Gaza and remains much closer to the Fatah whose secularism derives from the Egyptian secularism. Consequently Hamas (supported by Iran) distrusts Cairo which is secular and Sunni.
Jordan on the other hand doesn’t trust Fatah since Arafat attempted to overthrow the monarchy. This effort by Fatah cost 10,000 Palestinian lives and Fatah has never forgot this massacre – initiated by them but in typical fashion blamed on Jordan. The idea of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank is not popular with the Jordanians, especially since so much of their population is Palestinian. But the Jordanians are not enthusiastic about Hamas either since they have such close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood which has caused problems in Jordan. So while Jordan acts as an Islamic state and gives lip service to the condemnation of Israel the reality is both Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel which remain in place and apparently unthreatened.
And that brings us to the more interesting and complicated issue which is Syria. Syria supports the Palestinians but that seems to be more rhetorical than real. Syria is focused on Lebanon and along with Iran a sponsor of Hezbollah, which is anti-Israeli rather than pro-Palestinian. Hezbollah is a Shiite Organization supported by Iran that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel not to the creation of a Palestinian state. The Palestinians are little more than a casus belli for Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. The Syrian government is focused on Lebanon and when Hezbollah becomes aggressive against Israel the Syrians become upset with Iran whom they see as responsible. But there are other issues here because Hezbollah is a Shiite organization but the Palestinians are generally Sunni so it isn’t clear that the Palestinians would want Hezbollah to establish a regime in Palestine. So Syria is playing a complicated game as it tries to balance all of these conflicting goals that only have one common one which is the destruction of Israel, when their goal is the domination of Lebanon. But these aren’t the only countries that make up Islam
Turkey is a secular Islamic country with aspirations to join the EU but it is also dealing with an insurgent Kurdish issue and a rising Islamic fundamentalism fueled by radical clerics. The Turkish government is condemning Israel at the moment but that is probably the government’s attempt to mollify the radicals. Then you have the threats the PLO gave to the Arabian states. Like all Arabs the Saudi’s and other Arabian peninsula states are long on memory and short on forgiveness so it is unlikely they will rush to the aid and support of the Palestinians in any meaningful way. Of course Iran would like to influence if not dominate the Palestinians as they pursue their objective of the destruction of Israel but Fatah doesn’t trust the Iranians and Hamas is Sunni while Iran is Shiite so there is not a lot of trust there either. So all of these convoluted relationships are fragile and not built on trust.
Given these conflicts in policy, religion, and political goals among the Islamic states, it renders the anti-Semitism of Europe and hostility to Israel as more of a diplomatic issue than any significant threat to Israel. To the Israeli’s Gaza represents a dagger at their throat and it is unlikely they will loosen their grip and from their perspective Fatah ultimately supports their suppression of Gaza and Hamas. More importantly Egypt participates with Israel in this suppression of Hamas through their own embargo, Jordan is relieved by the Israeli policy, and Syria is indifferent to it but may continue their blather. In effect these divisions among the Islamic states render them ineffective and thus Israel has no reason to reduce their pressure on Gaza and Hamas.
To confirm this assessment it is worth noting that as the Israeli Navy intercepted this Turkish Flotilla, not one Egyptian aircraft threaten the Israeli’s nor did any Syrian or Turkish warship approach or make any effort to intervene with the Israeli’s. The threat of rocket attacks and suicide bombers from Gaza remains but any significant deterrent threat from the other Islamic states is unlikely to go beyond rhetorical condemnations.

Comments on Afghanistan

2010-09-25T13:40:00.003-04:00

Afghanistan is a land locked country that is in reality a country in name only. It has vast mineral wealth which has never been exploited because this pseudo-country is peopled with tribes and clans still living in the seventh century. These tribes and clans are thoroughly anchored in Islam and dominated by frictions, revenge, and issues of honor going back hundreds if not thousands of years. They have little interest in the outside world or its technology – unless that technology is military in nature. Yet America has been obsessed with Afghanistan for 30 years and directly and indirectly engaged in war there for all of that time. There is an American obsession with Afghanistan and the war there never seems to get better and never seems to end – it just expands and contracts.

The first phase of the Afghan War began with the Soviet invasion in December 1979. At the time it seemed to be in the strategic interest of America to thwart the Soviets and to keep them distracted from other activities more strategically valuable to the US. So the US with the support of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan organized resistance to the Soviets in the form of the Mujahedeen. These fighters were fighting the Soviets so little attention was given to the fact that they were motivated by Islam and fighting the Infidels – not so much the Soviets. All that America cared about was that they were fighting the Soviets and blocking them from creating a base for further expansion in the area. Plus these fighters were keeping the Soviets bogged down in a guerilla war, which the US gleefully aided and abetted. This first phase of the Afghan War lasted roughly ten years and ended in 1989 with the withdrawal of Soviet Troops.

The second phase of the Afghan War really was more like a civil war with the US and our allies observing as the local clans and tribes – armed and trained by the US went back to their favorite past time – fighting each other. Although the US did not actively take part in this war it did exert some influence through third parties – primarily Pakistan. More importantly the US was willing to accept that some group of the Mujahedeen—whom they had trained and armed – would govern Afghanistan. Eventually with Pakistani support a group called the Taliban took power in 1996 and established an Islamic State. But the Taliban were not just Islamic they were fundamentalist who were determined to rule according to the Koran. With the Taliban in power Afghanistan became a sanctuary for the extreme Jihadists in general and Al Qaeda in particular, which created tensions with the US since Al Qaeda had been attacking US facilities. With the arrival of Bin Laden in Afghanistan phase two of the Afghan War ended and the third phase began.

The third phase began with the attack by Al Qaeda on the World Trade Center which was in fact an act of war between Al Qaeda and the US. Although Al Qaeda is not a country it is Islamic in nature and in Islam there is no distinction made between Islam and a nation. Given that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had established their headquarters in Afghanistan, the US launched military operations intended to destroy Al Qaeda and dislodge the Taliban from power. This operation began within 30 days of the attack by Al Qaeda and it can be argued that this was not enough time to effectively develop a long range strategy. Instead the US drew on allied support both internationally and within Afghanistan itself – such as the Northern Alliance. It also included other Afghan groups who remained close to the Iranians, Pakistani’s, plus others. This was a rather unsteady alliance whose main unifying factor – in typical Afghan fashion – was hatred of the Taliban or due to substantial bribes paid by the US.

Once the war started it escalated as the US deployed more ground forces and significant air power. But Al Qaeda is not a country and the Taliban had no more legitimate claim to Afghanistan that any other group, so both the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply melted away into the countryside. Historically the cities in Afghanistan do not control the countryside it is the tribes and clans in the countryside that allow the cities to exist.

Militarily what happened is the US was prepared to fight a war which the Taliban refused to fight on the US terms. Instead they dispersed, regrouped, and moved into the countryside which they could control and isolate the cities which has been the historical precedent. The result has been a war without any end in sight but the Taliban has been weakened and Al Qaeda has no longer been capable of launching any attack of significant size. The US then attempted to establish a government which has increasingly been exposed as almost a comic opera version of a government. It is corrupt and has very limited power over the country primarily because there really is no country of Afghanistan – just a group of tribes and clans heavily infiltrated by the Taliban.

These first three phases of the American obsession with Afghanistan first relied on the Mujahedeen to fight the Russians, the second phase relied on Pakistan to oversee the Afghan civil war as the tribes and clans fought for control. In the third phase the US relied on the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban but that proved to be a poor strategy which dragged the US into what has become the Afghan War. But this was a war with limited objectives other than maintaining the Afghan government and containing Al Qaeda.

The fourth phase of the Afghan War began when the new Obama administration shifted priorities away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan. The argument for this shift in strategy was that the Iraqi war was a mistake because there was never any strong connection to Al Qaeda in Iraq and that Afghanistan was the home base of Al Qaeda. With this shift in strategy the US became the main force in Afghanistan whose initial focus of defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban has become increasingly fuzzy and of questionable value.

This is a land locked country of no real strategic value in and of itself. Al Qaeda has dispersed and fragmented into local groups affiliated with Al Qaeda but no longer under any central command. Al Qaeda is not a country it is an organization like any multi-national corporation and due to American actions in Afghanistan it has moved on to Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. The Taliban is the old Mujahedeen with a new name. Whether they rule Afghanistan or some other clan or tribe is of little consequence to America. While Islam continues to be at war with America this is really a war against Infidels being waged by Muslims but the Taliban have not been actively engaged outside of Afghanistan. The most they have done is to tolerate Al Qaeda and give them a safe harbor. But somehow America has let Al Qaeda move out of Afghanistan and left us fighting the Taliban without any purpose other than to support a shaky government in a country that has never actually been a country in any real sense of the word.

At this point it seems that the current administration is trying to turn over the fighting to the Afghan military with an objective of reaching a coalition government between the Karzai government, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance and then to exit as gracefully as possible. Perhaps that is the best anyone can hope for or expect. President Obama has been criticized for establishing 2011 as the date of withdrawal for American Troops. This was probably intended to motivate the Karzai government to ramp up its military but it has also given the Taliban a reason to not negotiate any coalition government. The problem is the Afghan Army is composed of men from the various tribes and clans and as those tribes and clans go – so goes the Afghan Army. The Obama government seems faced with the same decisions that faced Richard Nixon as he brought the Viet Nam War to a close. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will be able to withdraw from Afghanistan with some dignity and end America’s obsession with it.

Sin In The Garden Of Science and Philosophy

2009-12-20T12:31:00.001-05:00

When was the last time you thought about sin? Probably not recently because I think very few people think about sin on a regular basis and certainly not outside of church. I rather think that few people ever consider sin, theirs or others, much less what the ramifications would be in a world without sin. Of course sin does exist, at least for those people who believe in God, but in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people around who don’t believe in God. These atheists have probably always been around but they seem to be growing in number and influence. Dr. Benjamin Wiker addressed how atheists view humanity and the ramifications of Godlessness in his book “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World”. In this book Dr Wiker deconstructs a total of 16 books which view humanity as animals without moral boundaries and the enormous harm these books have done as a result.

The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.

From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.

Darwin’s book “Origen of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.

By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.

Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.

Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.

America In Afghanistan

2009-12-07T10:34:00.000-05:00

At the risk of being viewed as a “cut and run” anti-war activist, I think it is time for a review of President Obama’s Strategy and some historical perspective. Afghanistan is a fractious nation if in fact it could even be called a nation. Imperial China rarely had more than nominal control of the country and the reality was that the country was actually under the control of various warlords and this persisted until Mao centralized control in Beijing with a communist government. Although with his death modern China is increasingly looking more and more like Imperial China with a different name. But the point is that Afghanistan has always been a central government with only loose control while the real power was – and is – held by various war lords. Historically Afghanistan has been at war with the various warlords battling each other over various slights real and imaginary. While it may appear that the Taliban had total control over Afghanistan they did not. The Northern Alliance was not under their control and it was the Northern Alliance that worked with the NATO forces (read American) to over throw the Taliban. What has been lost in all of the subsequent rhetoric is that the objective was never the overthrow of the Taliban it was the destruction of Al Qaeda and had Mullah Omar agreed to turn over Osama bin Laden the Taliban would still be in power. Unfortunately, Mullah Omar stood by bin Laden because to do otherwise would have been a serious breech of Islamic hospitality which could have jeopardized his hold on the country because the Taliban were not popular, and his power rested on his strict adherence to Islamic Law and Custom.

So historically Afghanistan has been a series of tribal areas run by Tribal Chiefs with only loose loyalty to any central authority and the only unifying force has been Islam. It must be noted that Islam is not just a religion but it is the supreme authority over government. While the west likes to pretend that there are Islamic “nations” the reality is that these “nations” are actually shells which are under the control and direction of various Islamic authorities in the form of Mullahs and Imams. This means the US strategy of establishing a representative government in Afghanistan has always been somewhat misguided for several reasons. First Islam directs Muslims to not make or honor any treaty with non-Muslims. So any US efforts to establish anything from bureaus to schools will always be on shaky ground because Muslims are forbidden to accept or interact with infidels. Even if this can be overcome, any government will always be under the tacit control of Islamic authority, which means Karzai and his government will always be on shaky ground. So the US and President Obama are faced with a very thorny problem without any clear cut path to any sort of reasonable conclusion – given that withdrawal is not an option.

We are caught up in an insurgency, meaning that we are facing a light infantry guerilla force that melts into the population and attacks at will. Efforts to locate and destroy them inevitably leads to civilian deaths as they deliberately leak misinformation to the US which leads to attacks and the intended civilian deaths which causes the population to blame America. In the meantime efforts to locate and attack the Taliban are only marginally effective because when put under pressure they simply move across the border into Pakistan. Some might move into Iran but the real sanctuary is in the Pakistani Tribal areas where the Pakistani government has little authority and the Taliban enjoy the Islamic protections of hospitality and are supported due to the Islamic directive to kill infidels – meaning the Americans. So to these Pakistani Tribesmen – the Taliban are doing God’s (Allah’s) work.

Whether or not President Obama is sending one or 100,000 troops is almost beside the point because the probable outcome would be to force the Taliban across the border and into Pakistan where they can regroup, rearm, and raid back across the border – as these tribes have done for centuries. That would lead to a never ending war until the Americans tired of it and gave up and left at which time the Taliban would return and a civil war may or may not occur. So the troop surge is more of a tactic than a strategy, but unless the Pakistani’s step up to the plate and aggressively root out the Taliban and keep them in a vise between their military and the Americans, then the surge is just a waste of lives and treasure. But the darker side of this is can the Pakistani’s carry out their campaign against the Taliban? The answer is a very problematic maybe.

The Taliban are an irregular force, meaning they have no uniforms and cannot be distinguished from local population. It has already been demonstrated that the Pakistani military is not free of hidden Taliban agents, meaning any Pakistani military operation could be and to date has been-- betrayed. The Pakistani Intelligence Agency has been deeply infiltrated by the Taliban which means that both Pakistani and joint American operations are unlikely to be highly successful since the Taliban will be warned in advance by their hidden sympathizers. Before any really successful operation against the Taliban can be mounted the Pakistani military and military intelligence will have to be purged of Taliban plus the Pakistani intelligence agency will have to infiltrate the Taliban. While American surveillance techniques are superb they only go so far and cannot ensure victory in the long term. If victory is to be achieved it will only be possible through the Pakistani’s – not through more American Troops.

The other part of the Obama strategy is to bring the Afghan military up to a level where it can defend the country against the Taliban. But this means that the Afghan military must be free of Taliban sympathizers and it has already been demonstrated that it is not. This does not mean that all is lost and the situation is hopeless, but it does mean that the situation has no easy solution. The key is Pakistan. They must force the Taliban out of Pakistan, Pakistan must purge its military of Taliban sympathizers and Islamic extremists and the Afghan government must purge itself of corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and infiltrate the Taliban in order to gain better intelligence. And finally – the source of the Taliban’s military supplies and funding must be located and destroyed because without arms and ammunition they will exhaust themselves and if the troops are not being paid they will leave – because they too have families that must be fed.

So President Obama is faced with a situation that has no easy answer and more troops may not be the best answer. The real answer lies in diplomacy and strategy, let’s hope that the Pakistani government can finally gain control of their country – all of it.

Darwin Dawkins and Evolution

2009-12-05T14:39:00.001-05:00

The focus has for years been on Darwin’s “Origin of Species” while his companion work “The Descent of Man” has either been ignored entirely or sort of lumped into his general Theory of Evolution. Of course the thrust of Darwin’s second view of evolution is that human beings were descended from apes who in turn were descended from still more primitive animals. This is a heavily flawed book whose flaws are explained away today by pointing out that Darwin was a “man of his times” and “science” has come a long way since the book was written. Darwin never actually addressed the “Origin of Species” nor did he ever address the origin of life. Instead those issues were left to modern believers, like Dawkins, who totally excludes God and embraces his religion of Evolution and his Darwin as his God replacement. So Dawkins goes where Darwin feared to tread and the logical end of this evolutionary thread is that man is a direct descendant of pond scum. If you have seen Dawkins you can see the family resemblance. But suppose Dawkins is right, that all of humanity is descended directly from lower animal forms and thus subject to the laws of evolution. What are the ramifications of this?

The ramification of course is according to Darwin and Dawkins the strongest and fittest survive while the weakest perish under the relentless action of evolution. It was Darwin who stated that more individuals in a species are born than can possibly survive, so it is natures way to eliminate the weak through their struggle to survive thus those individuals who have even the slightest advantage are naturally selected. The implication of this when applied to humans would indicate that the evolutionary path of humanity would lead to a superior form of human both physically and mentally. Males would get larger and stronger while females would become more fertile and attractive. Alas – even a casual look at humanity would show that some at taller, some weaker, some less intelligent, and certainly some are less attractive, but these are all subjective evaluations and really don’t address the variations in skin color, body types, eye color, hair color, or appearance.

The logical conclusion is that humanity today is the logical result of “breeding” and not necessarily the evolutionary result of the survival of the fittest. The implication is that mankind is result of breeding much like dogs and cats or any other animal. It then follows that humanity can be improved through programs where only the “best examples” are allowed to breed. Of course this was a policy adopted in ancient times and is best exemplified by the Spartans who only allowed the strongest babies to live. A more recent example of this approach, now given the name “Eugenics” was carried out by Adolph Hitler. Both of these programs were public policy but Darwin himself noted that the “civilized people” were eliminating the “savages” through their superiority, where superiority was defined through intellectual achievement and living standard. The shallowness of this position is generally ignored today but Darwin’s basic position remains intact in the eyes to people like Dawkins, who pick and choose their facts while ignoring those that don’t fit their belief.

This brings us to those variations which according to Darwin are the result of natural selection and for Dawkins the result of mutations caused by cosmic rays. The corollary here is that any mutation that failed to improve the chance of survival would fall by the wayside since the mutant would be eliminated and off spring would not survive. This immediately leads to the conclusion that all of the observed variations are evolutionary changes that have improved humanity’s survival ability. But for Darwin, there was the gorilla, the Negro (savages), and the ultimate top of the evolutionary scale – the Caucasian. This is one of those Darwinian things that Dawkins chooses to ignore; instead he leans toward mutation and sexual selection. But then which is which? Are blonds more attractive than brunettes? Is black skin more attractive than white? The argument is that skin color, hair color, and curly hair versus straight are in fact evolutionary advantages. But this brings us back to survival of the fittest. Certainly the record of man shows that the barbarian, the one who is stronger and has the morality of a sociopath is the preferred evolutionary form. The logical path indicates that morality, sympathy, empathy, or any deep emotion must be weaknesses that cannot lead to a stronger human form, but must be eliminated through natural selection since the men with these characteristics would not be allowed to mate. Clearly this isn’t the case, so these must be traits that describe the strongest and fittest human. But realistically – does the ability to care for another human being, or to have a conscience enable an individual to survive a drought, a famine, or a war?

Darwin simply stated that man was descended from a lower form and was an animal subject to the same rules of evolution that other animals are. What is missing is any real proof that evolution as described by Dawkins is a fact. Darwin never addressed speciation and Dawkins explains speciation through cosmic rays and mutation but offers no empirical proof whatsoever. In fact the fossil record seems to support environmental adaptation which accounts for the variations in humans, but it does not indicate how one animal morphs into another or how pond scum became human.

The ABC's Of Liberalism

2009-12-01T14:39:00.001-05:00

The term “Liberal” and “Liberalism” is being bandied about in so many contexts that its actual meaning seems to becoming lost. The fact is that most people today – at least Americans are “liberal” the problem lies not in the philosophy of liberalism but in its interpretation and implementation. Liberalism is actually a philosophy that emphasizes individualism, equality, and freedom – things which I think the typical American stands for and believes in. The problem starts almost at the outset because as a “theory” liberalism describes how things ought to be rather than how they actually are. In practice the liberal wants a government that perfectly embodies the three basic points of liberal philosophy, rather than accepting the pragmatic reality of the government we have.

Liberals and non-liberals alike want government to secure the rights of individuals the problem comes in the implementation of that goal. Both want every individual to be treated equally but for some that equality is equality under the law but for others that kind equality is not enough because equality cannot be had if some are richer than others. For these people the clear responsibility of government is to redistribute the wealth so that equality among all citizens can be achieved. While some people believe in the basic right to individual ownership of property others think the government has the responsibility to secure goods for every citizen, even at the expense of others and their property rights. This leads to the progressive income tax, housing subsides, affirmative action, income tax refunds to those who pay no income tax, and more recently the seizure of private property for developers to build malls and buildings for the “good of all”.

While most Americans would say they believe in freedom, in practice they do not. In fact the typical American believes in limited freedom and the number of limitations on our freedom increases daily. In fact this may actually best illustrate how liberalism in practice has so deviated from liberalism as a philosophy. Some would think that “freedom of speech” has been expanded beyond what was intended by the founding fathers with the acceptance by the Supreme Court of pornography, profanity, and the desecration of Christian symbols. But Christian theology and symbols are banned from schools and public buildings while Islamic and other religious symbols and theology are not. Huckleberry Finn cannot be taught in schools because the word “nigger” is used. The government has banned smoking which is a direct infringement of individual rights – justified by liberals on the basis of “the common good”. Car seats and seat belts are mandatory and indeed they may be very useful but the reality is that compulsion to buy them and use them is a direct abridgement by government on individual rights. So while most Americans believe in the liberal philosophy the implementation has strayed so far afield as to border on fascism.

This idea that the government has an obligation to provide for the individual was the motivation behind Karl Marx and his communist philosophy. Even though communism has caused more harm than good and has cost millions of lives, the basic belief that government must provide for the individual lives on. It lives on with the universal healthcare bill before congress today. It lives on in the “tax the rich” ideas prevailing in congress today. It lives on as the individual right not to be offended. The government now protects the rights of minorities at the expense of the majority when the whole purpose of the American Republic was government by the majority. We have come along way from that ideal. What started as a government for the people has morphed into a people subordinate to the government whose objective is to provide first and foremost for the individual at the expense of the majority.

Super Freakonomics

2009-11-24T14:15:00.000-05:00

Recently the sequel to “Freakonomics” has been published as “Super Freakonomics” once again authored by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. While the original book was a sort of tongue in cheek view to six questions with sharply differing topics, but the authors tied these together by mining data from various sources. This sequel is similar but poses only five questions which are fascinating in and of themselves but with a variety of related answers. While the first book clearly was intended as a sort of semi-serious entertainment, this one is sort of and entertaining response to some semi-serious questions. For example the first question posed is “How is a street prostitute like a department store Santa?” This question does eventually get answered but not before the authors wander off to discuss how women have historically been punished just for being female. They explore wage inequities, the punishing of witches, the limited career opportunities for women, and of course prostitution. Certainly these are all interesting and important questions which eventually lead to the fact that prostitution can be very lucrative for a very small investment in time and that it is essentially seasonal in nature – much like department store Santa’s.

Each of these questions posed by Levitt and Dubner is used as the basis to address various incentives and their impact but to explore other related aspects which frequently reveals some very odd and seemingly unconnected answers. Perhaps the most serious of these questions and answers is “Unbelievable stories about apathy and altruism”. However, the actual question posed is “Why did 38 people watch Kitty Genovese be murdered?” This question is used as a launching pad for a whole series of tangential but related questions like “How the ACLU encourages crime? “What caused the 1960”s crime explosion?’ or one of the most interesting of these “Why don’t real people behave like people in the lab?” This latter question illustrates the Heisenberg Principle of Uncertainty in relation to people or how people react when observed versus unobserved.

Clearly this book is more serious than the first one and while the authors continuously refer to economists this book really has little if anything to do with economics. It is mostly an examination of various topics of general interest and how they impact society and in some cases our economy. Perhaps the two most interesting topics they address along these lines is how the required car safety seats do not add safety to a child and in some cases are actually more dangerous than just using seat belts. Of course the economic tie here is the actual saftey results versus the legal requirement for the car seats and the financial advantage for the manufacturers. But the authors have a real sarcastic romp with Al Gore and Global Warming – errr – Global cooling – errr Climate Change. How the scientific facts do not support Al Gore’s inconvenient truth and some of the crazier ideas associated with counteracting climate change. They scoff at the windmills, the myth of carbon dioxide as the driver, and how volcanoes are more than just interesting landmarks. But then they go on to discuss some actual solutions – given that some corrective action is necessary. Of course some of these solutions while technically possible fall into the category of solutions looking for problems.

All in all this is an entertaining book but not the quality of the first. Still I highly recommend this book just for the section dealing with “What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common?” That chapter alone is worth the price of the book.

Obama Strategy?

2009-11-10T10:20:00.000-05:00

As the decision relative to Afghanistan continues to wait on President Obama, perhaps it is time to ask precisely what his strategy is relative to America and American foreign policy. During one of his overseas trips, President Obama was asked about the exceptionalism of America. Specifically Ronald Reagan viewed America as “A shining city on a hill” and how did President Obama see America? He was very clear in that he did not see America as unique or with any interests above or different from those of – say – Cuba, Greece, or Venezuela. This startling view was reflected in the mainstream media as a refreshing change from the jingoism that has characterized America. Newsweek almost got the vapors in their fawning over President Obama’s stance that America is no longer chauvinistic and parochial, but we stand as equals with the world and that Obama stands above the country – even above the world – “he is sort of God”. I think even with his overweening ego, President Obama might be a little embarrassed by that quote. But it does raise the question of exactly how does President Obama see the US and where does he think our interests lie?

The United States never intended to be world power much less a super power. America never set out to create the Pax Americana – that role was forced upon us by the continued Machiavellian machinations of Europe. It was the nationalistic policies of Europe that initiated the First World War and it was they who dragged America into it. It was they who set the stage for World War II with the Treaty of Versailles and it was they who so destroyed their own countries that they were left defenseless in face of USSR imperialism. So it was the very people who today criticize the US, accuse Americans of being arrogant, and who work against our interests at every turn while relying on the American Military for protection. It is these Europeans who continue their devious and self-destructive policies as they strive to gain control over America and American power through a world government. Is NATO necessary any longer? What benefit does the US gain from NATO other than to annoy the Russians? Does the UN provide any benefit to the US given its domination by Islamic countries and almost universal anti-American stance? This is the situation and questions that face President Obama and how he deals with these is vital to America’s long term interests.

If President Obama has any over arching strategy, it is one of negotiation and withdrawal – ironically this is analogous to the isolationist position the US had in the early 20th Century. If any policy exists today it seems to be to negotiate with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran while abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems that President Obama has been asleep like Rip van Winkle because he is unaware of the diplomatic efforts of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who have tried negotiating with North Korea, Palestine, and Iran with virtually no effect, although Arafat did stab President Clinton in the back. So what is Obama’s new diplomatic strategy that he plans on using to negotiate? He has leaned on the Israeli’s and supported the Palestinians only to leave both angrier so what is his new basis for negotiation? Perhaps someone should point out that negotiation is not a policy or even a strategy – it is a technique or process that is used in order to accomplish some objective. Both Presidents Bush and Clinton established objectives of disarmament and failed but President Obama’s approach seems to be encapsulated in the term “negotiation” which really reflects the almost total lack of experience both he and his administration have in international affairs. An objective of “peace” doesn’t seem to be very specific and this has been the objective for 16 years without any noticeable change, other to spend millions of dollars which have gone to fund terrorism and into Swiss Banks. So is the current plan to continue the failed policies of the past are does he intend to set new objectives?

So what about the other part of what appears to be President Obama’s over arching strategy of negotiation and withdrawal. It seems that he promised to withdraw the troops from Iraq because they had no business being there in the first place, but this promise seems to have been made to his liberal constituency without any knowledge of the real situation. Iraq is Islamic and has historically been dominated by the Sunni’s who were a minority. The Shiites are the majority and supported by Iran – a Shiite dominated country. The focus seems to be on withdrawing troops rather than a stable government in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal of American troops could easily throw Iraq into a civil war and destabilize the entire region as the US would be seen as unreliable, intransigent, and defeated by radical Islam. This would greatly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah while dramatically increasing the threat to Israel. Iran has been pushing for a causus belli because the current government is very unstable and they need a unifying force. A perceived defeat of the US by Islam, which is what a withdrawal by the US would be viewed as, would certainly help Iran and would throw Iraq into even greater chaos. But the real problem lies in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan itself is really not the issue, the issue actually is Pakistan. The Taliban supported Al Qaeda who used Afghanistan as a base of operations to attack the US and to spread terror across the world. So the invasion of Afghanistan was actually an attack on the guerilla group known as Al Qaeda who fled into Pakistan. A large part of Pakistan is tribal and only loosely under the control of the central government. It is in these semi-autonomous regions that Al Qaeda found a home from which they launch attacks into Afghanistan and across the world. Once the US began to attack Al Qaeda in these tribal regions the whole area has erupted into chaos and the Taliban is attempting to destabilize Pakistan and to take over the country much as they did in Afghanistan. This is a real threat because in Islam the true Muslim is first and foremost a Muslim with no allegiance to his nation. In Pakistan the government is heavily infiltrated by these radical Muslims who are first Muslim and only secondarily Pakistani. If Pakistan cannot root out these radical forces and establish control then it is possible the substantial nuclear arsenal in Pakistan would fall into the hands of the Taliban and then into the hands of terrorists. Currently the American forces in Afghanistan in association with the Pakistani Army have Al Qaeda and the Taliban caught in classic pincer. But the American Military says they need more troops because the NATO troops there are little more than a token force. The border is very porous, the Pakistani’s hard pressed, and the Americans can’t be everywhere. But President Obama’s liberal supporters are anti-war and want him to withdraw American troops entirely. Apparently he intends to try to satisfy both camps and send some troops into Afghanistan but not the number requested. This of course is the worst possible solution and is a reflection of his total lack of military experience, knowledge of international affairs, and failure to grasp the difference between policies and action.

To date Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while laughing their way to Obama’s negotiating table. More importantly they are using their diplomats to drive a wedge between Israel and the US because Israel is the only country outside of the US with a military force capable of confronting the Iranian military. The Iranian strategy seems to be to divide and conquer. The North Koreans are playing Obama just like they have played the entire international community into providing them with whatever it is they want at the time, but this is really just a side show and Obama seems to be just going along like Bush and Clinton before him.

So does President Obama have a strategy? Will he make a decision in America’s best interest or does he plan on fulfilling his election promises to his liberal constituency? He no longer has time on his side – he must show his plans now.

Oil Profits and Energy Independence

2009-10-21T09:18:00.002-04:00

Recently I have been hammered by people who are once again accusing “Big Oil” of making obscene profits and gouging customers. These accusations seem to be just a knee jerk reaction to gas pump prices fueled by various politicians who find Big Oil to be a Big Target. But efforts to explain the fluctuations in oil prices or even how business – any business – operates seems to fall on deaf ears; therefore I guess this is a lesson in elementary economics -- the law of supply and demand. Economics has laws that are as immutable as the laws of physics but for some reason the laws that govern our economy are rejected out of hand by glib politicians and those who can't look beyond the immediate impact to discover the force behind that impact.

Wealth and Taxes
It is always popular for a politician to demand that the rich pay more, that we should tax the rich. Ignoring that these politicians almost never describe who is rich, but lets just follow that reasoning to its conclusion, which is that higher taxes lead to lower revenues! How can that be? The reality is that taking money (capital) from the rich (the capitalists) and giving it to the poor means the rich have less money to invest. With less capital available businesses cannot expand and add new jobs and may actually have to contract and lay people off. With fewer jobs there are fewer people earning money and paying taxes and many may become non-tax paying or even consumers of tax dollars in the form of unemployment benefits. Once the rich have had their capital reduced through taxation they have less to invest and so their income goes down and the taxes they pay are reduced. If the government responds by raising taxes even higher then we enter a downward spiral leading to greater unemployment and reduced revenues and a declining standard of living. Once this spiral begins it is very difficult to reverse because politicians are allergic to the solution which is lowering taxes.

Revenues and Profits
The favorite target here seems to be big business but especially the oil companies who are accused of making obscene profits. Of course this accusation of obscene profits comes from politicians who are almost always lawyers with no experience whatsoever in business and the man-on-the-street who just sees the price of gas at the pump. All he knows is that the ignoramus he voted for is telling him the cost of gas is because of greedy oil moguls and not the taxes they put on the gas or the restrictions they have placed on the oil companies, or the distinctions between profit and revenues, those are ignored.

Yes the revenues of the oil companies are substantial but surely most people know that their annual salary is only a fraction of what they take home in their paycheck. So the annual salary is the revenue, the paycheck is income after tax, and the take home pay is the profit. This is very analogous to how business operates. Those so-called obscene profits are in reality the gross revenues. Once the taxes have been paid to the federal authorities, the state, and local governments (and in some cases foreign governments as well) the companies have their after tax revenue, then they must deduct their expenses, which include exploration, salaries, transportation, environmental costs, etc etc. The actual bottom line profits have historically been in the 10% to 12% range and this is over decades. Even though this information is readily available from the Federal Government the politicians don't want to acknowledge that because it might draw attention to their regulations and taxes that lie at the heart of the cost of gas at the pump.

Law of Supply and Demand
The complaint has been that oil companies are cutting back on production and the cost of gas is sure to rise because the oil companies are run by greedy businessmen who are out to gouge the consumer. In reality this is an example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences". Like all businesses the oil companies are governed by the law of supply and demand. The Department of Energy, the Environmentalists, the EPA, and of course all of the politicians have been pounding the drum and beating on GM to reduce gas consumption. Surprise!! This is actually working and the result has been that OPEC is wallowing in oil because the demand has gone down as refineries cut back their production as the demand for gas goes down. Is there cheering in the streets? Is GM up for any medals from the DOE? of course not -- the hue and cry is that the price of gas may (or is) go up. Well the taxes haven't been reduced, the restrictions on the oil refineries hasn't changed -- just the demand for a finished product. This is where mass production comes in -- the more units I produce the lower the cost per unit and as I reduce the number of units produced the cost per unit increases. So as the demand for gas declines the refineries cut back on production and as the volume decreases the cost per unit increases. These changes in volume and revenues do not fall to the bottom line because all of the parameters remain the same. So in effect the environmentalists have succeeded in reducing the demand for oil but were unprepared for the success of their program. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again as the demand goes down the price goes up.

Energy Independence
The cry has been that America should be Energy Independent and this is the mantra of most politicians because it is popular with the people. Although the DOE was created for the sole purpose of making America Energy Independent no one seems willing to point out how bloated this organization has become in spite of it total failure to achieve its objective.

Generally when this subject of energy independence comes up, it is interpreted to mean independence of imported crude oil and independence of OPEC. However it is the Federal Government that has prevented the development of proven reserves or offshore exploration while foreign governments are actively exploring the very areas the American companies are seeking to explore. So it is the Federal Government that is directly increasing our dependence on foreign oil by placing environmental restrictions and legislative roadblocks on the American companies that prevent these companies from actively adding to the domestic supply of oil.

But suppose the US stopped importing any oil what would happen? Certainly the price at the pump would decline since the price would be determined by the domestic market but the real impact would be on those countries that currently sell oil to the US. Canada and Mexico would be hurt but Venezuela would be devastated. If the US were to suddenly become oil independent it would have destabilizing impact on the world economy, so even if the US did have the ability to be oil independent this independence would have to be phased in.

But there is another dimension to the price of gasoline and that is the dollar. The American Dollar is the reserve currency of the world and the price of oil is tied to the dollar so as the value of the dollar declines the price per barrel goes up and this translates directly to a higher cost of gasoline. The value of the dollar is driven by many factors but not the least of which is the supply of dollars. As the supply increases the value declines so as the government continues to fund these huge stimulus packages and social programs by printing dollars, the value of those dollars decreases, which drives up the cost of everything including oil. If the government were to reduce the supply of money then the value of the dollar would rise and the price of oil would decline since a dollar would buy more.

America – Europe – Peace

2009-10-15T10:25:00.002-04:00

The Europeans can’t stand America because America represents their lack of ability to protect themselves or even to sustain their economies independent of the United States. The Norwegians awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama in some bizarre hope that Barrack Obama will revert to some previous Presidential policy that will consult with them and actually allow them to guide if not directly veto American foreign policy. I think what the Norwegians are missing is the same thing that Western Europe is missing and that is how fed up the average American is with the Europeans.

During the 19th Century the Europeans invaded and colonized most of Africa. Actions which they either choose to ignore or see as a benefit to the Africans. What they did was to create totally impossible countries which have led to seemingly endless bloodshed in Africa as one tribe fights another and the national borders are ignored because of their artificiality. This European arrogance carried over into the 20th Century as the Europeans continued their centuries old internal battles and squabbles. By 1914 these squabbles led to WW I and the horrendous slaughter as a whole generation was wiped out. It would have even been worse had not the power of the United States interceded and brought the war to a close.

But European arrogance didn’t end with the first war, they continued their age old games of diplomacy as they divided the spoils and laid the foundations for WW II, the Iraqi wars, the Jihadist War now under way and the wars between Israel and the Arab World. It was the European nations that stood by and watched Hitler rise to power along with Lenin and Stalin. From 1919 until 1939 it was peace at any price in Europe and the Nobel Peace Prize went to Neville Chamberlain for his claim of “Peace in Our Time”. The world wallowed in the Great Depression as Europe watched Communist Russia rise fearful that Marxism would spread and hoping Hitler would be a counter force. Finally Hitler made his move and so once again Europe turned to the US to bail them out of a mess that they created, but this time things had changed.

The US became a world super power facing the Russian colossus over a prostate Europe. With the end of WW II the former European powers of France, Germany, and Britain no longer mattered or at least didn’t matter very much. The relationship between the US and Britain suffered a total reversal. Instead of Britain being Lord of Seas with the US being a client, now it was the US who was Lord of the Seas and Air while Britain was – and continues to be – a client. By 1947 what Europe wanted or didn’t want really didn’t matter, the US consulted them but acted on its own. Europe never recovered its military strength or even its economic power. Europe sank into a socialist funk where the people wanted the government to take care of them. They just wanted to be comfortable, to sit in their cafe’s and watch the world go by – which it has. Western Europe is virtually irrelevant today since they have little to no military power and rely on the US for protection – all the while criticizing America for its bellicosity, materialism, and untrustworthiness.

Since the liberation of Europe by America, the Europeans have been rebuilding their economy but they are no longer the great mercantile nations they once were but have become welfare states with high taxes and a work force more interested in vacations than in wealth accumulation. They are terrified that their great protector – the US – will embroil them in a war. They can no longer rely on American to honor their wishes relative to foreign policies. They still consider America to be run by cowboys who have no sense of history or the value of their more sophisticated world view. The Europeans liked Kennedy because he said things they agreed with ignoring his brinksmanship with the Russians and Viet Nam. But since tha time they have hated virtually every other President but they particularly hated George W Bush because he acted unilaterally. They were stunned when he consulted them after 9/11 but then ignored their advice.

Now we find the Norwegians awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama solely on the basis that he isn’t George Bush. They forget that if it weren’t for those American Cowboys who saved them they would be speaking German. They ignore the fact that it was America who rid Europe of the USSR who had been a threat to them for 70 years. They ignore the reality that Eastern Europe is moving away from socialism and sides with the US on the world stage while Western Europe is in decline due to their heavy socialist programs. The Nobel Committee saw in Obama some one who they think shares their view of socialism and America’s place in the world. That place being where it was in 1914 – subordinate to the will of Europe. Alas those days are gone – never to return no matter what the Norwegians would like to see happen.

President Obama is locked into the reality of the world. He is faced with two wars which he cannot lose because it would threaten world stability for years. His socialist programs are under heavy attack at home and his economy is in a shambles partially due to his attempts to push his socialist agenda. Then he is faced with the economic reality of the rise of India and China both militarily and economically. So while the Norwegians are glad that George Bush is gone what they thought they got may not turn out to be what they wanted, because they represent the past while the US must face the future and President Obama cannot ignore these realities.

Congressional Waste and Self Serving

2009-09-15T09:39:00.002-04:00

Here is a letter that needs to be sent to every Republican Congressman. There is no point in sending this to any Democrat or any media outlet because they are in denial. I'm not sure the Republicans aren't in denial as well but at least here is a wake up call. It seems clear to me that the people are being ignored by the congress -- and that goes for the entire congress. When I heard John McCain say that the Healthcare Bill needs "tweaking" I almost barfed!!! The man is totally out of touch with reality. I hear Michael Steele blather on and on being politically correct and not willing to attack the administration or voice any inconvenient truth. It seems to me that the entire elected political structure is totally out of touch and needs to be replaced in its entirety. The idea that you can "spend your way to prosperity" is so ludicrous that you have to question the intelligence of the entire gang in Congress and it isn't just the Democrats that have lost their way -- the Repubicans are just as bad. Shouting that "You lie" to the President means nothing other than bad manners unless the congress is willing to act and so far the only action I have seen has been self serving -- from all of them. The linked letter calls for the impeachment of the President, which I think is not just extreme but a bad precedent. The "people" (incuding a lot of dead ones registered by Acorn) elected this man but it is the Congress who truly holds the power -- power they seem incapable of wielding in a responsible manner and in response to the people whom they are alleged to represent. I'm not even sure that most democrats think they are being properly represented. If nothing else comes from this congress the evils of a one party system are clearly evident. Send this letter to your Republican representative and call for action -- loud, clear, and forceful ACTION!!

Callaway

OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

On the first page of your website you have a section that says something to the effect, “tell me what you think.” OK, here it is. How much longer do “we the people” have to sit out here and wait for you to do something? Where is your voice? Where is your spine? Why does a talk show host/entertainer have to do your job? Where is the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress?

If the United States of America survives past 2009 it will certainly not be because the RNC and the congressional leadership stood firm and held news conferences and produced YouTube videos, to keep us, the citizenry informed. What a sad state of affairs when the media controls what we get to hear from you, the elected officials. Are you fearful of what they will call you? Have you no power? Do they own you?

The grassroots have been fighting since April to voice our opposition to what is happening in our government. We have held tea parties, town halls, rants in public places, we have all become proficient on Facebook, twitter, blogs, etc. We stay up most nights trying to Google information, watch Glenn Beck, read and re-read our constitution. We have been like blind people trying to put a puzzle together and now that we are succeeding in seeing what is being done to us, it’s a frightening thing. I can only speak for myself but there have been times in the last six months that I have to pinch myself and ask if I am still in my country.

We have spent time calling, writing, emailing, petitioning our elected officials and we are called un-American, terrorists, mobs, dangerous, right-wing extremists, kooks, etc. I don’t hear national voices calling the main stream media to task for attacking us. I have only heard of one congressman who is going to the Library of Congress before the session begins to look up information on “redressing of grievances”. Why hasn’t the entire Republican congress called a meeting to ask the same thing?

We begged the Republicans to stop cap and trade and they did not. I can’t believe that any thinking person would even be talking about trying to pass something as heinous as HR 3200. When I hear a Republican, especially McCain talk about tweaking the bill and then passing it, I want to scream! What could these people be thinking. The only thing that could help this bill is for it to be flushed!

Do you watch television? Do you watch Fox News? Do you watch Glenn Beck? I’m appalled that there has not been a movement from the Republican Party to impeach this man who is living in our White House. Don’t even try to tell me that we can’t do that. We must impeach him. Are you aware that Van Jones, the green job czar, whose organization, the Apollo Alliance wrote the stimulus bill and is receiving tax dollars to dismantle our country? Van Jones is a self-avowed communist! Those are his words. This man is an advisor to the President? How can that happen? How can any elected official stand by and let this happen? Who is representing us?

What about Cass Sunstein? This man is a fascist nut. Yes, I did say fascist. I’m sick of not being able to speak truths because we’re fearful of not being politically correct. Guess what? We are out of the p.c. closet. Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy – Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Our decisions, our health, our wealth and our happiness. No thank you. This man thinks animals should have the right to take people to court??? This is not a fairy tale.

Now we hear that our internet may be taken from us through legislation. SB 773. Will this be carried out through martial law? I have not heard one Republican official say that they are not going to allow this to happen.

Are all the conspiracy theorists correct when they say that the Republicans are just as instrumental in destroying our country as the liberal fascist arm of the Democratic Party are?

The President is destroying the United States of America. If a Russian Professor can see it, and write articles about it, why can’t you? What do we need to do to start the impeachment process? I could list numerous other things that he has done that I believe are in direct opposition to our constitution but I don’t have the time or the space. You could contact Glen Beck, he will fill you in.

I am going to put this letter on Facebook, Twitter, blogs; I’m going to email it to every address I can get my hands on. I will send it as a press release to every media outlet I can think of and who knows, maybe one or two will print it. I’m going to send it to talk shows and I’m also going to email it to you. I certainly hope I receive an answer and if I do, I will also send that out to all the above mentioned sites.

Thank you for your time and I pray that God will Bless America.

Sincerely,
Pat Wright
Sealy, Texas

Rome - America - Capitalism

2009-09-01T12:43:00.001-04:00

This lengthy essay is in response to a comment posted by Susanna.

Susanna:
Thank you for your comments regarding Ancient Rome. Yes it is true that Roman society was sharply divided between the wealthy and everyone else but the society did function. The Gracchi’s did attempt to land reform but as you may know it failed. Nevertheless land was constantly being allocated to former members of the military and the majority of Roman Society lived better than they did after the Romans were eclipsed by those who desired their wealth without actually earning it. The result was grinding poverty and marginal living for virtually all of society. So eliminating slavery and redistributing land and wealth didn’t actually improve things.

While in college my history class addressed the issue of land reform as a means of wealth redistribution. The idea was that most of the land and wealth was in the hands of a few so various “Presidente`s” elected to take the land from the wealthy land owners and give it to the peons. This was done several times and it failed every time. Within a very few years the wealthy land owners once again owned the land and the peons were back working it. The root cause was not greed or even predatory practices – the fundamental issues were that not everyone is a good farmer so some simply failed to work the land properly and had to sell it in order to eat. Others could farm the land but could not make enough to feed their families because they didn’t have enough land. Eventually these farmers also sold their land and within a few years the land was back in the hands of the wealthy, the government collapsed, and a new Presidente` was in place.

Now you note that 90% of the wealth of America is in the hands of 10% and you say this as if this was wrong. In my work I travel extensively and I have noted that virtually everyone owns a car, has housing, eats regularly, has a TV, and most have one or more computers. I would say that everyone I meet on a daily basis is not “rich” nor are they in that rarefied 10% so your statistic is really meaningless. I also have in my circle of friends 3 people who do in fact reside in that 10% and probably in the 5% range. One man escaped from the communists and came to the US with no money whatsoever. He worked as a carpenter, saved his money, bought land, and today owns homes all over the world, contributes heavily to the Republican Party and commented recently that the very words used by President Obama were the exact words the communists used when they seized his family’s farm and livestock. Another man sold tools out of the trunk of his car. He gradually built his business and recently sold it for $57M and retired. One my oldest friends left the Navy and worked as door to door salesman. He borrowed money to buy one share of the business he worked for. Twenty years later he bought the last share of that business and today he owns it and is worth millions. All three of these men contribute heavily to charity and employ hundreds of others. So opportunity exists for those who choose to work. Those who choose not to work have no right to the wealth of others.

Since you are student of Roman History you might check Emperor Severus. As I recall he tried the Obama approach of taxing the wealthy in order to raise revenues. Paradoxically the higher he raised the taxes on the rich the lower his revenues dropped. You cannot take from the wealthy and give to the unproductive without reducing the total revenues and lowering the standard of living. This was made very obvious with the various communist regimes in the 20th Century.

I do agree that there is a growing underclass in America but I disagree with your implied root cause. You state that this underclass is the result of a lack of education, housing, and healthcare. Public schools are available throughout the country. The schools are routinely destroyed by the children of the underclass whom they are serving. These children do not attend, do not do the work, assault the teachers, and destroy the property. Rather than take responsibility for the poor education their children are receiving they blame the government, the wealthy, the whites, anyone but themselves. So the education is there if they choose to take advantage of it and many do. I am not responsible for the bad decisions of the underclass regarding their education. The government has routinely built public housing for the underclass who have just as routinely destroyed it. The government has torn these projects down and built new ones with the same result. The government then offered programs so the homeless could buy houses with no money down. This allowed hundreds of people to buy homes they couldn’t afford which forced them into bankruptcy and the ill advised government program to spend trillions of dollars keeping companies out of bankruptcy after the government forced them into this ridiculous program to start with.

This brings us to the question of healthcare which you apparently think is some sort of right of the underclass. The actuality is that every hospital in the country is required to provide service to the indigent without charge. The cost of this service is borne by those who have (and pay for) health insurance. So the reality is that there is no one in this country who must go without healthcare and that includes millions of illegal aliens who are slowly bankrupting the welfare system.

Some how you have concluded that the social welfare programs initiated by Roosevelt and expanded by every President since, have not worked because of greed. Precisely whose greed you don’t mention, but I suspect you attribute the woes of society to those who actually work for a living and those businesses that strive to make a profit while employing others. Making a profit is not greed and taking money from those who earn it and give it to those who do not, is communism in its purest form. I think this philosophy has failed repeatedly. I

In the late 1990’s shortly after the fall of the Communist Regime (USSR), I was part of a university program dealing with Russian professionals. The objective was to give them insight into businesses being run for profit. This was an astonishing experience for all parties but those that visited my home never grasped the size of my home and the quality of my life as the result of how hard I worked. They were accustomed to not working and drinking constantly. Prior to this program I was on a tour in Denmark of manufacturing facilities. The other American and I were appalled at the gross inefficiencies and commented that we could increase production and decrease costs by at least 50%. The tour guide stated that the objective of the socialist government was employment not profit or efficiency.

Now you think that people who work hard are doing it solely so they can have more money than their neighbor. I have no idea where you got that idea from – perhaps it is your personal motivation – I don’t know but I do know most of the people I know work because they like to work. I know I do what I do for fun and the fact that I make a lot of money doing it is a by product not the driving motive. In fact I would turn this around and say that those people who you view as the underclass are there due to their own decisions. They are the ones who didn’t like school. They are the ones who don’t have a trade because work requires you arrive on time, follow directions, don’t take drugs, and don’t drink. These simple rules are too stringent for most of those whom you see as the underclass. They are the ones who make these decisions that prevent them from enjoying the fruits of their labor. Instead they whine and appeal to politicians to give them something from the government. Of course most politicians seem to forget that the government doesn’t make money it extorts it from those who do work to give it to those who don’t. The current economic collapse is a direct result of these government run attempts to satisfy the demands from this underclass who are there because of their own bad decision making.

Do I despise and distrust the elected representatives? I certainly do although not as much as I distrust the Judiciary. Beginning with FDR the congress and the judiciary have step by step and inch by inch distorted the Constitution and Declaration of Independence into something totally unrecognizable. Apparently you think this battle over healthcare reform is the main issue – it is not. The Congress and the liberal community based on the West and East Coasts have so lost touch with the temper of the country that they really don’t understand this ground swell of anger or how to cope with it. They keep tying it to healthcare which has little to do with it. The anger begins with affirmative action which has led to quotas and reverse discrimination. It starts with the idea that prayers cannot be said in public, that we are not a Christian Nation, that atheists can dictate how we live and worship, that politicians are distorting the Constitution to restrict guns, that the courts give more rights to criminals than they do to citizens. That the President can by pass congress and appoint czars to run the businesses which he is illegally seizing. The great majority of the population is tired of being ignored and having the very fabric of the country eroded by thoughtless self-seeking politicians and judges with their own agendas.
Now to return to Rome for a moment, the reality is that the Roman Empire encompassed the entire Mediterranean Basin. The vast majority of people in the empire lived happy productive lives. The bread and circuses really was a City of Rome issue and not an issue in the Empire per se. In fact an argument could be made that a lot of loafers and idlers gravitated to Rome for the simple reason they could get handouts from the government. This welfare system was unique to Rome. It didn’t work there and it isn’t working here either because it still rewards idlers and loafers. Corruption for the most part is a government institution and enjoyed by those politicians who need to be turned out of office. Just look at the current administration – it is filled with jail birds, tax evaders, and officials totally out of touch with the people.

I urge you to read:
“The Law” by Frederick Bastiat
“ The Worldly Philosophers” by Heilbronner

Royce

President Obama and Chancellor Hitler

2009-08-31T14:51:00.000-04:00

From the outset of the Obama Presidential Campaign I was fascinated by the cheering crowds of people. There were hundreds or even thousands of people cheering a man about whom they knew virtually nothing. He was black and that seemed to be the only criteria for the cheering, the opportunity to show that we white folks weren’t racially prejudiced. Here was a man who promised change without ever actually specifying what that change would be or even should be. The crowds were filled with emotion but never seemed to know precisely what they were cheering for or about. However, I remembered the old newsreels showing Hitler speaking before crowds of cheering thousands, people who were cheering a man about whom they knew little but a man who was promising change. Of course things in Germany at the time were very dire, unemployment was high, the economy was in collapse, and national debt was high due to reparations and Hitler was preaching change – changes for the better. When I first raised the issue that people seemed to be cheering Obama with virtually no knowledge of what they were cheering for other than he was black, I was roundly castigated. I was accused of calling Obama –Hitler when in fact all I did was to point out the crowds cheering Obama were eerily like the crowds cheering Hitler.

Since my initial observation Obama has been elected President apparently on the basis of emotion – much like Hitler – because Obama had nothing to recommend him for the job as President. He was an unknown with no experience in any area normally associated with a President. But now that he has assumed the reins of power, perhaps it is time to once again review the parallels between Adolph Hitler and Barack Obama.
The economic conditions in Germany after World War I were horrible. Hitler promised to put people back to work and to restore the economy. Hitler was not very specific regarding what he intended to do but he seemed to know who to blame. The economic conditions in America had suffered the collapse of the High Tech Bubble and had barely recovered when the financial markets collapsed creating chaos and rising unemployment. Obama was never very clear how he intended to change things or improve the economy but he knew he could blame the preceding administration and did and continues to do so even though it is increasingly clear his policies – founded in ideology and not experience – have failed.
Adolf Hitler honed his oratory skills and became a superb speaker. It isn’t necessary that you understand what Hitler is saying because just watching him speak is mesmerizing. Obama isn’t quite as good of as speaker as Hitler was but he is very polished. Of course everything he says in read from a teleprompter so perhaps it is more accurate to call Obama an accomplished reader than a speaker.
Adolf Hitler surrounded himself with thugs and Jew haters. Obama has surrounded himself with tax evaders, Jew haters, and thugs (SEISU).
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis blamed the Jews for their problems. The Obama administration blames everything on the preceding administration and some like Rev Wright blame the Jews and certainly the administration has turned away from Israel.
Adolf Hitler spoke of change and a new Germany. Obama speaks of change and a new America. What goes unsaid is that the New America will be a Socialist America. Hitler was head of the National Socialist Party.
The Nazis burned books to eradicate records and contrary thoughts. Obama hasn’t gone so far as to burn books but his administration attempts to suppress any dissent. While Hitler used his Brown Shirts to bully and intimidate any who opposed him, Obama uses ACORN and the SEISU thugs to bully and intimidate any opposition. This has been very apparent at the Town Hall Meetings where citizens have been intimidated and called Nazi’s and un-American for exercising their rights of free speech.
Hitler was opposed to communism while Obama surrounds himself with people like Bill Ayers and Van Jones who are not only un-American but avowed Marxists. But just as Hitler gradually established one man rule we see Obama doing the same thing as he appoints one Czar after another answerable only to him. This President represents the greatest threat to America, to capitalism, and individual freedom since the British left.

2009-08-27T13:54:00.001-04:00

Dark Energy Darker Science

2009-08-06T11:14:00.001-04:00

While empirical science continues to exist, it has largely been replaced by pseudo-science based on statistics. As we have dumbed down our schools and shifted our universities into centers of political correctness and indoctrination, science is under attack from the intellectually lazy who resort to writing papers that make outrageous claims with no factual basis. These have largely been restricted to the medical field where are regularly treated to claims that mayonnaise causes cancer, that poverty causes crime, and apples will kill you, all based on statistical analyses of a sample of four. As low as the medical field has sunk, it seems that other scientific areas are succumbing to the need to make ridiculous claims just to keep the public aware and the money from Washington flowing.

Carl Sagan seems to have launched this trend of stating theories as facts, with his passionate defense of evolution, the origin of life, and interstellar life. To hear Sagan you would think that evolution is an absolute fact, especially since he was successful in convincing the majority of the media. The reality is that Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” never actually addressed the origin of species and all of the examples used to substantiate the claim of evolution are in fact examples of adaptation and not speciation. Then the claim that there is life on other planets is based entirely on the statistical probability that given enough planets around enough stars, that some must be oxygen/carbon based and thus life must have evolved. Of course the a priori position here is unstated and that is that life evolved on this planet and thus must have evolved on other planets as well. Now indeed, it may have but there is no proof of that fact and many people today believe that life on this planet is unique and divinely created. Certainly there is no proof of this position either but in that case neither position should be viewed as factual. But all of these are really topics for another day, because this creeping destruction of science seems to be impacting physics and quantum physics as well.

Cosmology and Quantum Physics exist in a realm where proving anything is almost impossible so those who study these areas rely very heavily on some very esoteric mathematics to describe and substantiate their theories. At first glance this seems to be not only logical but should lead to hard answers, but does it? Do these equations actually describe reality or do they describe a reality that only exists in the equations? First you must agree that science has indeed been able to determine the weight of every object in the universe and the total amount of energy existing in that universe. Of course the assumption here is that the speed of light is a limitation and that we can see to the edges of the universe, which of course we can’t. So if the universe is expanding and accelerating objects at the edge would be invisible to an observer on Earth. Therefore, these equations must rest on assumptions that cannot be verified except through the balancing of these equations. So what’s the problem?

The problem lies in the fact that the equations require some fudging in order to balance. This means that constants (of whatever value is necessary) are required but even with these constants the scientists are left with some big problems – assuming their initial assumptions were correct. The equations indicate that only 5% of the observable universe is visible. There is not enough energy nor is there enough matter to account for what the equations need to balance. This leads to that great flaw in modern science which is to name the unknown and thus give the impression that it exists and that we know about it when in fact it only exists in the minds of these scientists and their equations. These two great unknowns have been given the names of Dark Energy (70%) and Dark Matter (25%), of course these could be called anything but the term dark was chosen because they cannot be observed. The irony here is that Dark Energy could just as easily be called the “Mind of God” and Dark Matter “the Souls of Man”. I am not saying this is the case, I am merely pointing out that the latter nomenclature is just as valid as the former because neither can be verified and the equations would work either way.

But current physics and cosmology all begin AFTER the Big Bang. The belief (it is belief and not factual) is that at some point and with no other causative factor the universe sprang from a primordial speck that contained all of the energy and matter in the universe today. Precisely where this speck was is unknown because space did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Of course there is the POSSIBILITY that God exists and that the causative factor was in fact God. But this would mean there is intelligent design to the universe and life, which is totally rejected by science even though increasingly science is faith based rather than factual.

Faith and Science

2009-07-17T10:10:00.001-04:00

It seems that what passes for science today is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from religion although the religious community is quite open about their reliance on faith while the scientific community is in a state of denial. We are treated every day to new statistics showing the ever growing number of “smoking related deaths”. What is missing of course is any proof that any of these deaths were related to smoking, this is merely a claim based on no facts whatsoever other than some statistical analysis which is never divulged. The actual fact is that no death certificate has ever been issues showing the cause of death to be from smoking. In fact there is no empirical evidence that smoking has any relationship to cancer or any disease other than some statistical correlation, which may or may not be real. This is particularly significant since the incidence of lung cancer has not shown any decline in correlation to the decline in smoking. This is merely one example of how science has ceased to rely on empirical evidence but has shifted to a belief system.

Evolution is another example where science has shifted from facts to belief. The loudest supporter of Evolution is Richard Dawkins who has simply stated that Darwin’s “Origin of Species” is correct, that Intelligent Design is bunk and a code word for “Creationism” which is laughable. Now Evolution may indeed be correct or at least partially correct but outside of the evidence of environmental adaptation there is not proof of speciation or transitional fossils. However, periodically and now almost daily some scientist lays claim to have discovered “the missing link” or the “transitional fossil” that proves Evolution. But saying something is so doesn’t make it so and these claims of transitional fossils are all based on opinion and a belief that what is claimed is so – or in other words – faith. But the question of speciation is the real problem because there is no example of how one species becomes another. How a rat becomes a horse cannot and has not been demonstrated. Instead the scientists assure us that speciation is simply the result of a mutation – a random mutation at that. So the “belief” is that some random cosmic particle impacted one animal – say an ape – and this ape reproduced passing this mutated gene on to its descendants. Then over millions of years this ape became a humanoid who became a human, this is the belief, but there is no evidence other than it must be because there is no alternative. You can hear the Hallelujah’s

But there are even greater questions that the scientific community ignores or attempts to explain with ever greater stretches of the imagination. My particular favorite is the scientific theory that the origin of life on Earth came via some primordial life form arriving on Earth aboard a meteorite. This is viewed as the answer to the origin of life on Earth which of course doesn’t explain the origin of life at all. Another good one is that life on Earth was introduced by Space Aliens which doesn’t really explain the origin of life either although it does seem to support Intelligent Design as the origin. But the major theory is that the primordial ocean was filled with chemicals of all kinds which were constantly being bombarded (as we all are even today) by cosmic particles which caused these chemicals to react and transform into more complex compounds which ultimately resulted in an organic carbon based molecule that became (how is unexplained) self-replicating and evolved into pond scum and then into humankind. Unfortunately this miraculous process seems to have ceased once the miracle of life was achieved, but the true believers have total faith in this miracle and never see the irony between their theory and belief and those who believe in intelligent design.

However, the scientific community generally avoids any discussion or theory regarding the situation prior to the big bang. Apparently there was NOTHING, and certainly there wasn’t any space because space and time didn’t exist prior to the big bang because it was the initiating event. So there was nothing and then – in a flash – there was space, time, and all of the energy ever to exist. What initiated this event is never discussed – but it is believed this is how it happened; of course a careful reading of Genesis might shed some light on the subject. But Dawkins, the Atheists, and science cannot even address this question of the creation of the universe because it opens the door to a Supreme intelligence and with THAT comes credibility for intelligent design and THAT shakes the very foundation of their belief system – a system called “science”.

The Founding Fathers

2009-07-09T14:49:00.000-04:00

From time to time I encounter various quotes attributed to various members of the Founding Fathers of America, you know that group of self-serving hypocrites Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin. More recently as the new Messiah, Barrack Obama, has ascended to power, the number and frequency of these quotes is increasing, especially those attributed to Thomas Jefferson. So precisely what did this slave owning rich hypocrite do – what are his beliefs?

It was Jefferson who inserted into that revolutionary document that forms the very basis of our nation the statement that has stood as a stumbling block to all tyrants and would be tyrants:
“ ...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. Americans are the only people in the world who have the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness. Not very specific but it was meant to be imprecise because it represents the first separation of government from individual rights. As long as the individual does not break the law Jefferson intended that he should be free to pursue his own pathway to happiness. Even though Jefferson’s words laid the foundation for the elimination of slavery the fact that he owned slaves forever brands him in the eyes of the modern revisionist history professors – a hypocrite and unworthy of admiration or even study, even though he was a driving force behind the Bill of Rights. It is this Bill of Rights that buttress the Constitution, spell out and guarantee the very fundamental rights that Americans take for granted, but it is this same Bill of Rights that is under attack by those Oligarchs in Washington. Perhaps it is time to review these basic rights, which have been so interpreted and distorted by the Congress and the Supreme Court as to be virtually unrecognizable.

Article 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note that Congress is prohibited from making any law the curtails or restricts the free exercise of religion. It does not state that religion or God should be separate from the government if those governed desire to worship God. Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech but it says nothing about “hate speech” or the use of profanity but the Supreme court acting unilaterally has declared profanity and pornography protected by free speech but God and racial slurs are not. Precisely who is the hypocrite today?

Article 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Of course this Article is under heavy attack as the Congress and those Oligarchs seek to expand their power. It is to their benefit to disarm the people and it is this precise risk to our freedom that his Article was inserted. The argument is that only the “militia” can be armed which is interpreted as the “National Guard” but it was the Minutemen Farmers who fought and won our independence and it is the well armed citizenry that will and can maintain it. The Constitution specifically spells out this right because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

Article 5
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This article has been quoted and employed to great effect but more recently the little phrase at the end regarding private property seems to be routinely ignored by the current administration. We see the government taking over private industry and determining unilaterally the value of the property being taken from the share holders and bond holders. The Bond Holders in particular had a contract that guaranteed them “just compensation” but the administration gave preferential treatment to the labor unions – their big supporters while giving the investors – the capitalists—pennies on the dollar-- Jefferson and Madison be damned!!

As President Jefferson reminded America that our happiness and prosperity rested on a wise and frugal government and a government that would remain free of regulating business and industry and that government “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned”. The time has long past for Americans to return to those fundamental rights and limitations established by the Founding Fathers and increasingly ignored by Congress, the Supreme Court (and Ninth Circuit Court) and the current Administration who are by passing Congress entirely in their drive for power never intended by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Existence

2009-07-07T10:11:00.000-04:00

The human mind cannot imagine nothingness. Try as we may (and most of us do) we cannot conceptualize the end of our own existence. We ask ourselves: “what would it be like to not exist?” as if to imply we would be capable of observing ourselves in the state of non-existence. The question itself represents our inability to comprehend non-existence. In the words of the author William Saroyan in his final moments of life he asked: “now what?”. Like Saroyan, we also ask this question because we cannot accept the end of learning, enjoying, thinking or life itself.

We not only ask “now What?” but also we ask “Why?” Why does life come to an end and why did we exist in the first place? But most importantly we ask “what?” What was the purpose of our existence? What benefit was there in us existing and finally what value do our lives have?

These eternal questions motivate us to search for answers. We turn to Science, Philosophy and religion in an effort find answers. Science and philosophy often fall short in providing us with answers to these questions. It is only religion that even attempts to provide us answers with responses like:
• We live to do Gods work
• We live to procreate
• We live to better mankind
• We live to progress
• We live to learn
• We live to improve ourselves
While these are profound and noble statements they are not only vague, but they imply that we are here for improvement or to make things better. Perhaps more significantly is the implication that if we are for improvement then there must have been a previous effort that fell short and the current one is imperfect and therefore requires another attempt. Of course the logical conclusion then is that we have lived before and will live again. Most religions and philosophies are rooted in the premise that our existence is less than perfect. The presumption is that man and woman alike have the ability to improve and the goal of this improvement is to bring us closer to perfection. The premise is that we are imperfect and flawed by nature to begin with and through the pursuit of perfection via the adoption of morals, laws, religion, philosophy, etc. we will fulfill our destiny, achieve perfection (although a clear understanding or model for perfection has never been agreed upon) and thereby justify our existence.

Inherent in our mental composite is the belief that there is a purpose to our lives. To live without this belief would render life devoid of hope. It is hope that leads some to believe that life does not end after death. The universal desire to understand the purpose and meaning to life must be considered in our effort to explain existence. It is not possible to examine our reality or perception of our existence without asking the primary questions of any scientific inquiry:

What is existence made of? (what)
How does it function? (how)
What is our purpose and why do we exist in the First place? (why)

The human experience (as we know it) incorporates many obvious tangibles that can be measured and agreed upon. But our existence also has two very clear boundaries, which are the primary representations of the intangibles of our existence. These boundaries are the Speed of Light and Absolute Zero. Beyond these boundaries life cannot exist, and yet we can agree that these are the boundaries of our mass oriented life experience.

However, given that these are limitations of our observable universe does not exclude an existence outside of our space/time continuum. Of course this possibility of another level of existence is automatically rejected because it cannot be observed via any scientific method. But illustrations of these higher energy levels abound in the form of clairvoyance, prescience, psychic phenomena, ghosts, reincarnation, and even near death experiences. All of these things have been observed and demonstrated throughout history but since they exist outside of our existence they cannot be proven via our science, which is limited by our mass boundaries. Simply because these high energy phenomena cannot be demonstrated and proven does not mean they don’t exist.

Evolution Rears Its Head Once Again

2009-06-30T10:36:00.000-04:00

The Scientific Community is once again in a dither over the discovery of an almost complete fossil of an ape believed to be 47 million years old, placing it in the middle of the Eocene. What makes this fossil so exciting is that it is complete, which that in itself makes it unique but the excitement is over the fact that this ape has an opposable thumb. Now this ape was roughly the size of a small dog and was found in China and not in Africa, nevertheless we are told this is THE ancestor of humans. The basis of this conclusion is the belief that man is descended from a common ancestor of apes and this ape has that opposable thumb. Of course the operative word is “belief” because there is no empirical evidence to this belief and in fact the entire tree of life from the Pre-Cambrian pond scum to now is riddled with belief and speculation but very little evidence connecting the various members of this evolutionary tree. This tree of life shows that man is a direct lineal descendant of pond scum.

The descent of man from a common ape-like ancestor rests on the discovery of various hominid bone fragments in the Olduvai Gorge by the Leaky family who seem to have created a family business. They have constructed --based on these bone fragments -- a complete hypothetical family tree for Homo sapiens, which must now accommodate the “Link” as this new ape is called. But including this ape, which is dated at 47 million years in the human family tree established by Leakey introduces a problem because the Leakey fossils are dated at approximately 2.4 million years. The problem is that during this 44 million year span this ape must migrate to Africa from China and in the process evolve from ape to hominid. However, the distinction between apes and monkeys is relatively fuzzy but one of the major distinctions is that monkeys are smaller and have a tail. This new ancestor of man is quite small and has a very long tail. So even though the scientific community is calling this fossil an ape and precursor to man, the evolution must also accommodate the transition from monkey to ape to hominid. Of course none of these transitional fossils exist so this 44 million years of evolution are blank. While the 44 million years may be sufficient for this “evolution to occur it does stretch the imagination to accept that this (monkey) ape evolved into Homo erectus or Homo habilius with no corroborating fossils dating from that transitional period.

Of course this opens the door to the additional question of “speciation” So when did the first ape branch off from other apes and precisely when did those apes fragment into the species called Hominids. In fact what proof can be provided that these Hominids are of the Human Species? In order to be of the same species the possibility of inter-breeding must be present and there is no empirical evidence that this happened or was even possible.

So we are left with a fossil called an ape, which looks suspiciously like a monkey which has been labeled a precursor to humans solely on the basis of its opposable thumb. The next available fossil is of an ape-like creature called a hominid on the basis that it appeared to walk upright. The actual timeline is unclear but the first step in human evolution appears to have been between 4 and 6 million years ago but the first actual human is dated to between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago, leaving a very large gap with many gaps and few fossils. Somehow the entire story of evolution appears to be speculative and not really supported by any hard evidence but relies on belief.

Strategic Observations and Forecast

2008-12-13T10:08:00.001-05:00

After reading various articles and books plus listening to the news, and then observing the economic situation both nationally and internationally, I have arrived at some conclusions. Naturally these could be totally off base and have no relationship to reality, but then maybe not. Certainly it should be clear to everyone that not only are we in a serious economic situation but that we are in the throes of significant change politically, economically, and culturally. So these are simply my personal conclusions regarding what I think are some key areas of change and impact.

Energy
The drive within the US for many years has been to achieve independence from fossil fuels, meaning oil and natural gas, but in reality independence from oil imports. The focus has been on electric autos which to date have proven to be overly expensive and hugely unpopular. However, that is basically a technical problem which can and will be overcome so the long term problem is our electrical infrastructure. The Greens have prevented the construction of nuclear power plants while campaigning against coal powered energy. Unless the congress corrects this problem the price of electricity will skyrocket as thousands of electric vehicles hit the road. Even without these electric cars the price of electricity is already increasing and in some areas the supply struggles to meet the demand. My long range forecast is that while the demand for gasoline decreases the cost of gas in the family budget will be replaced by the cost of electricity and there will be shortages in the near term if congress allows the Greens to approve the Kyoto treaty which would reduce our supply of electricity as generating plants are forced to close.

Oil and OPEC
The price of oil is plummeting and efforts by OPEC to drive the price up will probably be futile at least in the near term. The problem is that the oil producing countries of Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria, and the Emirates have virtually no source of income outside of oil. These oil revenues support their socialist programs and as the price of oil drops their spending far exceeds their income. Consequently through OPEC they have tried to increase the cost of oil by reducing the supply. But there is no honor among thieves so while they agree to reduce the supply of oil the reality is only the Saudi’s do so the actual supply of oil continues to exceed the demand. The result of this hasn’t manifested itself yet, but within the next year OPEC will become nothing more than a hollow shell with each member going their own way while giving lip service to the agreements.

Iran & Venezuela
Both of these countries are unstable but perhaps the most unstable of the pair is Iran. The Mullahs have instituted Sharia Law and enforce it capriciously. They execute homosexuals, adulterers, and women who have been accused of “immoral conduct” – usually without trial. They are Saber rattling but as it turns out much of their vaunted military is unreliable. Their missile program turned out to be mostly an Adobe Photoshop exercise. By using Shia Iraqi soldiers as bait the managed to surround an American patrol with the objective of kidnapping them and holding them hostage in order to embarrass the US. Instead, they American officer who was surrounded by Iranian soldiers ordered his men to open fire. The Iranians turned and ran off leaving eleven dead. There is great unrest among the population and the more restrictive the government becomes the more unsteady the population and the more demands for change. In the meantime their principal source of income is oil and with the plummeting oil prices they can no longer fund their social programs much less their military machine. The best course of action for the US is inaction and possibly increased diplomatic contact. The Mullahs need us to be aggressive toward them and they will undoubtedly continue provocations but we must not allow ourselves to be provoked.

Venezuela is a little more stable but Chavez is systematically wrecking the economy with his socialist programs. The black market is rampant and Chavez is looking for some outside force that he can blame for his problems. Currently this is the US but without his oil income and with his socialized businesses dropping like stones he is driving for total power. This country is subject to an internal revolution by the military. The problem with soldiers is that they have parents and families. If they aren’t happy the soldiers become unreliable. Chavez will continue his drive for total power as dictator but as the price of oil declines he will be forced into either curtailing his social spending or continuing to pump oil in an effort to maintain his revenues. Either way Venezuela will be very unstable as well as his future. Once again our best course of action is no action.

China
It seems pretty clear that China as a communist nation is on very unsteady ground. As they creep more and more into capitalism the communist power structure moves ever closer to Imperial China in practice. Central planning had never worked and is not working in China. Corruption is rampant which has greatly impacted their foreign exports plus weakening the grip of the government on the people. Their exports are declining, unemployment is increasing, and their economy which depends on growth is declining. The Chinese have always been an agrarian economy and the country peasants have always been frugal as well as secretive and prone to ignoring the central government. Nothing has changed and the peasants are not spending so the revenues are dependent on foreign exchange. However, as these decline revenues decline and as these decline the government’s grip on power is threatened since they cannot continue their social programs or control the people who are moving ever more toward capitalism and individual action. It is unlikely the current communist government can continue for any extended period as it is currently structured. Most likely it will become more capitalist oriented with the central government looking more and more like Imperial China with a socialist structure similar to what you see in Europe.

Cavemen – Black – White – Blonde

2008-11-10T09:11:00.001-05:00

Science is a wonder and sometimes you wonder what they know and what they don’t know and if they know they don’t know it. In fact science seems to follow the patter of observing, theorizing, speculating, repeating, and then converting the speculation into common factual knowledge because everybody knows it. Evolution falls into this category but rejecting any part of Darwin makes you a nincompoop because everybody knows that Evolution is a fact although those “facts” are examples of adaptation and not speciation. And that brings us to the question at hand which is the evolution and descent of man.

We are assured that the Leakey family – who have made a cottage industry out of early hominids have identified the root of humanity and that man evolved out of these hominids. These early hominids are given wonderful sounding scientific names and we are told they evolved into primitive men and migrated north. This migration is necessary because outside of a few bone fragments and some rather primitive tools there is no real evidence that primitive men lived and evolved in Africa. There is some small evidence of “Rhodesia Man” but that is a pretty small reed on which to rest the evolution of man in Africa.

The interesting thing is that modern apes are black skinned with black hair although the Orangutan has orange hair but black skin. Depictions of hominids and early primitive men are shown as black skinned with black hair. The hair is always shown as straight and not wooly which is a characteristic of modern Negroes. Neanderthals are found in Europe and not in Africa or on any other continent. Cro-Magnon men seem to be indigenous to Europe as well. These early men are always shown as white skinned with black hair. There is some evidence of primitive men living in China but once again there is scant evidence and the modern Orientals all have black hair and sallow skin. So some questions seem to be in order.

Where did Negroes come from? Did they migrate from Europe to Africa? If they developed in Africa why isn’t there any evidence of that development outside of a few bone fragments, none of which are from Homo sapiens? Where are the art, the tools, the campfires, and the bones that would indicate that primitive men originated in Africa? When precisely did the black skin and woolly hair develop? If these early primitive men did in fact evolve from these ape like hominids where did the white skin come from? If we assume that this lack of evidence is irrelevant and that man did develop in Africa ( a huge leap in logic) and migrated to Europe then what happened to the black skin and woolly hair? There is no contemporary evidence that while Neanderthals were merrily hunting mammoths in Europe they had any relatives in Africa. Furthermore the Neanderthals and later Cro-Magnons’ are always viewed as white with straight black hair, so where did the blonde hair come from or the red hair or the brown? Of the five races only Caucasians have hair that is some color other than black? Why is that?

We are assured by scientists that the five races developed out of a common ancestor who originally lived in Africa about three million years ago. The fact that there is virtually no evidence of this evolution from ape to man is blithely ignored because it is common knowledge that this is true. However, from that three million mark established by the Leakey’s there is a large amount of time elapsed before Neanderthals appear so this evolution from ape to Neanderthal to modern man must have happened in the blink of the evolutionary eye. But we are still left with the question of where did the Negroes come from? Where did other races come from and why only the whites have different colored hair?

Science assures us that Homo sapiens migrated from Asia to Alaska and drifted down to South America. Unfortunately the Eskimo’s appear to be Asiatic and with brown skin but not related to the Red race or even the Brown race. The South American Indians do not appear to be related to the North American ones and even if they all indeed are related they clearly are not indigenous and certainly not blonde and all are Homo sapiens. There is no evidence that primitive man ever existed outside of Europe and parts of Asia. We are shown bone fragments of hominids, which in fact are simply early ape-like creatures and indeed might actually be apes for all we know. Given this sketchy evidence scientists state that these are really the root stock of the human race and man developed in Africa, migrated to Europe and Asia and eventually to North and South America.

All of these theories and suppositions may be true – or not – but the questions remain – if Negroes came first where is the evidence? If cavemen were white where did the other races come from? While the evolution of man from apes (hominids) is pretty thin the evolution of the races is non-existent. So why are cavemen white? Why is the Caucasian the only race with blonde, brown, and red hair? When did the woolly hair of Negroes develop? In fact – since primitive men seemed to be consistent and successful why did the races evolve at all?

Iran and American Foreign Policy

2008-11-08T09:03:00.002-05:00

There has been growing concern over Iran and the possibility that Iran will become a nuclear power. These concerns are well founded, especially since the UN has proven time and again to be totally ineffective in every endeavor but especially in its peace keeping efforts. It is worth pointing out that the USSR developed nuclear capability because of the traitorous activity of some liberal scientists who felt America couldn’t be trusted with such power. Since that time America has continued employing immigrants in sensitive positions because these people have become American citizens. The result has been the spread of nuclear weapons including India and Pakistan. The real threat really isn’t whether or not the Iranians develop nuclear weapons the issue is will the terrorists supported by Iran gain control of them? It is highly unlikely that any nation state will employ nuclear weapons even under attack, but it is an almost certainty that the various Islamic terrorists organizations would use them at the first opportunity, because they would have no fear of reprisal. After all who would you attack?

Recently the fear has been that the Israeli’s will bomb the Iranian nuclear sites using American bunker busters and this threat is now increased with the recent election of President Obama who has made it clear his policies will not favor Israel. Therefore the threat of an attack on Iran prior to Obama taking office is greatly increased, but is the Iranian militancy just saber rattling or does it pose a real threat? Deception and posturing is endemic to Islamic culture but generally misunderstood by the West. It was Saddam Hussein who made a big show out of working on nuclear weaponry and developing weapons of mass destruction when as it turned out, most of this was just to impress his Islamic neighbors and to threaten the US. Now Iran is trying the same tactic by leading the West to believe that they are actually developing nuclear weapons and have the means to deliver those weapons. This was evidenced by their release of the test firing of four long range missiles, which turned out later to be three missiles and on even further analysis only one missile and it was not an intermediate range missile. So Iran’s ability to deliver nuclear weapons or any weapon at all is highly suspect and probably non-existent at least in the near term. So the question remains – why is Iran acting is such a provocative manner knowing what happened to Saddam Hussein?

The answer to the question cannot be known outside of Iran but an examination of the current situation in Iran is certainly warranted and may give some insight into why they are provoking the US. The Ayatollah Khomeini was not so much of a religious leader as he was a revolutionary and he was convinced that when the US allowed the Shah to fall that the Islamic world was ripe for revolution and that his revolution would sweep all before it. Of course this isn’t what happened. Instead he found that while Iran was ready for a change it wasn’t ready for his extreme ideas. Nevertheless, much like Lenin, Robespierre and Hitler the people realized too late that they had changed one tyranny for another. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein wasn’t in any mood to allow the Ayatollah’s to take over his country. The result was a war instigated by Hussein on the mistaken assumption that the people of Iran wouldn’t tolerate the religious fanaticism installed by Khomeini. He was wrong, but there is a lesson there should be heeded. Hitler was convinced the Russians would rise up against Stalin when he invaded Russia but instead he ignited a battle that ultimately brought him down. The same occurred with Iran because the Iranians did not rise up against Iraq but instead rallied together to fight the invader.

The situation in Iran today is very unstable and the Ayatollah’s retain only a very tenuous hold on the government. They try to maintain the facade of a democratic government but they arrest opposition leaders or simply disqualify them from running for office, a process historically used by dictators. The result is a highly unstable government which has grown even more unstable in recent weeks as the demand for oil declines along with oil revenues. The current President of Iran – Ahmadinejad has squandered the oil revenues on the assumption that these would continue indefinitely. As the world demand for oil declines and the dollar strengthens the Iranian government finds itself under pressure internally because it can no longer meet the demands of their infrastructure. They have succeeded in suppressing internal dissent but that can only be a short term strategy. Thus is seems that the best strategy would be to provoke the Israeli’s or the US into attacking them and the best way to accomplish that would be to create the belief that they have nuclear weapons and the means to fire them at Israel. This would provoke Israel into attacking them which would entangle the US and rally the people to resist the invaders. At this juncture it seems the best strategy for the west is to do precisely nothing other than to continue economic sanctions as long as Iran continues their provocative behavior, but to do nothing else. The USSR collapsed due to internal economic pressures and it is very possible that the current Iranian regime could collapse for the same reasons.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and God

2008-10-19T13:35:00.001-04:00

The scientific crusade to prove the non-existence of God continues unabated with some of the most nagging questions simply ignored or explained with some very labored theories, ranging from multiple universes, multi-dimensions, to permanence and multiple big bangs and big crunches. Unfortunately while scientists feel comfortable that they can explain everything that happened from the first Pico-second AFTER the Big Bang, they cannot come to any agreement as to what existed before the Big Bang or what motivated it without incorporating some idiotic superstition like God.

Of course the first problem lies with space itself. Did space exist before the Big Bang? Some say that it did but then space is expanding and if that is so, then it must have been smaller at some point. This line of reasoning leads to the more popular position that the Big Bang created not just all energy but space itself, because no matter how small that primordial pinprick of energy was it had to have space in which to exist at all. So at some point billions of years ago, there was an enormous explosion of energy that created space, time, and energy, but did that initial burst of energy create light? After all light is composed of photons but then light itself has some mysterious properties since it behaves as both a wave and a particle, but particles did not come until later and this brings us to another serious question.

If the Big Bang consisted of an explosion of energy – precisely what type of energy was that? Apparently it was Electro-Magnetic Energy, Gravity, the Weak Force, and the Strong Force. Of course these last two are rather mysterious but in order to explain was to come these energies had to have been there at the outset. We are also told this explosion of energy was extremely hot with temperatures exceeding those of the Sun. At the precise moment of creation only energy existed but this mega-energy burst very quickly broke apart into Gravity, with the remaining three energy forms continuing for a period before splitting into their respect forms. Once freed the weak and strong forces began immediately to gather up the electro-magnetic energy and form it into atoms. Up to this point there were no electrons, neutrons, or protons, but were there sub-atomic particles? After all we are told that protons and atoms are made up of “sub-atomic” particles which imply that these existed first but precisely what are these and where do they exist? Currently scientists can only tell you where they were because all they can see are the trails they leave behind but precisely where they were before entering our reality and where they went as they exited is simply unknown. But this is where the magic begins.

In this gigantic explosion of energy everything that was ever to be was created thus establishing the laws governing the conservation of energy and mass. Everything in the universe is made up of the same protons, electrons, and neutrons but these were created by the weak and strong forces gathering energy – which had to have been in a wave form since there were no particles as yet – and forming it into various atoms and molecules which in turn formed everything else including all life forms. Somehow all of this energy coalesced into the protons, electrons, and neutrons that make up the universe today but also along the way photons, gravitons, and now the mysterious Higgs-Boson were created, with this last energy (particle?) being the explanation as to why all of these energy forms have mass. It seems that in spite of all of the science and speculation explaining how we got to where we are there remains a little problem regarding mass. It seems that weight-wise a large part of the universe is missing. Space is empty when it shouldn’t be so science has postulated that empty space isn’t really empty it is filled with invisible Jelly Donuts which for argument’s sake we can call “Dark Matter” – flavor unknown. Precisely where this dark matter is, what shape it has, where it came from, and what its purpose might be is unknown.

More than likely it is made up of some particle(s) such as the elusive sub-atomic particles that are traveling at speeds greater than light, which is why they can’t be seen. But accepting the fact that there is such a thing as dark matter, scientists have discovered that the universe is not slowing its expansion but it is actually speeding up with stars on the periphery of space traveling at speeds very near the speed of light – and accelerating. The implication is that there is some great force pulling our universe apart which is why these galaxies are accelerating but this force is also unknown and invisible, so in a burst of scientific creativity this mysterious force has been named “Dark Energy”. I prefer to call it God.

GOD, Physics, and the Hadron

2008-10-04T09:54:00.000-04:00

The world of science is beside itself with anticipation that the new Hadron Collider will finally demonstrate the non-existence of God. This marvelous machine is intended to demonstrate the existence of the Higgs Boson which is a particle that gives mass in some magical way to all other particles. Of course the real problem is that there really are no particles at all, that is none of the particles that scientists like to play with and that are discussed and taught around the world really exist. The Hadron Collider is not only supposed to locate the Higgs Boson but it is also expected to give insight into what happened in the instant of the Big Bang. Unfortunately the real objective is to understand the “science” behind the Big Bang without having to actually come to grips with God, because the truly important questions will remain unanswered.

Prior to the Big Bang there was no space, no time, no energy, no particles, nothing – nothing at all. So what was there? Well no one knows – that is no scientist knows and certainly no atheist knows – there was nothing. So the first question if there was nothing then what triggered the Big Bang? Remember the first thing that the Big Bang had to do was to create space itself because the expanding universe had to fit into something and that was space. Once there was a space then there was a place for all of that incredible energy. So the second question must be what kind of energy was initially created? Well it must have been light (does that sound familiar), heat, and radiation plus other forms of energy but not necessarily gravity, because there was no mass because there were no particles – just energy.

Now this energy was expanding and filling space at an incredible speed, but less than the speed of light. But somehow all of this energy began to coalesce into particles – subatomic particles but precisely how this was done is mostly speculation because there were no particles so there couldn’t be any gravity, but then light has mass because it is composed of photons but were photons created as part of the Big Bang? Light has some really mysterious properties because while it has mass and can be bent by gravity it also acts as a wave so was the light emitted in the Big Bang a wave or a burst of particles? Apparently almost immediately after the Big Bang the released energy began to form particles, a process that apparently remains hidden since it is not ongoing and cannot be duplicated. So once these sub-atomic particles formed they immediately began to join together to create protons, electrons, and neutrons. These are the universal particles that make up the entire universe and everything in it, except of course dark matter—whatever that is- gravity, and the other forces and particles that remain invisible. The really important point is that everything in the universe is pure energy and why that energy has mass is unknown. Of course this what the Higgs Boson is supposed to do – it is supposed to the particle that produces mass in these energy fields called protons, photons, neutrons, and electrons.

The theory is that in the instant following the Big Bang all of this energy began to take on mass and coalesce into particles and then atoms and then molecules, which produced the various elements, which collected together under the influence of gravity which ultimately created all of the stars and planets. All of this can be explained by science even though parts remain speculative. Unfortunately some very uncomfortable questions remain, not the least of which is what caused the Bib Bang in the first place and where did that pin point of energy come from? Beyond that is why do things that are virtually invisible have mass? If every proton, electron, and neutron in the universe is identical why do some have life? Why do some think and some do not? How did life begin? These are the questions the Higgs Boson is supposed to provide the pathway to answers.

Of course it doesn’t take much of a stretch if you subscribe to the myth of God, to come up with some rather simple answers. When you read the first chapters of Genesis you get a pretty accurate, if somewhat poetic, description of the creation of the universe and life on Earth. Somehow I think the Hadron Super Collider will produce some interesting observations but no answers to any of these questions.

Oil and Energy 2012

2008-08-27T09:49:00.000-04:00

Our dear friends in OPEC have had the world and the US in particular in stranglehold since the 1970’s but they may have finally overplayed their hand. Actually, it isn’t just their greed that may bring them down but the greed of Wall Street Speculators who drove the price of a barrel of oil to an unprecedented $147 / barrel. The price of oil has fallen from that ridiculous high and in all likelihood will continue to fall and some forecasters are predicting $65 / barrel by 2010.

How is this possible? Several things seem to be driving the price of oil down and the slide seems to have begun on a rumor that the US Government was launching an investigation into oil speculation. Note that this was just a rumor but that was enough to drive the speculators into a selling frenzy which drove the price down. If the demand for oil worldwide was rising then the speculators would not have had such an impact when they sold, but the reality seems to be that the oil supply was meeting – if not exceeding – world demand. In effect the speculators were driving the price of oil up to artificial highs. This created a worldwide scare and reaction as the usual left wing politicians got on their demagogic bandwagon and began calling for punishing the Oil Companies for their obscene profits, when in actual fact the oil companies had lower profits than almost any other large company. But the critical point here is that the speculators created a scare and OPEC could not correct it because they were already producing more oil than the demand and that scare may have far reaching consequences.

Although the price of oil may fluctuate in the near term the long range trend will most likely be down as the dollar strengthens against the Euro and other world currencies. This fluctuation according to some analysts will center on the $100 / bbl mark but once that barrier is breached the slide will be steep and within six months the price of a barrel will be $65 or less. But all of this could be attributed to the usual swings in every commodities market, except this time it seems that maybe the realization that oil is a finite resource and an alternative must be found has gotten some traction with consumers. In fact it seems this scare may have actually shocked consumers to the point where they may actually take energy conservation seriously. Auto companies are sharply focused on hybrids and electric cars but more importantly consumers seem to have rediscovered public transportation and the logic in turning off lights when not needed. The day of the SUV seems to be ending as consumers are looking for ways to reduce the cost they pay for gasoline and as this trend grows it drives down demand which in turn drives down price, so the return of low priced (relatively) gasoline may be in the near future and certainly by 2012.

If this trend to develop alternative energy sources and reduce our alliance on oil and oil based products is sustained it will have far reaching consequences. Perhaps the greatest impact will be on the oil producing countries in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other Arab countries. These countries have failed to establish any sort of economic base other than oil and they have squandered the billions in revenue they have received on palaces and luxuries. The result is that if their oil revenues decline they really have no way of offsetting the decline. Worse they cannot rely on tourism due to their religious fanaticism and draconian laws. Furthermore they have become highly dependent on foreign workers and if these imported workers leave the over indulged citizens will be unable or unwilling to take up the slack.

Naturally the attitude among many as they see OPEC choking on an oil glut and declining revenues, will be that it is well deserved. Well deserved it may be but if this happens it could have far reaching consequences. Saudi Arabia and the oil producing Islamic countries are all highly unstable and any dramatic decline in revenues that impacts their social programs could trigger massive political change. Certainly the House of Saud could fall and would be replaced by an Islamic government similar to Iran’s, but other governments currently friendly to the west could also fall. This would create chaos in the oil markets but it would also provide massive amounts of cash to various terrorist organizations.

But not all oil producing countries are Islamic and countries like Canada, UK, Russia, etc, would not be greatly affected but some of the poorer countries like those in Africa might weather the storm politically but socially the impact could be devastating. These countries do not have the infrastructures or solid economic base that would allow them to compensate for reduced revenues. In these countries the impact could be reflected in even greater unemployment and reduce the standard of living from its already low level.

So while the price of oil and gas may decline as alternative fuel sources come on the market, the impact may not be all positive.

Science Under Attack

2008-08-18T14:45:00.001-04:00

The daily news continues to document the continuing decline of science from a search for the truth into a faith based system where belief and opinion transcend facts and observation. It is hard to pinpoint precisely when this decline began but it was already well advanced when Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” launched its’ attack on DDT. Even though contemporary scientific observation contradicted Carson’s postulations the media and the usual bevy of environmentalists unburdened by facts demanded in the name of SCIENCE that DDT be banned. The irony of this position was totally lost and DDT was banned even though Carson’s work was later proved to be a fabrication if not a complete hoax. Nevertheless DDT remains banned even though Malaria which was largely controlled by DDT is reaching epidemic proportions. Even more ridiculous is the recent report that ties the shrinking population of Polar Bears to the pollutants “like DDT” that are condensing out of the atmosphere and into the food chain affecting everything from plankton to polar bears. Of course DDT hasn’t been manufactured in over 40 years and the actual total population of polar bears seems to be growing. But science is no longer burdened by facts but is being driven by some sort of weird belief system that rests of the premise that humans are a destructive force and must be controlled if not eradicated and at the least reduced to cave man status.

Following DDT the next great assault on science came with the attack by lawyers aided and abetted by a group of “scientists” with a social agenda, on smoking. The initial cry was that smoking caused lung cancer and the lawyers made millions sucking the blood of deep pocket corporations. It is now considered common knowledge that smoking causes lung cancer even though there has never been any empirical evidence supporting that claim. In fact as the number of smokers declined the incidence of lung cancer remained constant. Clearly this could not true and there must be some other connection – hence the attack on side-smoke. The actual EPA report which was widely unread actually stated that there was no connection and even using their A PRIORI starting point (which allowed them to eliminate any contrary finding) there was never any valid statistical correlation and even worse there has never been any empirical connection to tobacco smoke and lung cancer. Nevertheless and undaunted by facts the media and that same group of social reforming busybodies have managed to successfully curtail individual rights which they disapproved even though there is not one shred of physical proof supporting their position. This is faith based science where a belief in a position is sufficient to take corrective action in the form of legislation.

But this attack on science even by scientists or at least those who claim to be scientists has escalated to the point to where empirical science seems to be disappearing altogether. There has always been a level of discomfort between science and religion. This discomfort began to grow with Darwin’s book “Origin of Species”. At the time Darwin was attacked by the scientific community starting with the simple fact that his book did not discuss or even address the origin of species but merely described how a given species adapted to its environment. With the growth of paleontological knowledge several problems arose beginning with the origin of life itself. Then there was the problem with Cambrian explosion of life. Life in the Precambrian was largely very simple life forms and pond scum followed by highly developed and diverse life forms in the Cambrian. Then there remains the problem of speciation. How species develop is BELIEVED to be through mutation and evolution, but no proof of this exists and transitional fossils either don’t exist at all or are believed to exist based on some conclusions and opinions.

However, Evolution and the problems associated with it really pale when the total picture is examined because today science seems to be nothing more than statistical studies, with very little examination of any facts or empirical evidence. So we see statistical studies that show that cancer is caused by such a variety of things that virtually everything is a carcinogen. Statistics are used to justify taking a variety high priced drugs to lower cholesterol and to control type two diabetes but the reality is that some people with low cholesterol have heart attacks and some people with high cholesterol don’t. Virtually everyone today has type II diabetes because the metric for determining the diabetic threshold was lowered from 199 to 100. This was done arbitrarily and precisely what causes diabetes remains unknown, but science marches on.

Beyond these statistical studies are the new “social” diseases like alcoholism and obesity. Precisely how one catches these diseases is unknown but clearly something must be done by the government or science or someone other than the individual in order to stamp out these diseases. The idea that both of these diseases are the direct result of personal decisions and actions by the individual involved is totally rejected. Instead there are calls by the usual coterie of self-described intellectuals and celebrities to stamp our fast food, to force children to eat only healthy food no matter how unappetizing while launching one excuse after the other so individuals no longer have to suffer the stigma of being called a drunk. Why is obesity being subjected to direct action but not alcohol? Well all of those folks calling for action on trans-fats and fast food are almost universally on a diet and only eat tofu and sushi anyway so it only seems right to force the rest of the population to conform to their dietary standard. But those same people drink wine – only good vintages though and then you have the advertising dollars, besides prohibition didn’t work anyway, so rather than address the disease of alcoholism the solution is excuse it as being something out of the control of the individual.

Where is the science behind all of this? Where is the outcry from the scientific community about this distortion of science? The silence is deafening as science slowly slips away from empiricism and into beliefs, opinions, and excuses.

A Perspective on Big Oil

2008-07-06T17:15:00.002-04:00

Even as the Bush Administration fades into history, the poisonous rhetoric continues. We continue to hear the calls by one demagogic politician after another to tax the oil companies and their “windfall” profits. Of course the sums being reported are indeed huge but these are big companies and like all big companies their revenues are truly large but no larger than any other large company. Then there is the idea America is being held hostage by the Arabian States. Well not exactly. The fact is that country that holds the place as our largest importer is Canada who sends us 1902K barrels of oil per day. Saudi Arabia is second with 1519K barrels and Mexico third with 1230K barrels. Fourth place falls to Nigeria and Venezuela is in fifth place. Then there is the blather coming from those who opposed the Iraqi War but feel that we should just take the oil because after al “they owe us”. Talk about a mixed message! But Iraq already is in sixth place as a source of oil. So it seems we are already getting oil from Iraq and will undoubtedly get more as that country stabilizes. It is worth noting that Iran, Dubai, the Arab Emirates, Yemen, and other sunny and delightful places peopled by colorful natives are not on the list of the top 15 suppliers.

It is also worth noting that in general that the oil these countries are exporting are government owned and controlled by OPEC, an organization that is illegal in the United States. But it is this organization that sets the price for oil and that price can be set arbitrarily according to what the market will bear. So they could charge $200 a barrel and drive the cost of gasoline to $20 a gallon if they chose. So if the oil companies are behind this and they are only after bigger and bigger profits why don’t they set the price higher? Outside of what it would do the world economy, the reality is that the oil companies don’t control the price of gasoline.

So what about those HUGE oil profits that Obama and Hillary want the congress to take (steal) from these oil companies who are gouging us at the pump. No one seems to have actually looked into these HUGE profits and oil company profits have historically run between 7% and 12%. These irresponsible calls for robbing the oil companies on the basis of their ‘OBSCENE” profits are simple demagoguery.

But what about those OBSCENE profits the oil companies are making?. A little perspective seems to be in order. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) calls oil company profits obscene and at first blush many – if not most people – agree. Over the past 12 months, for example, ExxonMobil has made pre-tax profits of $164 billion on sales of $369.5 billion. That’s a lot, but is big oil company profits behind these increases in pump prices?
First, Big Oil can't dictate gasoline prices. Markets determine the price of oil. It's supply and demand that sets the price at the pump. So what you pay at the pump is the market price not a price set by the oil companies. This issue was resolved by the Supreme Court decision last year when they ruled unanimously that oil companies have not been colluding to set prices.
So once again I say that oil prices are high today because the economies of huge nations like China and India are developing rapidly. More oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply, like ANWR or the California Coast. Also if you remember Hurricane Katrina destroyed a lot of oil processing capacity around the Gulf of Mexico so not surprisingly less oil is being processed. .Econ 101 tells us that when less oil is supplied, gasoline prices rise. WOW – what a concept!!! Do you think any of the liberal community has grasped this simple fact or are they ignoring it in hopes of getting a vote??
But let’s get to the nub of the matter. What does the average oil company get out of your $4.50 gallon of gas – ten cents!! The federal tax on gasoline (hello Obama and Pelosi) is nearly twice that (18.4 cents) but then the states get a share also. The price on a gallon of gas in New York is 68 cents and roughly the same in California but virtually every state gets a cut larger than the ten cents the oil company gets. Do any of these politicians call for a reduction in taxes on gasoline – don’t bet on it. That would reduce their income because the government feeds on tax revenues so they want to take more from you and from business – especially oil companies and their “windfall” profits.
So if Exxon made $369B in revenues and $164B in “profits” where did the money go? Well there is a difference between gross profits and net profits. Exxon must spend billions on exploration, billions more on development, and further billions on refining and transportation. When all of these operating costs are figured in those OBSCENE profits evaporate pretty quickly. So when you actually examine where the money goes it becomes evident that these oil companies are hardly making money hand over fist. In fact earnings at Exxon rose 9% last year but fell 4% in the fourth quarter, underscoring the challenges of rising costs and lower commodity prices. The reality is Exxon's profit margins are only 10.7%, while profit margins at Microsoft, on the other hand, are 26% -- so who is gouging whom?
Perhaps we should pass a windfall profits tax on software companies because what the liberals want with their windfall tax on oil companies is to fund the search for alternative sources of energy, such as ethanol and nanotechnology. But when John McCain offered $300M as a reward for anyone who could come up with a viable electric battery operated or other viable alternative he was scorned. The reality is the liberals love throwing money around on in federal research grants to create alternative energy sources and satisfy the academics who live off of those research grants and vote liberal. So given that these giveaway grants are to be used for alternative sources of stuff why shouldn't Uncle Sam give grants to:
• Dell… to create more powerful computers?
• Boeing… to build faster aircraft?
• McDonalds… to make low-fat French fries that taste good?
This won’t happen of course because companies are profit driven and will do better on their own. A little less demagoguery about big oil would go a long way to solving the energy problem. Trust me, we will have alternative energy sources eventually. Many scientists believe that near incredible advances in nanotechnology will allow us to solve all our energy needs with solar power within 20 years.

Silly Science or Pseudo-science

2008-06-16T13:27:00.001-04:00

I continue to despair over the continuing erosion of science and critical thinking, by various pundits, academics, and alleged scientists. It seems there has just been some sort of definitive study linking smoking and deaths. This study was conducted by examining approximately 30,000 death certificates. At first glance this would appear to be old news and in fact it is and for the same reason – there is no proven link. No death certificate has ever listed the cause of death as “smoked too much” or as “smoking related”. So studying death certificates by themselves is meaningless and any connection has to be made by interviewing friends, family, or neighbors who may or may not have any accurate view of the deceased habits. The entire argument against smoking lies not on any empirical evidence but entirely on statistical analyses which frequently rest on the A Priori assumption that there is a link, which permits the “scientist” to throw out any contradictory findings.

The total silliness of this sort of science seems to escape the media, the government, and even what passes for the scientific community. This same study based on death certificates could easily find a direct correlation between people who ate lettuce and who died of cancer. So where is the hue and cry to ban lettuce, to stop serving salads, and to force McDonald’s to stop putting this very dangerous item on their hamburgers? Obviously this is just a silly argument because eating lettuce doesn’t have any connection – other than statistical – with cancer, but this is the precise argument used relative to tobacco and smoking. The causation link is totally missing in both of these arguments but crusade against smoking and smokers marches on because “science” says so. Is this really science or pseudo-science?

More recently the crusaders and elitists having won the smoking war have moved on to the obesity band wagon. In fact the Social Security Administration has stated that “Obesity is a complex chronic disease”. Not only are Americans FAT but it is an epidemic disease. An NYU scientist has stated that purveyors of food products (read fast food sellers) should be subject to the same scrutiny and control as sellers of tobacco. In fact the hue and cry is for the government to tax all food products which these elitists deem to have little nutritional value. Clearly Americans are FAT because they are too ignorant and stupid to make proper decisions regarding their diet and since they have demonstrated this irresponsible behavior the government should force them through government restriction just like tobacco.

But what triggered this epidemic disease of obesity? It seems that from 1960 until 1980 about 45% of all Americans were classified as over weight but from 1980 until 2000 that percentage jumped to 64% or roughly two thirds of all Americans are overweight. How can this be? What has caused this “disease” to become an epidemic infecting over half of the population and rising? Well like all silly and pseudo science some critical thinking is in order. The reality is that the federal government – acting on your behalf and not on the behalf of purveyors of dietetic products changed the definitions of over weight and obesity. So at a stroke of the bureaucratic pen people who were not overweight or obese yesterday became obese and overweight over night. But has anyone challenged this change? Of course not because some other bureaucrat has determined that there is a direct correlation between fat people and healthcare costs.

The argument is that fat people are driving health care costs up because they require more medical attention. What is missing from this statistical argument is any comparison between the healthcare needs of those people who were previously not overweight or obese and those who suddenly became overweight and obese without gaining an ounce. This is a statistical shell game because the healthcare needs of those were suddenly reclassified and now be used to justify the conclusion that obesity is growing, that it is an epidemic, and that it is driving up healthcare costs.

What is missing of course is the other side of this argument, which is fat that people die sooner so the best way to reduce healthcare costs is to encourage people to eat more so they will die sooner. After all thin people live longer so they actually require more health care over their lifetime – statistics support this scientific conclusion. This argument would be funny if it weren’t so ridiculous, but this love affair with statistics doesn’t stop with health issues, it is permeating science at all levels.

Perhaps the real issue is not how statistics is replacing science but rather how critical thinking seems to be on the wane. For example there is a trend to establish various behaviors as “diseases” rather than as consequences of those behaviors. Thus we have alcoholism as a “disease” rather than the result of poor decisions. A French study concluded that rats could become addicted to cocaine. In this study 17% of the rats showed symptoms of addiction, meaning that the rats couldn’t control their need or desire for cocaine. Obviously what is missing here is that 83% didn’t become addicted and that the 17% who showed signs of addiction might just have been more tenacious than those rats that gave up. The conclusion was that addiction could be classed as a “disease” and thus the addict is not responsible and should not be held accountable. By this rationale virtually all anti-social behavior from an addiction to speed, sex, coffee, or even beer can now be excused on the basis that the individual is powerless to stop his compulsion. Those who have the temerity to challenge these diseases are subjected to the same intolerance now reserved for those who think that Evolution is a THEORY.

The state of science is unfortunately in sad repair. The idea that people should bear personal responsibility for their decisions and be accountable for the results of those decisions has virtually disappeared. Universities no longer seem to be centers of learning and bastions of critical thinking but have somehow evolved into propaganda machines spewing out graduates who accept virtually anything that they read or hear and believe that science based on statistics has the same value as science based on the scientific model. Silly science and pseudo-science are on the rise and empirical science seems to be in decline.

Science, Statistics, and Social Engineering

2008-05-31T10:59:00.003-04:00

It is unclear as to when the decline of science began, but the decline was already underway when Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” was published in 1962. This book was used as a driving force in the international ban of DDT, even though after four decades of research DDT has never been shown to be harmful to man. In fact in order to bolster her case Carson cited cases of “acute exposures” to DDT as proof of its cancer causing abilities. She cited the case of a woman who sprayed DDT for spiders in her basement and then died a month later of leukemia. In another case she cited the case of a man who sprayed his office for cockroaches and a few days later was diagnosed with aplastic anemia. Of course these laughable examples show no empirical connection between DDT and the cancers and no responsible scientist would accept these as proof and to do so would be irresponsible. Yet no one questioned Carson or her conclusions at the time even though the actually observed results indicated DDT was not harmful to humans and the ban continues. But then there was the case of the impact of DDT on bird reproduction. The study Carson cited stated that DDT “may seriously affect reproduction of birds”. Of course the operative work here is “may” and the actual article indicated that DDT had only a minor negative impact on Quail but actually helped in the reproduction of pheasants.

But the real impact that DDT had was on human health, specifically malaria is immense. The World Health Organization credited DDT with saving 50 million to 100 million lives by preventing malaria. . In 1943 Venezuela had 8,171,115 cases of malaria; by 1958, after the use of DDT, the number was down to 800. India, which had over 10 million cases of malaria in 1935, had 285,962 in 1969. In Italy the number of malaria cases dropped from 411,602 in 1945 to only 37 in 1968. Since DDT was banned the number of cases of Malaria has increased and since the ban the number of cases in South Africa alone has increased 400%. So here is a case where no real science was used to further an ecological cause at human expense and what real science was available was ignored by Carson and the advocaes social engineering. Carson was convinced chemicals, like DDT were poisoning the environment and so used faith based "science" to create a problem with no real scientific basis. This was one of the early examples of Faith Based Science, but there were earlier ones.

In 1892 the Senate Committee on Epidemic Diseases concluded that cigarettes were a public health hazard. In 1964 the Surgeon General issued a report that cigarette smoking CAUSED lung cancer. Since that time there has been more than two dozen similar reports and the number of diseases related to smoking is now so high that virtually every disease is included and it is a wonder that anyone who smokes or who has even been around a smoker is still alive to tell about it. However, NONE of those reports has offered any proof that connects smoking to any disease and ignores the actual fact that the majority of smokers do not get lung cancer. To this day there is no empirical evidence that smoking causes cancer. This entire anti-smoking campaign is based on a statistical correlation and the side-smoke conclusions are not only statistical but based on an A Priori hypothesis which means any contrary findings were discarded. This is another and egregious example of Faith Based science because there is no scientific evidence showing smoking as the cause of cancer.

But given the success of their attack on tobacco the non-science scientists took that as a license to forego all of that tedious lab work and move on to data mining and this opened the door to pseudo-science based on statistics. We now see on a regular basis “scientific” claims that cancer is caused by Saccharin, Styrofoam cups, red meat, Oreo cookies, vasectomies, cotton swabs, orange juice, eggs, and the list goes on and on but it is not limited to cancer. Statistical correlations are being offered almost on daily basis to show some truly ridiculous claims. These are duy reported by the media even though there is no science or any real empirical evidence to support these statistical claims. The most recent example of a statistical "disease" is obesity.

Americans are overweight and the culprit is sugar, fast food, large portions,video games, lack of excercise, or whatever is currently in vogue. Everybody is on a diet, or at least everyone in the Northeast and West Coasts where appearance is everything. Of course much of this brouhaha is a direct result of a restatement of what constitutes “overweight”. The National Health Institute declared that 55% of Americans are overweight and the Social Security Administration declared “obesity is a chronic disease”. Did you get that? When you over eat and you gain weight it isn’t because you have no will power, nosiree – you have a disease and this disease is epidemic in America today. Note that the cry isn’t for science to find a cure for this disease – the demand is for the government to attack this epidemic through social engineering. The government should force Ronald MacDonald out of business, to stop people selling candy to kids, and in general to force people to eat healthy foods and a to eat a lot less so restaurants must reduce their portion sizes. Does that sound like science in action or do-gooders telling everyone else how to live? Where is science in all of this? We are assured that obese people have more medical problems than thin people – the statistics show that so there is no necessity to do any real lab work showing there is a direct connection between a disease of the body and the “disease” of obesity.

Science is definitely in decline and seems to becoming more of a belief system than any thing seriously based on the hallowed scientific method. Perhaps the best example of this erosion of science into social engineering is the declaration that alcoholism is a “disease” and not an example of irresponsible behavior. Precisely what the germ is that causes this disease or how you catch this disease is not described. It is enough to know that people who drink to excess and cannot control their behavior cannot be held accountable by society because that would require them to be personally responsible for their situation. Instead we call it a disease and that excuses them from accountability. Where is the science? Where is the empirical connection? Science is clearly in decline and quickly disappearing. I think I need a Big Mac.