Dead Skunk in the Middle of the Road

The Parable of the Sheep and Wolves

2011-02-23T11:51:00.001-05:00

There was once a flock of sheep. Contented sheep. Shepherds kept good care of these sheep. The shepherds led the sheep to cool water. Through the shepherds work green grass was always available. At night the shepherds led the sheep to a sheepfold for their protection. Life was good for the sheep.

There were also wolves. Life was not so good for the wolves. The shepherds were an nuisance to the wolves. Sheep were good food. In the absence of the shepherds the sheep would be easily obtained food. So the wolves decided something had to be done about the shepherds.

The sheep were individualists. They believed in the ideology of individualism. Each sheep was, or at least should be, responsible for its own wellbeing. It was wrong, the sheep believed, for sheep to believe someone else should be responsible for an individual sheep’s wellbeing. To believe one was entitled to some benefit whether one worked for it or not was a violation of the idea of individualism. Individuals as individuals had to take personal responsibility for their own welfare.

The sheep also believed in the law of just deserves. Individuals received just what they deserved according to the effort they put into life. Individuals who put great effort into life got great rewards. Those sheep who put little effort into life got little reward. Those who put little effort into life should not complain when the received little reward. Those sheep were simply getting that which they deserved.

The wolves saw opportunity in these ideas. They convinced the sheep living under the control of shepherds was bad for them as individuals. They pointed out some flocks had been under the protection of very bad shepherds. These bad shepherds had killed sheep just for the pleasure it gave the shepherds. The wolves referred to these bad shepherds as socialists. They then referred to the shepherds caring for this flock as “socialists” simply because the shepherds took care of the sheep. If the sheep did not want to live under the rule of evil socialists they needed to consider getting rid of the shepherds because all shepherds were at heart socialists. Since the sheep did not want to live under socialism they took this under consideration.

The wolves then pointed out how the shepherds work was opposed to the law of just deserves. Shepherds led all the sheep to cool water. So the sheep got cool water whether the deserved it or not. The shepherds led the sheep to green grass. So the sheep got green grass whether they deserved it or not. The shepherds led the sheep to a sheepfold at night so the sheep were protected in the sheepfold whether they deserved it or not. So the sheep came to believe having shepherds around was a violation of the law of just deserves.

Then the wolves showed the sheep how living under the care of shepherds led to a mentality of entitlement. Because the shepherds took care of the sheep the sheep could come to believe they were entitled to care whether they worked for it or not. The wolves pointed out a mentality of entitlement was bad for sheep who wanted to believe in individualism. They pointed out sheep who accepted the idea of entitlement no longer believed in the law of just deserves. They then reminded the sheep of how living under the care of shepherds led to a mentality of entitlement. So the sheep began to see living under the care of shepherds wasn’t so good after all.

Finally the wolves claimed there was an invisible hand that would protect the sheep far better than would the shepherds. This invisible hand made it possible for wolves and sheep to have an one on one relationship without anything bad happening to the sheep. The wolves then claimed sheep could not accept as true the idea of individualism unless they also accept the reality of the invisible hand. And the wolves then claimed sheep could not accept the truth of the law of just deserves unless one accepted as true the idea of individualism. Since the sheep were convinced of the moral truth of the law of just deserves they could not argue against the idea of individualism. Since they could not argue against the idea of individualism they could not argue against the reality of the individual hand. So the sheep found they had no choice but to trust the wolves and replace the protection of the shepherds with the protection of the invisible hand. So the sheep got rid of the shepherds and relied on the invisible hand to protect them form the wolves.

So the wolves got what they wanted. There was a one-on-one relationship between wolf and sheep. The sheep did not last long under this relationship. The invisible hand, it turned out, was no protection. The wolves simply ate the sheep. Then they moved on to find another flock they could con in the same manner.

Why AP is right and Robert Spencer is wrong

2010-08-22T17:35:00.001-04:00

One of the big problems truth has in the present age is the mainstream media’s idea of equivalency. If one side in a controversy describes things as they are and the other side describes things using nothing but rhetorical tropes which benefit its position the main stream media will use both terms interchangeably in order to not be seen as taking sides in the dispute. But because of the damage the controversy over the Park 51, or Cordova House, project is doing to our ability to fight Islamic extremism the Associated Press has decided to abandon the use of the popular rhetorical tropes used to describe this project. They wish to abandon the term “ground zero mosque” in favor of the more accurate term “mosque located 2 blocks from ground zero.” The rational part of the world sees nothing wrong with this.

Of course the Islamophobic part of the world has a different idea. Robert Spencer complains this amounts to taking sides in this dispute. He likes the term “ground zero mosque.” From the point of view of an Islamophobe this is an excellent term. It motivates people to hate the mosque, the people who support its building, the organization behind it, and, hopefully, Islam in general. When AP banned its use it made spreading Islamophobia by attacking Park 51 more difficult. As both a professional and a devout Islamophobe Mr. Spencer is most upset by having one of his most effective weapons taken from him.

Unfortunately for Mr. Spencer the argument over the location of the community center is a case of accuracy in description vs self-serving inaccuracy in description. The building in question is in fact 2 blocks from ground zero. To call it the “ground zero mosque” is to imply it is at ground zero. While this is obviously effective in rallying opposition to it in fact we are dealing with a purposeful misrepresentation of reality for the advantage of those who are so misrepresenting reality. In somewhat more familiar but perhaps less accurate language Mr. Spencer and his friends are lying. So when AP banned the use of the term “ground zero mosque” AP was simply taking the side of truth in a dispute between truth and error. To be more accurate AP has decided to stop being a propaganda outlet for Mr. Spencer and his friends.

And about time. One of the big reasons for the mess this country is the mainstream media’s willingness to be used as a tool for the spreading of right wing propaganda. Its leadership is afraid of being accused of liberal bias when the facts are on the side of the liberals. So it believes in balanced reporting between truth and nonsense. Over time many people come to believe in the truth of pleasant sounding nonsense. At this point it becomes difficult to impossible to convince people the ideas they believe in oar not accurate descriptions of reality as it truly exists. So we elect politicians whose policies are based on fantasy and illusion. Sometimes dangerous illusions such as the idea we can treat all Muslims as the enemy. In the end this last idea is what the argument over the building of Park51 is all about.

Hello, I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC -- Here's How I Help Fuel the World's Deadliest Conflict

2010-07-01T09:11:00.001-04:00

But many of these products come from China. Not only will the Chinese continue to buy conflict minerals they will turn around and sell weapons to the warring parties.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Americans Simply Don't Do Sacrifice Anymore

2010-06-17T11:02:00.001-04:00

Two words:Jimmy Carter. Of course the President isn't going to ask Americans to sacrifice to get ourselves off of fossil fuels. This is what Jimmy Carter did back in the 70's. All it got him was a lost election. 30 years of Conservative rule have put us far behind in the effort to find replacements for fossil fuels. We would be far better off if President Carter had not called for sacrifice as a means of solving the energy crisis of the 70's.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Did You Expect

2010-05-29T09:04:00.001-04:00

On today’s Huffington Post there is a article claiming today’s college students are more self-centered and competitive than those of the past. Now there is a saying that a system gives the outputs for which it was designed. And a system based on the thought of Ronald Reagan, Robert Looking out for Number One Ringer, Milton Freedman and the sociopath loving Ayn Rand is going to give the results noted above. Since these have been among the leading intellectual influences of the politically dominant conservative movement since the birth of the present college age generation it is no surprise today’s college students are more self-centered and competitive than ever. Self-centered highly competitive persons are what today’s conservatism creates. In the world created by the modern conservative movement such personalities are the only ones that can survive.

We no longer have a society. We have been reduced to 300 million isolates motivated by greed. Our only goal is to acquire the largest pile of things before we die. Woe to anyone who for any reason tries to take something off that pile. This is why our debt is so high. This is why we have high taxes and entitlements. We are quite willing to take but unwilling to give. This is a world in which there can be no such thing as the common good. It is a world of a few winners who take everything and millions of losers who have next to nothing. In order to survive at all one must be among the winners. This means acting ruthlessly in defense of one’s own self interest defined as taking what one wants by any means available.

The failure of the left in general and the Obama administration in particular is to believe one can have a change in public policy without having a change in attitude. The teaparty movement gains its strength from people who see the society created by modern conservative thought as the best of all possible societies. They object to the Obama administration’s policies because they assume and will promote a different kind of society. The people who win under the present mode of social organization see no reason to agree to this. The problem is millions of the losers agree with them. The losers have become convinced human freedom requires the hyper competitive self centered society advocated by modern conservatism. So long as people confuse freedom with sociopathic self centeredness it will be difficult to do anything about the problem described in the article referenced to above.

Hope College Refuses To Change Policy Condemning Homosexual Acts

2010-05-10T11:35:00.001-04:00

For conservative Christians it is a question of authority. Defending the ultimate authority of scripture means denying the fact homosexuals exist. Accepting the fact homosexuals exist means accepting the ultimate authority of fact. Accepting the ultimate authority of fact makes one a liberal Christian. So for conservative Christians rejecting homosexuals is a matter of life or death, at least the life or death of conservative Christianity.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Goldman Sachs and Libertarian Ethics

2010-04-30T10:26:00.001-04:00

The men and women who run Goldman Sachs see nothing wrong with how they sold their products. Nothing at all. They made money for themselves and their company. That is what they were supposed to do. Isn’t looking out for number one and maximizing a company’s profits regardless what has to be done to do so what businessmen and businesswomen supposed to do?

This wasn’t always so. The fictional investment banker George Wilson, of Tom Clancy novel fame, is concerned about his clients. Their money is his money and he treats it as such. Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, sees its clients as marks. They are suckers to be duped into putting their money into junk so Goldman Sachs can maximize its profits. This is the way of the modern business world. Businesspersons have become sociopaths who care only about themselves and their own welfare. Freedom has become the right of the strong to prey on the weak. Any attempt by the weak to protect themselves is labeled socialism. And the rationalization of this way of life has the nerve to call itself conservatism.

Libertarianism as it exists today is an attempt by the wolves to convince the sheep they can live without a shepherd. Through willpower alone the sheep can make themselves into wolves and protect themselves. Indeed they must do this. The shepherd, after all, limits the freedom of the sheep. It is obvious the shepherd limits the freedom of the sheep. If the sheep wish to become free they must tell the shepherd to go. Because the sheep want to be free they tell the shepherd to go and attempt through willpower to make themselves into wolves.

But willpower alone isn’t enough to make a sheep into a wolf. It is obvious the only animal to profit from this process is the wolf. Wolves find sheep lacking a shepherd easy prey. So libertarianism is not conservatism. Libertarianism simply leads to the world described by Thomas Hobbs. A world where every person’s hand is held against his or her neighbors. A world where life is mean, nasty brutish, and short. One wonders how people who consider themselves conservatives can support it.

The Difficulty in Sharing Faith

2010-03-19T11:37:00.001-04:00

The article in my devotional magazine for this morning discussed the need for the sharing of faith. Now some of us are not comfortable with the sharing of faith. The reason is not in what we believe. The reason some people are not comfortable with the sharing of faith lies in the nature of faith itself.

Yes faith can move mountains. And faith saves some alcoholics and drug addicts. There are people whose lives have been better because of faith. But many lives have been made worse because of faith.

Through faith men hijacked airliners and flew them into skyscrapers. By faith men and a few women have put explosive devices around their bodies, gone into crowded areas and blown themselves up. By faith abortion centers have been bombed and abortionists have been murdered. Faith has fueled opposition to needed social reforms such as health care. Faith has served as an opiate to lessen opposition to oppression. All sorts of undesirable actions have been justified by faith.

And you just can’t reason with the faithful. The faithful already know they are right. This is what their faith tells them. Why should they abandon truth for error. Since what they know is obviously right why should they listen to those they know are wrong? So trying to keep the faithful from doing others harm is an almost hopeless task.

Sharing one’s faith means promoting this dysfunctional mode of thought. Faith is blind. Blind as a bat. Sharing one’s faith can easily lead to the other person closing his or her mind to reality itself. It can do so because this is what faith does. Faith gives the illusion of certainty of knowledge. But there is no such thing as certainty of knowledge. The illusion of one having it, like all illusions, is dangerous. This is why many people are uncomfortable with sharing their faith or having other share their faith with them.

Is Health Insurance Company Greed to blame for the High Price of Health Insurance?

2010-03-09T11:23:00.004-05:00

President Obama is making another final push for the passage of health care reform legislation. He is basing the need for this legislation on the recent price increases made by certain health insurance providers. He is blaming their greed for these price increases. And the health insurance providers don't like it. He does have a point. On the other hand greed is not the only reason for these price increases. But he must use greed as a rhetorical trope because the American people remain opposed to the only real solution to our health care crisis; make health insurance a universal entitlement.

Now greedy health insurance companies are a problem. But greed is not a problem of the health insurance industry alone. Greed is the Achilles of Capitalism. Should Capitalism one day fall it will be greed that kills it. In maximizing their profits health insurance companies are only doing what they have been told they should do. The main problem with health insurance at present is not the greed of the health care industry.

The main problem with health insurance is the ability to, and sometimes the need to, game the system. People can, either because they don’t want to or can’t afford to, avoid buying health insurance until they really need it. Indeed they can go to emergency rooms which are duty bound to take in people whether they can pay or not. This increases the cost of health care and thus health care insurance for those who do have it. This is the real problem, at least in a financial sense, with the present system.

Proposed changes, the popular ones at least, only make things worse. Denying claims and denying people the right to buy health insurance at all are ways in which insurance companies keep their costs down. Its no accident that health insurance companies announced massive price increases as soon as Scott Brown was elected to the Senate. Scraping the Senate bill now waiting passage in the House and replacing it with a bill containing only the popular remedies for the situation spells financial disaster for health insurance companies. Massive premium increases are their only recourse. So now banning massive premium increases is popular enough to be enacted into law also. The health insurance industry does have a problem.

The only way out of this dilemma is to bring everyone into the system. This is why the Senate bill has a universal mandate. If everyone is required to buy health insurance gaming the system is no longer possible. But many people don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it.. So health insurance subsidies are a necessary part of any universal mandate. The subsidies make health insurance an entitlement. Once health insurance becomes an entitlement the government must play a large role in all aspects of the health care industry.

It is a this point that health insurance reform becomes unpopular. People would rather have the present system than create another big government universal entitlement. But as we can plainly see the present system is just not sustainable over the long term. We either have health insurance so expensive only those people who don’t need it can afford it or we can create another big government universal entitlement. The health care dilemma is that neither choice is very popular

The Way Forward on Health Care

2010-03-08T17:47:00.001-05:00

The main problem is financing a new universal entitlement. Health care reform must either fail or result in a new universal entitlement. Whether you call it Medicare for All, or universal single payer, or consumer choice for all it must be universal and that means the government must pay for it those who cannot otherwise afford it. Raising the tax money to pay for this is the problem. We are a nation that wants government services but refuses to impose the taxes those government services require.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Health Care Reform as a No-Win Scenario

2010-03-08T11:51:00.002-05:00

Last week David Brody posted an article at the Huffington Post on why health care reform is a lose-lose proposition for Democrats. He has a point. Politically there is just no good way from Democrats to deal with health care reform. They are literally dammed if they pass it and dammed if they don’t.

Health care reform is a seamless web. You simply can’t cut a hole in the web and put a new piece in it. We can’t just pass the parts of the health care reform package people want and not pass those parts of the package people don’t want. We either have total health care reform or no health care reform. There is no middle way nor has there ever been one.

We just can’t ban insurance company practices we don’t like. Insurance companies need these practices if they are to control costs. In order to make banning these practices palatable we must mandate universal converge. Otherwise people will have every incentive to not purchase health insurance until the really need it. But once we mandate universal purchase we must subsidize insurance coverage for those who cannot afford it. So a universal mandate must of necessity become a universal entitlement. Furthermore in order to control costs the government must play a significant role in regulating health insurance and even providing it. It is with universal entitlement and the expanded role of the state that health care reform becomes a no win scenario.

A large minority, indeed possible a majority, of the American people are against new universal entitlements. We can barely afford the ones we have. At some point deficit reduction must include entitlement reform. We do not reform entitlements by creating new ones. This is especially true if the new entitlement has virtually unlimited projected costs. Even worse this is a universal entitlement that increases the role of the government in health care. Many Americans like government even less than they like deficits. So those opposed to health insurance reform can campaign on the issue of entitlement and the expanded role of government and expect to receive good results at election time. And this is why so many Democrats in the House and Senate are reluctant to pass health care reform.

But without health care reform the cost of health insurance will continue to increase until only the very wealthy can afford it. Eventually health care will become a luxury like a Lamborghini or a 50,000 square foot mansion. This is our fate if we can’t control the cost of health care. And making it a universal entitlement provides the only way we can really control the cost of health care by the state. So the Democratic Party base is in favor of passing health care reform regardless of the consequences. As Blanche Lincoln has recently discovered the base of the Democratic Party can make life difficult for those it dislikes. That base clearly intends to dislike those Democrats who do not support health care reform. Democrats simply can’t win elections without the support of the base. But winning that support means supporting big government new entitlement health care reform.

So dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. This is the Democrats dilemma on health care reform.

Why Self-Reliance is in Retreat

2010-03-06T12:09:00.002-05:00

In a recent column Cal Thomas wonders what happened to self-reliance. Unfortunately the answer is far more dreadful than Mr. Thomas wants to hear. Self-reliance died for reasons not that easy to undo. Our forbears practiced self-reliance because they lived in a society far different from our own. We can’t practice self-reliance unless we want to go back to that society. More people don’t want to go back. In any event we couldn’t go back to that kind of society even if we wanted to.

Our economy is built on overspending, satisfying desires, pretense, envy, greed and a sense of entitlement because that is how we avoided a second great depression for sixty years. Our present economic difficulties come from the fact we can no longer operate our economy on the principles of convincing people to buy things they do not need with money they do not have using natural resources that cannot be replaced. The borrowed money cannot be repaid; the resources used cannot be replaced. Because of this a greater reliance on government for our economic welfare is inevitable.

Unfortunately the idea of self-reliant individuals fending for themselves without the help and support of the government makes life easier for the greediest persons among us. Imagine a flock of sheep surrounded by ravenous wolves. The wolves are greedy powerful corporations. The sheep are self-reliant individuals trying to make their way in the world by themselves. The wolves can attack individual sheep because the wolves have sharper claws, sharper teeth, and can run just as fast as the sheep. Unless a shepherd comes to protect them the sheep are helpless. The only thing their self-reliance will get them is killed.

In order to protect themselves the sheep need a shepherd. The only shepherd available is the government. Only big government can stand up to big business. Regulating business is necessary. Government sponsored health care is necessary because otherwise only the wealthy will be able to afford health care at all. If we aren’t going to be able to stimulate the private sector by encouraging people to overspend on wants to satisfy manufactured desires we are going to have to have a far larger proportion of our population employed by the government. In order to pay for this we will have to tax the rich. Yes thee will be less freedom. But there is going to be less freedom anyway. In a society of self-reliant individuals the vast majority will have the freedom poverty gives them. The powerful will take what they can and self-reliant individuals will be left with the little there is left. And that as they say is that.

2010-03-04T12:58:00.003-05:00

/> 0 0

Individualism as a Reason Why Christians Oppose Health Care Reform.

Why do Christians oppose health care reform? It’s really difficult to think of a reason. Paul Raushenbush, over at Huffington Post, can’t think of one. Now abortion is a reason for Christians to oppose any particular health care reform bill. And since feminists are just as determined to defend abortion rights as Christians, some at least, are to take those rights away it may be difficult to create a health care bill satisfactory to both sides. But it is clear some Christians oppose health care reform on general principles. They really and truly believe the present system is more in keeping with Christian principles than any possible alternative. And the question is why?

One thing most Christians believe is the importance of the individual and the unimportance of the state. Individuals, in Christian belief, live forever. The state, on the other hand, will someday disappear. So individuals are infinitely more important than the state. Furthermore Christians believe materialists can’t share this understanding. If human beings die and are no more but the state continues for a very long time then it is reasonable to assume the individual should exist to service the state. So when materialists and atheists and secularists and agnostics support public policies that increase the power of the state Christians are suspicious of their motives. Christians support a small state on general principles. At least when they do not control it.

The problem here is the need for big government intervention in the health care field if health care is to be anything other than a luxury only the wealthiest can afford. Government will have to give money to the poor so that they can afford health care. This money will have to be taken from those more well off through taxes. In order to keep individuals from gaming the system individuals must be required to purchase health insurance. Only then will the reforms Christians can live with really work. In simple terms we can either have big government health care reform or have health care only the wealthy can afford. That as they say is that. And since the Christians who oppose health care reform are distrusting of the motives of those who advocate health care reform they are willing to let health care become a luxury only the wealthy can afford.

Perhaps it would help Christians to understand why we need big government health care reform, and big government in general if we described the need for big government in terms of sheep, shepherds and wolves. Imagine a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Wolves surround this flock. Left to fend for themselves the sheep will be killed, one by one, by the wolves. The sheep can live in safety only if a well-armed shepherd appears to protect them. That shepherd is big government. Without the intervention of big government greedy corporations, the wolves of this scenario will make health care too expensive for most people to afford. Individuals cannot protect themselves from abuse by large corporations lead by greedy individuals by themselves. For this collective action is needed. And only big government can provide this collective action.

Health Care Reform: A Political Lose-Lose for President Obama and Democrats?

2010-03-03T12:22:00.001-05:00

Yes health care reform has become a lose lose proposition for Democrats. It can only be passed by reconciliation. It is an expansion of the power of government. Perhaps as many as 40% of the American people can be induced to vote for Republicans by Republican propaganda over the passage of health care by reconciliation. So passing health care reform through reconciliation isn't wise.

But if health care reform is not passed the base will stop voting for Democrats. As Blanch Lincoln has just discovered progressives are no longer willing to simply let blue dog Democrats be. Primary challenges and lack of votes from progressive Democrats in general elections await those Democrats unwilling to pass health care reform through reconciliation.

So Democrats in the House and Senate have to decide which fate is worse, being voted out of power by angry moderates or being voted out of power by angry members of the base.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

25 Easy Things One Hard Thing You Can Must Do to Save the Planet

2009-04-22T20:29:00.001-04:00

No the hardest thing is support by environmentalists for the only present day existing real alternative to more coal fired power plants, nuclear power plants.
About Earth Day
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Extra! Extra! Newspapers Need an Overhaul, Not a "Rescue Plan"

2009-04-21T11:18:00.001-04:00

Of course if there is no marketing mechanism possible what other choice does one have other than to give away content for free. The problem with newspapers and new media is that no one has yet figured out how to make money from new media. Indeed there doesn't seem any way possible to make money from new media. Thus the resistance to new media from old media. News people want us to know will be given away for free. Unfortunately selling this news was the source of income newspapers used to get news people did not want us to know. So now we have no way of financing the getting of news people don't want us to know. That is the dilemma of the modern news organization.
About Newspapers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Debate Over Online News: It's the Consumer, Stupid

2009-04-10T07:26:00.001-04:00

The problem is generating a revenue stream. Newspapers don't sell content they sell the paper on which the content is printed. Radio and television don't sell content they sell air time to advertisers. This is where their revenue streams come from. The only people getting a revenue stream from the internet are internet service providers. The only way content providers get a revenue stream is by selling advertising space on their sites. Their only other alternative is begging. The MSM fight for maintenance of the present system because it is the only way they know to generate a revenue stream. They may not be wrong in thinking that.
About Eric Schmidt
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Advice to Obama at G-20 Summit: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

2009-03-31T12:41:00.001-04:00

Congress builds barriers to free trade because workers in the US can't live on $3.00 a day like workers can in the underdeveloped world. The ultimate problem with free trade is simple. The downside of free trade is obvious while the benefits of free trade must be taken on faith. When jobs are lost to foreign countries it is obvious where they went. When wages are decreased because of foreign competition it is obvious why the wages were decreased. New jobs and higher wages created by free trade could have been created for other reasons. You simply can't point to any particular job and say free trade created it. So opponents of free trade have plenty of evidence to use for their position. Defenders of free trade have far less evidence for theirs.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Won’t Government Tell the Truth About the Economy?

2009-03-09T12:16:00.000-04:00

On CNN recently a commentator observed the stock market was going down because it was waiting for the government to tell it the truth about the economy. In reality the last thing the stock market wants is the truth. What is wants is confirmation of its comforting illusions. That is one thing this administration is reluctant to give. In reality many businesses already know the truth. This is why they are cutting their workforces. The stock market is simply reacting to this decrease in business activity.

We avoided Great Depression 2 for over 60 years by the following means. We encouraged consumers to buy things they didn’t really need. In order to keep profits high and wages low we encouraged consumers to go into debt for these purchases. In addition all this economic activity used material resources, especially energy, that could not be replaced. In the past year and a half we came to the point where the debt needed to be repaid. In addition energy and other resources began to run out. This lead to an increase in their price. So the system began to break down. The worst economic calamity since the 30s is the result.

This breakdown creates a difficult political problem for any American administration. Americans are individualists. Individualism is a part of what it means to be an American. In order to have a strong society based on individualism it is necessary for the economy to create enough jobs so each and every individual who wants a job can have one. In order to do this we must be able to grow the economy. If we can’t convince people to buy things they do not really need we won’t be able to produce enough jobs so everyone who wants one can have one. And if the material resources to produce and ship and use these goods doesn’t exist there is no way we can produce enough jobs to maintain our present social system.

Yes we can create sustainable economic and social systems. Yes we can create resilient economic and social systems. But in these systems the needs of the many are going to be more important than the needs of the one. This is the United States of America. We can create these systems. But we cannot make the idea the needs of the many are more important than the needs of the one politically popular. This is the truth that dare not speak its name.

The Wiki That's Building a News Organization

2009-02-28T07:47:00.001-05:00

Unfortunately trust, accuracy, objectivity, style, and taste required money. That money came from the value for value exchange in which people paid for the paper upon which the trust, objectivity, accuracy, style and taste was printed. There are no longer enough people willing to make that exchange. That army of guys banging away at their computers at 3:00 AM in their boxer shorts don't care if they are paid or not. In an age in which information must of necessity be distributed for free this gives them a competitive advantage.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Wiki That's Building a News Organization

2009-02-27T21:00:00.001-05:00

In order to have a market you must have some way of forcing people to give you money for your product under penalty of not getting it unless they pay for it. The problem with the internet distribution model is lack of a way of preventing people from getting the product without paying for it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

When You Don't Understand the Business You're in, You're Screwed (Good-Bye Newspapers)

2009-02-27T20:53:00.001-05:00

The problem with newspapers seeing themselves as delivers of news is the question of value for value exchange. When people had to buy a newspaper to get the news they had to give someone money for the paper. That exchange provided the newspaper with a "business model." When people get their news on the internet the only people getting money are the people who own the internet connection. I suppose if newspapers had really seen themselves as being in the news delivery business they would have bought cable companies and phone companies so they would have owned the means of distributing news over the internet.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Wiki That's Building a News Organization

2009-02-26T21:43:00.001-05:00

Which means not only do you have to have something of value you have to have some means of forcing people to pay money to get that thing. This is where most web based business propositions break down. They have no way of forcing people to give value in the form of money in order to get back value. If you can't make money you don't have a business. Simple as that.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Michael Steele 'Open To' Punishing Stimulus-Backing GOP Senators

2009-02-24T16:00:00.001-05:00

This is the downside of Steele's policy. If they become Democrats they can run as Democrats in states that are Democrat. If they stay Republican and lose a primary to wingnut Republicans the seats turn Democratic anyway and the incumbent Republicans are out of a job.
About michael steele
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Initiating a Culture of Compensation

2009-02-17T12:11:00.002-05:00

Now we see the real problem with the post industrial economy. In order to have a market economy you must be able to establish value for value exchanges in which money is used as a medium of exchange. For manufacturing and service industries doing this is easy. In an information "economy" where information is transmitted through electronic means doing this is more difficult. Newspapers never sold information, they sold the paper on which the information was presented. The same thing with magazines. So long as entertainment could obtained only in confined spaces such as theaters it was possible to restrict access to paying customers.

Over the air radio and television went to either a advertising based business model or were supported through government and private donations because it was was impossible for broadcasters to restrict access to paying customers. The internet has the same problem. This is why most internet businesses are failures. In order to have a successful business you must find some way to make you customers give you money for the goods and services you supply.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

There is much more to this than can be said in 250 words. The advent of an information based economy puts the whole idea of markets into question. In order to have a market based economy you must have value for value exchange. No value for value exchange means no markets. At the same time putting up restrictions around information makes the growth of an information based economy more difficult. If everyone requires payment of information then only the rich will have full access to all the information they need. But if information is free there can be no such thing as an information economy. Which means it may not be possible to have both a free market economy and an information economy. We may have to choose between these.

RNC Chair Steele On GOP: "No Reason, None, To Trust Our Word" (VIDEO)

2009-02-14T16:13:00.001-05:00

I'm in the vanguard of the Baby Boomers. I will borrow this paraphrase from my youth. You can trust a Republican to be a Republican. They are consistent. Consistently wrong.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Won't Abandon Israel

2009-01-08T14:37:00.000-05:00

With the horror of the Gaza invasion being shown all the time we have much discussion concerning continued support of Israel by the U.S. government. It would be nice if supporting things making us hated among Arabs and Muslims could be avoided. But it can’t. This is why.

Millions of people believe the Battle of Armageddon, the battle between good and evil that will take place just before the Last Judgment, will be a battle between forces defending the present state of Israel and those who demand its destruction. So the side of good defends Israel and the side of evil fights for its destruction. Hamas demands the destruction of Israel. So by demanding the destruction of Israel Hamas places itself on the side of pure evil. This means millions of Americans will support any action which anyone claims will destroy Hamas. Regardless of the consequences. End of argument.

Even those who don’t believe in the Christian Zionist view of reality described above will be hesitant to do anything which would be seen as weakening Israel in its fight for survival. This makes cutting off of military and economic aid difficult. But so long as Israel knows it will get this aid regardless of what it does it is difficult to see it abandoning the invasion of Gaza. Israel’s leaders really think they are making their nation more secure by this invasion. The United States has no leverage to make them see different unless we want to really make Israel weaker. Reluctance to make Israel weaker means there is little we can really do. And that, alas, is that.

How McCain Could Win With 22% of the Popular Vote

2008-10-29T15:28:00.001-04:00

Actually there is historical precedence for this. In 1860 the Republican candidate for President won a majority of the electoral vote even though he only received 40% of the popular vote. In 2 states he wasn't even on the ballot. In several others he received only a few votes. When Lincoln won the election anyway the residents of 9 states were so upset they voted ordinances of secession and left the union.

Now to be sure there other factors at work here. The states in question were all run by slave owners and Lincoln was an abolitionist. The states at the time the constitution was written considered the union more of a federation and less of a unitary country. This is shown by the fact those nine states considered leaving the union a realistic possibility. And one reason why the electoral college is anachronistic is because we are far more of a united country than we were when the constitution was written.

We must also remember the founding fathers didn't think all that much of democracy. They didn't even believe in political parties. The constitution had to be amended to provide for separate voters for president and vice-president because political parties had come into existence. The people, thought of as "the mob", weren't considered capable of picking a good president. Instead they would be made to vote for "elitist" electors who would make a proper choice. So yes it is time to think of alternatives to the electoral college.
About Voting Problems
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A New Deal, or a New New Deal?

2008-09-30T11:27:00.001-04:00

Certainly the second must be in the bill. I don't think you can have a new New Deal until after the Obama administration takes office. Clearly Bush and Paulson are not going to support such a thing. Since the bail out can't wait a new New Deal can't be included at this time. But the real problem with the Paulson bail out is the transformation of pretend money into real money. It would buy assets from banks at greater than market value. These assets probably won't regain the value paid for them. So money will be lost. The money to buy these assets will come from foreign banks. The American government will have to pay this money back to the foreign banks at some point in the future. A securities turnover excise tax would raise the money to do this without taking it from other sources. So this must be a necessary part of any bill that passes.
About Henry Paulson
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Who Knows Strategy v. Tactics? McCain or Obama? And Where is McCain's Flag Lapel Pin?

2008-09-27T17:06:00.001-04:00

The surge was a tactic. The surge did not bring an end to the violence. The surge was successful only as a way of taking the public eye off of the removal of the sunnis from Baghdad. This is what has brought an end to the violence. If making the sunnis of Baghdad into refugees was a part of our strategy for Iraq then the surge was a good tactic for this end. If making the sunnis from Baghdad into refugees was not a part of our strategy for Iraq then the surge was not a good tactic.
About Iraq
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Who is the Handler?

2008-09-04T20:22:00.001-04:00

Think of them as the American Taliban. Like our enemies they believe in theocracy. The only difference between these people and our enemies is these people are Christian theocrats and our enemies are Muslim theocrats.
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is John McCain Mentally Fit To Be President?

2008-08-30T17:04:00.001-04:00

Also his temper may be a part of the reason for his choice. He really wanted Joe Lieberman as his vice-president. But this was vetoed by Republican leaders who feared the reaction of the hard right to this choice. Lieberman,after all, is a liberal Democrat on everything except the war in Iraq. So he picked a vice-president the hard right couldn't veto. Unfortunately she isn't qualified to be president. But she holds every position the hard right favors. So they can't complain about her. But the choice is rash. Eventually McCain will realize it.

The really troubling thing is government by temper tantrum is dangerous. Choosing a vice-president in anger is one thing. Getting mad at other countries when they do things we don't like is something else. This is one way unnecessary wars are started. If this is any example of how McClain makes decisions there is real cause for concern.
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why We Use So Much of the World’s Resources.

2008-08-19T12:19:00.000-04:00

In the world where global warming and peak oil are discussed Americans are condemned for their use of energy and other resources. This is seen as a moral failing. Unfortunately it is not. Constant and unlimited growth is how our capitalist economy stays healthy. When growth stops our capitalist economy will collapse. So the question at issue is not self centered wasting of resources vs sustainability but capitalism vs socialism. The real problem we have with sustainability is simple: a sustainable economy is a socialist economy. At least from the perspective of today’s capitalists it is.

To understand why we waste so much of the world’s resources on useless trivialities we have to go back to the great depression of the 1930s. My father claimed that on March 4, 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated the United States of America was just weeks away from its very own Marxist revolution. That’s how bad things were then. All during the 1930s many people believed capitalism and liberal democracy were dead. The future would belong to either fascism or communism. But the fascists, especially the Nazis, overplayed their hand. The resulting world war saved capitalism and liberal democracy by providing full employment. And after the war it was decided to do whatever it took to insure an economic catastrophe on the order of the great depression never again occurred.

To understand the problem faced by those who wished to avoid another great depression let’s take a look at a simple producer of mousetraps. An inventor makes a better mousetrap and the world really does beat a path to his door. He can no longer satisfy the demand for mousetraps by the number of mousetraps he can produce in his basement workshop. So he borrows money and builds a mousetrap manufacturing plant. This plant hires employees to build the mousetraps. Now the inventor can satisfy the demand for mousetraps.

In building his factory the inventor has created economic demand. Buyers of mousetraps pay him money. He pays money to his workers. His workers spend the money to buy the things they need. Money is now flowing through the economic system. Everyone is prosperous and everyone is happy.

Then the mousetrap market is saturated. Everyone who wants a mousetrap has one. The buyers are all happy with their mousetraps. Unfortunately this means there is no longer a demand for the products made by the mousetrap factory. So the inventor has to lay off most of his workers and put the rest on half time. Being unemployed the workers no longer have money to spend on the things they need. Money is no longer flowing through the economic system. The economic system is now in a state of recession. If demand for other things decreases as well then the economy will enter a state of depression, as happened in the 1930s.

This process can be stopped if the mousetrap factory can be kept at full production. This can be done if the market for mousetraps is artificially stimulated. Heretofore all mousetraps have been produced in basic black. Now the inventor adds colored mousetraps. Advertising is used to convince people they need chartreuse, lime green and lemon colored mousetraps. The advertising works and now the mousetrap plant is back at full production. When this market is saturated the inventor makes subtle changes in the mousetrap. Advertising is used to convince people the old mousetrap is out of date and they must have the newest mode. So the mousetrap plant is kept busy, its employees are well paid, money is again flowing through the economic system, and everyone is happy.

Expand this to the national, or even the international level and you have an economic system where prosperity is maintained by convincing people to buy things they do not really need in order to provide jobs for people who then have money to spend. In such an economic system endless growth is necessary because the alternative to growth is economic collapse. And economic collapse is fatal for capitalism.

So now one begins to understand why there is so much resistance to the establishment of a sustainable economy. In a sustainable economy you are not going to be able to create jobs by producing things people do not really need and then convincing people to buy them. Since this is the basis of our presently existing free market money based economy it appears sustainability threatens the existence of a free market based money economy. Since individualism as we know it appears dependent on a free market money based economy it appears sustainability threatens individualism. And since Americans understand themselves as individuals it appears sustainability threatens how we see ourselves in relation to others. And since Americans are not going to give up seeing themselves as individuals the supporters of sustainability really do have a difficult problem on their hands.

Why Can’t We Do Anything About Peak Oil and Global Warming?

2008-08-15T11:42:00.001-04:00

One of the mysteries of the age is the public complacency concerning peak oil and global warming. The evidence is there. Both are extremely serious problems. They must be addressed immediately. The consequences of not doing so are serious. Yet the answers being promoted don’t begin to address the problem to be solved. The most prominent answer to peak oil is to drill for more oil and turn to coal. The answer to global warming is “clean coal”. We are told renewable sources of energy will not be viable until the second third of the century and then only if we are fortunate. Until then we must continue to use fossil fuels. That the fossil fuels may not be there is ignored. That global warming might be out of control by the end of the first third of the century if we don’t act now to reduce our use of fossil fuels is ignored. The public is in a state of denial.

The saddest fact is this state of denial is a result of the general public taking the evidence seriously. The public looks at the evidence scientists bring forth concerning peak oil and global warming. They know this evidence means drastic change in their way of life. So they begin to grieve the way of life to be lost. The first step in the grieving process is denial. So the general public looks at the evidence and goes into a state of denial. There is no way to avoid the state of denial. Change leads to grief, grief leads to denial. Before any progress can be made on either peak oil or global warming the public must move beyond this state of denial.

Scientists who wish to do something about peak oil and global warming often fail because they think the general public uses evidence the same way they do. Scientists use evidence to get to truth. Most members of the general public already have truth. This truth comes from faith in a particular system of belief. For the general public evidence merely confirms presently held beliefs. If evidence doesn’t confirm such beliefs it is ignored. Belief systems don’t change until reality hammers them really hard.

This means, simply put, many people won’t believe in peak oil until the price of gas goes to ten or even twelve dollars a gallon. Indeed some people may never believe in peak oil. And belief in global warming won’t become universal until the world average temperature actually increases by four degrees. Until then the tenaciousness of faith will make shaking faith by the use of evidence difficult to impossible. The evidence just isn’t strong enough.

Ultimately the problem here is that scientists are what they are and the general public is what it is. The scientist is in a quest for understanding. Since how we understand reality can change over time the scientist likes intellectual flexibility. Unfortunately the general public confuses belief with truth. This means the general public likes people who fight for what they believe in even when those beliefs are completely inaccurate descriptions of reality. Scientists just aren’t comfortable with closing their minds like that. But because scientists are not comfortable with presenting a closed mind to the public they come across as weak willed nerds and wassies. This ultimately is why so few people take peak oil and global warming seriously enough to do something about them.

The Democratic Presidential Primary is Not a College Basketball Game

2008-04-08T10:47:00.002-04:00

Last night Kansas beat Memphis for the NCAA Division One basketball championship. In this game Memphis lead by 9 points, 60-51, with 2:12 left. Kansas was able to close this gap because Memphis couldn’t make foul shots down the stretch. Tying the game as time ran out Kansas was able to win in overtime.

Hillary Clinton and her supporters want us to believe they are Kansas. Yes they are behind. Yes time is running out. But they are still within striking distance of winning. Why should they not be given the chance to win? Unfortunately for them they Democratic Party primary process is not a college basketball game. They simply cannot stage a comeback. At least not at a price either they or the party should be willing to pay.

If they had hit their foul shots Memphis would have won the game. If they had been able to trade baskets with Kansas Memphis would have won the game. Unfortunately for Hillary “trading baskets” is about all she can hope for down the stretch in the primary campaign. The proportional delegate allocation rules adopted by all the state Democratic parties insure this. Hillary simply cannot win big enough in the remaining primaries to make significant delegate gains on Obama. The system is set up to prevent this.

There is no way Hillary can prevent this outcome without hurting her chances in the general election campaign. She cannot afford to alienate Obama’s supporters. But in order to win the remaining primaries by margins large enough to gain on Obama’s delegate lead she must do exactly that. Showing she would make a better candidate or president simply is not going to be enough. She has to show Obama is another McGovern or Mondale, a candidate who has no hope of winning anywhere. Hillary can win only by destroying Obama as a presidential candidate. But his supporters are not likely to forgive her for doing this. So in destroying Obama she is destroying herself.

And this is one difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Kansas doesn’t have to worry about the support Memphis fans give its team later on. Hillary does have to worry about the support Obama’s supporters will give her later on. In the general election Hillary will need his support and theirs. Yet she cannot get to the general election unless she does things certain to alienate both him and them. A “catch 22” situation boding no good for the future of Hillary’s campaign.

Furthermore the party needs to get on with the general election campaign as soon as possible. This is another difference between the Democratic primaries and a college basketball game. Extending the game by fouling ones opponent may very will give the trailing basketball team victory. It obviously worked for Kansas. But the Democrats need this campaign to be over so their candidate presumptive, Barack Obama, can take on the Republican’s candidate presumptive, John McCain. The party cannot afford to have this campaign extended simply because Hillary hopes to stage a comeback. I realize quitters never win and winners never quit. In sports this works quite well. But the Democrats need Hillary to quit so the party can get on with its main task, defeating the Republicans lead by John McCain.

Political pundits like sports analogies. Seeing the Democratic primary contest as an athletic contest is satisfying to them. Unfortunately it is not. To see it so is misleading. In this case it misleads people into believing Hillary should be given a change to comeback and win. It is difficult to see how she can stage a comeback and damaging to the party for her to do so. This is why so many people are urging her to quit.

Why Roe vs Wade is Divisive

2008-01-23T13:22:00.000-05:00

Yesterday we marked the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade, the case that made abortion legal. Advocates of women’s rights see this as the capstone of the movement for women’s liberation. Those who believe human life begins at the moment of conception see Roe vs Wade as permitting mass murder on a scale not seen since the Nazis. And the real problem is both sides are correct. Absolutely correct.

The idea human life begins at the moment of conception becomes easier to defend with every advance in genetic science. If we are going to define humanity by reference to the human genome it is obvious a human being comes into existence at the moment its genome comes into existence. That is the moment a sperm cell enters an egg cell to form a human zygote. So while genetic science can’t prove human life begins at the moment of conception it leads to the conclusion the most inclusive definition of humanness is one, which requires us to conclude human life does begin at the moment of conception.

From this point the argument for the criminalization of both abortion and contraception comes forth with the precision of a mathematical proof. Given the humanness of the zygote we must conclude the entire growth process from one celled organism to fully developed adult is that of a human with full rights including the right to life. Since this life has done nothing to warrant death we must conclude killing it is wrong. Indeed we must conclude killing it is an act of murder since murder is defined as the taking of human life without justification. Punishing murders is a moral duty of the government. If government is not going to punish murderers why have a government at all? Abortion kills the unborn since they can’t live outside their mother’s bodies. Contraception kills by permitting the union of sperm and egg but not permitting the resulting conceptus to implant itself in the mother’s uterus.

So we have concluded the following: the pre-born are human, the pre-born are innocent. Abortion and contraception both kill the unborn. One of government’s primary moral duties is the punishment of those who kill other human beings. Therefore we must conclude one of the moral duties of those who hold authority over the government is to enact and enforce laws making both abortion and contraception illegal. QED.

In the above argument the only thing missing is he abode of all these pre-born human beings. They all live in the bodies of adult human females. So what happens of one of these women doesn’t want to remain pregnant? What happens if for some reason it is bad for a woman’s health for her to remain pregnant? We can’t simply transport the unwanted pre-born out of her body and into a willing one. That happens only on Star Trek. In the real world a pregnancy can end in only one of two ways. A woman either carries her pregnancy to birth or she has an abortion. If abortion is illegal then a woman is legally required to carry her pregnancy to term.

The dilemma of abortion is a law that protects the right to life of the pre-born and a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will is exactly the same law. You simply can’t pass a law which protects the right to life of the pre-born without passing a law that compels a woman to become and remain pregnant against her will. Can’t be done. The two laws are identical in effect. Removing the pre-born from their mother’s bodies kills them Therefore in order to protect their lives we must prevent that removal. But this is the same as using the government to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will. Sometimes this is the same as compelling a woman to remain pregnant even when it not healthy for her to do so. This is one reason why people of good will oppose laws against abortion.

Postmodern societies are feminist societies. Feminism requires legalized abortion. More to the point laws against abortion, especially laws against both abortion and contraception are laws that establish patriarchy as the preferred form of social organization. To force women to remain pregnant against their will is to restrict their role in society. Clearly society is giving men authority over women when says a woman’s ability to bear young is so important she can’t be allowed to terminate her own pregnancy. To say moral law requires this is just to make moral law itself patriarchal in character. The patriarchal leanings of all arguments against a woman’s right to abortion and contraception are the primary reason those who defend a woman’s right to choose claim their opponents advocate patriarchy.

Abortion is the most divisive of issues because we are dealing with two of a modern society’s most important needs and these needs are in direct and inescapable conflict. All societies must be based on commonly accepted moral principles. Natural Law is the best source of such moral principles. Natural Law labels both abortion and contraception evils of such magnitude as to compel government to outlaw them. But modern societies must be pro-feminist societies. They just can’t survive any other way. Feminists must have legalized abortion and contraception. There is just no way around it. But giving feminists what they need defies the laws of nature and nature’s God. There is just no getting around that either.

I Want You to Vote I Just Don’t Want You to Vote for My Opponent

2008-01-17T11:20:00.001-05:00

Nevada is holding caucuses to choose delegates to the Democratic national convention this Saturday. Interest is high so the party wants everyone who wants to participate in these caucuses to be able to do so. Since hotel and casino workers may not be able to get time of to go to their regular caucus site the party has created nine at--large caucus sites inside casinos. Everyone was comfortable with this until the culinary workers union, which represents the workers in these casinos, backed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Then the fecal matter hit the quickly revolving object.

A teacher’s union supporting Hillary Clinton, along with six Democrats, sued to stop the al-large caucuses. They claim the at-large caucuses allocate too many state convention delegates to one group. Now these people do have a point. They might well convince a judge to see things there way. But it is interesting they did not see the importance of this point until after the culinary worker’s union endorsed Obama. That makes it seem as if there real objection is not to the delegates themselves but to the person those delegates will be supporting.

It’s not as if this Nevada teachers union is the only group playing this game. Republicans play this game against Democrats also. Republicans insist photo voter id should be the only voter id acceptable in order to vote. Now this has the effect of disenfranchising poor and minority voters. These persons find obtaining photo id more difficult than do more affluent persons. Republicans, of course, claim the photo id is necessary in order to cut down on vote fraud. But research into vote fraud has found few instances of actual vote fraud. So one can conclude the purpose of laws requiring photo id is not to cut down on vote fraud. The real purpose of these laws is to cut down on the number of votes Democratic candidates receive.

One presumes the Nevada teachers union will support Democratic candidates in the general election. One presumes they will oppose any voter photo id law on the grounds that it disenfranchises the poor and minorities. But why should their opponents believe them. Aren’t they trying to do the same by objecting to the al-large caucuses in casinos? And doing so for the same reason Republicans insist on photo voter id; the fact the voters in question are likely to vote for a candidate they don’t support.

Politics: a game with one goal and no rules. And then we wonder why some people conclude democracy is not the best form of government.

What Part of the Concept of Peak Oil Does Bush Have Trouble With?

2008-01-15T11:40:00.001-05:00

President Bush in Saudi Arabia today called on OPEC to increase production before the world economy goes into recession. Of course this assumes OPEC and the Saudis have the ability to increase production. But if the idea oil production has reached its peak is true then OPEC and the Saudis do not have this ability.

The idea of oil production reaching a peak and then declining has been around in circles frequented by petroleum geologists for over thirty years. A petroleum geologist named M. King Hubbert correctly predicted oil production in the United States would peak around nineteen seventy. By the time I was in graduate school petroleum geologists were speculating on when world oil production would peak. Most experts in the field believe world oil production has either already peaked or is about to peak. If so then there is very little OPEC can do to increase oil production.

The time to begin thinking about the change to alternative fuels was thirty years ago. Unfortunately we turned our fate over to a devotee of austerity and when austerity became unpopular we turned to market idolatry. But markets simply do not reward really long term planning. Profit maximization requires concentrating on the short term. So we continued to remain dependent on oil because oil was cheap and plentiful. And now that oil is neither cheap nor plentiful we are in big trouble. And the lesson we can learn from this is simple: sometimes government is the solution rather than the problem.

In answer to the title question Bush has problems with the entire concept of peak oil. That is obvious.

Secularism and Morality

2008-01-14T22:40:00.000-05:00

As we saw several days ago secularists find truth by finding and studying facts. For secularists truth is a description of what nature does. Truth is the correspondence between our conception of things and things as the really are. We study facts in order to refine our conception of reality. In this way our conception of reality is closer to reality as it truly exists. We simplify this concept by saying truth requires proof and proof requires fact.

Unfortunately we cannot base value on fact. We cannot say what nature ought to do merely by describing what nature does. Moral values describe what nature ought to do. Moral values are just that; values. Since we cannot base value on fact secularists have a big problem with moral truth. Since there are no moral facts there can be any moral truths.

Secularists are often accused of moral relativity. The accusation is correct. To the secularist there is fact-based truth and there is opinion. Since there can be no fact based moral truths all moral truths are nothing more than personal opinion. For them to be other than personal opinion there would have to be reference to facts that all persons could interpret in the same way. Since people who speak of moral law cannot show the truth of moral law by reference to moral fact secularists conclude there are no moral laws. In this way they defend the idea truth requires proof and proof requires fact.

Secularists adopt this position because it helps to prevent the excesses caused by using the ends to justify the means. Demanding factual proof is a way to avoid the need to settle disputes by the use of force. Given the destructive power of force in the twenty-first century one can see why its use should be avoided wherever possible. Unfortunately for secularists this also is a moral position. There are no facts to justify it.

Why Bipartisanship is Dead

2008-01-12T08:03:00.000-05:00

Bipartisanship is in today. Much of the reason for Barack Obama’s rise is attributed to his willingness to work with those who disagree with him. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering a third party run for president based on the possibility both major party nominees will be too partisan. People wish for a return to the days of bipartisan solutions to problems instead of bipartisan gridlock. But you can’t always get what you wish for.

Bipartisanship worked because pragmatists dominated both major parties. While they may have had different conceptions of thought concerning the intellectualization of external reality these conceptions did not achieve the status of a theory of everything. They were therefore comfortable with the idea that what is true is what works. They were comfortable with Deng Xiaoping’s idea of a cat’s ability to catch mice being more important than the color of its fur. So despite their intellectual differences they could work together to solve problems.

Then along came the Reagan revolution. Over the succeeding years ideologues took over the Republican Party. An ideology is a theory of everything. Its truth is established by the faith its followers have in it. Since an ideology is a complete explanation of reality all solutions to all problems must conform to its understandings. To ideologists the color of the cat’s fur does matter. It matters because the color of the fur determines the cat’s ability to catch mice. This fact cannot be questioned. Faith in ideology proclaims its truth.

For ideologues compromise is impossible. What compromise can there be between truth and error. Since ideology gives truth all compromise is movement away from truth and towards error. Compromise is acceptable only if it forces those who reject the ideology in question to move closer to its position. So bipartisanship became a tool by which the country was moved in the direction favored by Conservative ideologues. Finally Republicans gained control of all three branches of government. At this point they were no longer interested in compromise because now they could impose their ideology by force. Because compromise had been used to shove the center to the right Left wing Democrats were no longer interested in bipartisanship either. They were tired of being used.

The lesson here is simple. You can have bipartisanship only if the leadership of both parties is dominated by pragmatists who are willing to see beyond the supposed truth of what they believe to be true. If one party’s leadership is composed of ideologues bipartisanship is impossible. Alas today electing a Democrat or independent who is willing to act in a bipartisan manner is the same as electing a Republican, and a conservative Republican at that. This will be the case so long as ideological conservatives dominate the Republican party. If this nation really wants change it is going to have to resign itself to electing a partisan Democrat. Sorry about that.

Is Barack Obama a Muslim?

2008-01-11T17:23:00.000-05:00

The idea Barack Obama is a Muslim is floating around that portion of the blogosphere where the Islamophobes live. They do have evidence. He did live in Indonesia for four years. He did go to school there. It does seem that on the records he was listed as a Muslim as that was the religion of his stepfather. This however would be a bureaucratic thing and not mean he actually was a Muslim. Furthermore they claim he did go to services in a mosque from time to time. They then stretch this out to imply he was an “infrequently practicing Muslim.” (Perhaps he went to church from time to time. Would this make him an infrequently practicing Christian? Could he be both at the same time like the Episcopal Priest in Seattle?) But there is one thing missing in all this evidence. They do not have an eyewitness to his saying the following words, or variants thereof, in front of witnesses: “there is no god apart from God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”

This is how one actually becomes a Muslim. What it says on elementary school enrollment papers does not matter. Whether one went to a Mosque as a child does not matter. The only thing that matters is proclaiming in front of witnesses that one believes Allah alone is God and Muhammad is the final messenger of God. That and that alone makes a person a Muslim. Since Obama never proclaimed his belief in Allah and Allah’s final message as proclaimed by Muhammad we may assume he was never a Muslim.

Now the practitioners of hysteria through fear of Islam would have us believe Obama would be ineffective as president because many Muslims would perceive him as being an apostate Muslim because of the information on his past. His life might even be in danger. Personally I don’t think they are about his life or his effectiveness. They simply want to use Islam to defeat him. Swift Boat Veterans for Truth two anyone?

People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones

2008-01-11T16:23:00.000-05:00

In this morning’s paper Michael Gerson gives us his view of the Republican presidential candidates. He criticizes Senator McCain for not embracing Republican theories of economic growth through tax cuts for the rich. He claims Romney is mean and lacking in mercy. He is concerned Mike Huckabee’s fair tax (30% national sales tax) plan will destroy his candidacy once the Democrats attack it. He wants Giuliani to give a creative agenda of reform. But reality stands in his way.

The Federal budget was in surplus when President Clinton left office. The deficit is larger now because of the Bush tax cuts and the Bush war in Iraq. Most of those 8 million new jobs are low paying ones. Most of the growth in the American economy over the past six years has gone to the rich just as Senator McCain has said. The middle class is worse off than when president Bush took office. We have been undergoing class warfare ever since Reagan took office and the rich have won a convincing victory. So much for the good done by embracing Republican theories of economic growth.

Romney is mean because mean wins. Has Gerson forgotten Willie Horton? Can he not remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Attack ads were a Republican invention. As the Republican ascendancy shows only all too well attack ads work. So does the Nixon silent-majority of bigotry playbook. The only difference here is Romney using these tactics against his fellow Republicans instead of helpless Democrats.

Granted Huckabee’s fair tax is a far worse tax proposal than usual. But not that much worse than the Republican favorite, the flat tax. Of all the Republican candidates Huckabee shows the most concern for the losers in the economic struggle of our time. This is the real reason the Republican establishment doesn’t like him. There only real objection to the fair tax is in it’s being so unfair it makes the game of beggaring the poor obvious.

Giuliani is expected to come up with creative ideas, which correspond to accepted Conservative ideology. And there is the problem; accepted conservative ideology. Ideologists are blind as bats and lacking in the sonar system which bats use instead of sight. Conservative ideology has caused the problems of today. We must therefore conclude Conservative ideology has failed. This is why the Republicans are in trouble. More loyalty to Conservative ideology is not going to help.

How Secularists Find Truth

2008-01-09T17:46:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I discussed why faith is dangerous. Today I shall look at an alternative to faith as a means of establishing truth. This alternative is fact. According to this way of establishing truth you cannot have truth without proof and you cannot have proof without fact. By using fact as the basis for truth one avoids the problem of not being able to deal with reality faced by the faithful.

Fact based truth is the kind of truth discovered by science. The scientist observes nature and gathers facts concerning it. These facts are used to form an hypothesis. New facts are gathered in order to test the hypothesis. If the hypothesis explains the facts the hypothesis is confirmed and becomes a theory. The theory is considered true until facts are discovered which cannot be explained by the theory. At this point the theory is revised until it fits all the known facts.

As one can see this is a far different method of establishing truth than that used by religious people. But it has a very serious flaw, one that makes its use by believers in traditional religion next to impossible. If there are no facts there is no proof. If there is no proof there is no truth. Since there is no proof for such basic principles of traditional religion as the existence of God those who declare fact is the only basis for truth are forced to conclude God does not exist. Indeed virtually none of the dogma of any traditional religion has a factual basis. So societies that decide to base truth upon proof and proof upon fact find they must reduce religion to a purely personal matter and act in public as if God did not exist.

This method of establishing truth is quite effective. We now know far more about reality than we did before we began establishing truth in this way. We can manipulate reality far more successfully than we did previously. Modern technological society is based on science. This means modern society is based on the idea truth requires proof and proof requires fact. And since a society, which concludes truth, requires proof and proof requires fact has no reason to conclude God exists such a society will push traditional religion to the margins. It will become secular.

The Problem With Faith

2008-01-08T11:13:00.001-05:00

The problem with religion is the problem of faith. The problem of faith is faith’s blindness. Faith is blind. That blindness is what causes problems with religious belief.

Faith is the belief a statements is true without any other reason to believe the statement is actually true. The faithful know the ideas they believe in are true. They just know it. They do not need reasons to believe. They can give rationalizations, sometimes good rationalizations, to defend their beliefs. But in the end they do not need these rationalizations. They know the ideas they believe in are true. They just know it.

Which causes problems when these ideas are inaccurate representations of reality as it actually exists. The faithful cannot face reality because they have no way of seeing reality. If one believes the ideas one believes in are true then to accept the ideas of others is to replace truth with error. Furthermore one cannot question the truth of the ideas one believes in without questioning the idea of faith. This means losing the confidence which the illusion of having certain knowledge gives. It is easier for the faithful to ignore reality until the pain of doing so becomes so hard to bear as to make ignoring reality impossible.

The blindness of faith is what makes ideology so dangerous. No ideology is a perfect description of reality as it actually exists. So at some point the ideologue must attempt to force reality to conform to the teachings of a particular ideology. When reality refuses to do so, and reality almost always refuses to do so, the ideologue is in trouble. If ideologues hold positions of political power then the people over which the ideologues hold power are it trouble. Ideologues simply cannot admit they are wrong. Their sense of self worth requires their ideology to be an absolutely correct description of reality.

Many of the problems facing the United States today come from the fact the conservative movement which has held power over the past seven years is an ideologically based movement. In recent years, as the fallacies of their ideology have become more apparent, they have tried to force reality to obey the teachings of the ideology. Today’s Republicans are blind. They are blind because they are ideologues. They are blind because they have replaced wisdom with faith. And faith is blind.

What is the Difference?

2008-01-06T19:25:00.001-05:00

Let’s look at the following statements:

We must stop the sun from coming up in the morning.
We must stop illegal immigration.

In what way are they the same? In what way are they different?

Their similarity is their impossibility. They are different in that the impossibility is far less obvious for the second statement. That we cannot stop the sun from coming up in the morning is trivially obvious. But we should be able to enforce laws against illegal immigration. But in reality we can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop the sun from coming up. So long as life is perceived as better on our side of the border people will try to cross it even if they must do so illegally. So long as the jobs are better on our side of the border people will try to cross it. So long as they have family members on this side of the border they will try to cross it. We cannot stop people from illegally crossing the border. No matter how much effort and resources we put into the effort there will still be illegal immigration. We can no more stop illegal immigration than we can stop the sun from coming up in the morning.

This is why rational people support amnesty. This is why rational people support guest worker programs. This is why rational people support giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses. We just have to make the best we can of a situation we are powerless to change.

There is one other important difference between these two statements. If one is serious in wanting to be the Republican nominee for President in 2008 one had better believe it is possible to stop illegal immigration. The voters in Republican primaries expect and demand no less. If a candidate were to dare to even suggest the impossibility of enforcing laws against immigration that candidate would fine he has no support. So we can continue to hear Republican candidates for President speak as if stopping illegal immigration can actually be done.

This is why the rational people of this planet are looking for a planet to immigrate to. Reason is clearly a lost cause on this one.

The Problem With Theocracy

2007-07-27T07:29:00.000-04:00

Theocracy has become a popular idea as a proper form of government. It is easy to see its appeal. What better ruler could their possible be than one who is all-powerful, all wise, and totally good. Unfortunately the ruler in question is a terrible communicator. We don’t even know for certain that He exists. His will is a thing we must discern from Scriptures, which are inconsistent with each other both internally and externally. When He does speak to individuals He does it in a way that makes it impossible for others to know if He has actually spoken to the person in question.

For these reasons, and I suspect others can be added to this list, Theocracy in practice is a terrible form of government. Claims to understanding God’s will are subject to misuse in order to support the agenda and power grabbing of particular individuals and groups. Oppression of those who disagree with the holders of absolute power becomes the norm. God becomes a brute responsible for all sorts of evil. Like it or not, and there are clearly those among the believers who don’t like it, temporal government can’t be a solution to the problem of evil.

At this point it is appropriate to quote the parable of the wheat and weeds. As told by Matthew it reads as follows

“ The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep an enemies came and sowed weeds among the wheat and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field.? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until t he harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind t hem in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”
(Matthew 13:24-30 NRSV)

The point of this parable for theocrats should be obvious. The wheat represents good people and the weeds represents bad people. The householder is God; and advocates of theocracy are the slaves. The idea behind theocracy is the use of the power of the state to reward good people and punish bad people. But you can’t use the power of the state to punish bad people without the risk of things getting out of control. When it gets out of control good people will be harmed. So the lesson of this parable is the impossibility of creating perfection on earth. Certainly perfection on earth can’t be accomplished by use of the police power of the state. So much for theocracy in practice.

The above should serve as a warning for Christian theocrats. And since Jesus is a very important prophet for Muslims, it should serve as a warning for Muslims as well.

Are We Winning the War on Terror?

2007-07-18T08:31:00.000-04:00

Reports tell us Al-Qaida is stronger than ever. Six years ago Al-Qaida in Iraq did not exist. So much for the success of the War on Terror.

There are two ways of fighting the so-called War on Terror. One is the way of Elephant like Strength through Force. The Army invades and occupies. The residents of the occupied country accept their fate. They live in peace with the conquering army because they know they can do nothing to defeat it. Shock and Awe brings peace to all.

The other is the way of Lilly Livered Yellow Bellied Feminized Surrender Monkeys. This relies on police work to find the terrorists before they strike. Increased security decreases the opportunity for them to strike. Dialogue with those among the terrorists co-religionists who would live in peace even if they disagree with us on other important things decreases the number of potential terrorists. When we do invade a country we stay until the job is done instead of moving most of our strength off to invade another country.

We re beginning to see which method really works. At the very least we see which method does not. So much for the way of the Elephant. Strength Through Force is clearly not working.

Moderation in Religion Part 2

2007-07-17T10:16:00.000-04:00

Yesterday we saw unquestioning faith was necessary for strong belief. But unquestioning faith is dangerous. By faith we can move mountains. And by faith we can bring down skyscrapers. With hijacked planes. Skyscrapers with people in them. This is not the kind of thing we should encourage. Alas we can’t discourage it by weakening the faith of those who do it.

We say we want moderation in religion. But we want moderation in religion as a means to an end. What we want is an end to the truly evil things people do in the name of religion. We think we can do this by convincing people to question their religious beliefs. But people aren’t going to willingly question their most fundamental religious beliefs. In any case their beliefs aren’t the problem. It’s the things they do that are the problem. What we want is for them to see the things they do as the truly evil things they are.

Religion gives people the highest possible ends. With the highest possible ends comes rationalization for the lowest possible means. Means so evil they would otherwise be seen for what they are can be rationalized because the act is being done for the service of good. Here the ends truly justify the means. This is what makes religious fanatics the danger they are. A religious fanatic sees the ends as so holy righteous and just that the evilness of the means no longer matters.

Dealing with religious fanaticism means getting the religious fanatic to see the evilness of the means makes the ends evil as well. Some means are so evil they can’t be used regardless of the consequences of not using them. Moderation in religion means recognizing that the ends don’t always justify the means. The religious moderate is a person who realizes some prices are simply to high to be paid. Moderation in religion does not mean questioning one’s religious truths. Moderation in religion means accepting that not everyone will accept your truth claims and that there are limits as to what can be done to change their minds.

Moderation in Religion Part 1

2007-07-16T11:30:00.001-04:00

The search for the moderate Muslim continues. As noted Saturday not everyone is interest in finding the moderate Muslim. For some people the existence of moderate Muslims would interfere with their goals. Those who work in the visual media find the angry Muslim far more interesting. He, after all, shows emotion. The moderate Muslim is just a talking head. But the primary difficulty facing the search for the moderate Muslim is the whole question of moderation in religion.

The problem of moderate religion is one of proving religious truth. In the intellectual world in which we live truth requires proof and proof requires fact. All facts come from evidence perceivable by our senses. So in the intellectual world in which we live you cannot say you have truth if you do not have material evidence. Since there is no conclusive material evidence for even the existence of God the faithful are in deep intellectual trouble. The religious claim to have truth but they do not have facts. Nor does there seem any way they can get the necessary facts.

All religion has an emotional component. That component is necessary in order to overcome the difficulty described above. The faithful believe in things for which there are no evidence. Therefore their faith must transcend reason and take them to a world where they can reason from first principles, which are not based on factual evidence. Since the first principles of any particular religion cannot be proven false they cannot be proven true. Since these principles cannot be proven true emotion must be used in order to convince oneself these principles are true even though there is no proof of their truth. And the stronger that emotion is the more devout one is going to be.

Here is the problem with moderation in religion, as it is commonly understood. Moderate religion is less fervent than intense religion. To the truly faithful the moderately religious seem weak. Religious moderates are perceived as not having as much faith as the devout. And since emotion is the primary means by which a religion defends itself from its enemies moderation in religion can even be seen as apostasy from the religion in question. So the fervent in religion, the very people religious moderates are trying to reach, have every reason to reject moderation in religion.

This is why the search for the moderate Muslim is so difficult. Immoderate religion markets much better than moderate religion. This is true for all religions not just Islam. Immoderate religion sells because fervency strengthens faith and moderation weakens faith. And faith is what makes a religion strong. Faith is what makes a religion popular. Unfortunately faith is also what can make a religion dangerous.

Why They Hate Us, Muslim View

2007-07-14T12:13:00.000-04:00

That the hard right is in deep trouble is obvious. They can’t run on their record. Their record is one of failure such as Americans before today would not believe was possible. They started a war we cannot win but cannot end. It sucks the wealth of the nation into it with no end in sight. They refuse to put their own wealth or the lives of their children at risk by calling for a draft and higher taxes even as they claim this is a life and death struggle against an implacable enemy. Their economic policy, based on the idea greed is the greatest of all virtues, has left the nation in debt both individually and collectively. Their foreign policy has left the nation hated in foreign lands as never before. These failures spell their doom and they know it.

Meaning the hard right is reduced to its last hope for success. Fear. Fear, in order to be an effective motivator, must have an object. There must be something to cause fear. This something must be an effective motivator People must be so afraid of the object of fear they will leave go of their senses and do things they would not otherwise do. In this case fear must motivate people to vote for the incompetents responsible for the state of affairs listed above. This is going to take some doing.

So the hard right is busy promoting Islamophobia, fear of Islam. It is easy to see the basis for this fear. Yes most all acts of terrorism since September 11, 2001 have been caused by Muslims acting in what they claim is the name of Islam. This does not mean Islam causes terrorism. Nor does it mean all Muslims are terrorists. This does not mean we can’t talk to Muslims, even so-called Islamists. Islam is a very complex religion. Great understanding is needed. But the hard right is not interested in understanding. It is interested in something else.

We know this because any time anyone has a kind word to say for Islam or Muslims the hard right goes into attack mode. People who have kind words to say to Muslims or Islam, people who are trying to understand the complexity of the situation, are labeled dupes and traitors. They are naive and must be ignored. Only people who understand that all Muslims are a threat should be listened to. Unless you believe Islam is evil and must be destroyed you are a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. At least not in the eyes of the hard right.

This attitude could lead to a war no one wants; a war of genocide against all Muslims. This may not be the hard right’s intent. Still they are doing things which increase the possibility of this happening. They are opposing those who would avoid it. But of course if such a war were to come to pass we would need leaders to lead us in the fight. And the leaders of the hard right would then offer themselves. This they wouldn’t mind in the least. So while we can’t prove the purpose of Islamophobia is to keep the hard right in power we can’t disprove this claim either.

Moderates vs Extremists

2007-04-08T18:39:00.000-04:00

What makes a moderate a moderate? What makes an extremist an extremist/ The difference is in their attitude towards the idea that the ends justify the means.

For the extremist the ends always justify the means. No matter how evil the means the goodness of the ends makes the means justified. The greatest good justifies the evilest of means. This is what is meant by bearing any burden and paying any price in order to reach a goal. Set the goal. Do not question how the goal is achieved. This is the extremist creed.

For the moderate there are means which are simply not justified by any ends whatsoever. There are acts so evil they must simply not be done. For the moderate is is better not to achieve the goal than to achieve the goal through evil means. For the moderate there are burdens which simply must not be borne; prices which simply must not be paid. For the moderate evil is evil. You cannot justify doing evil by the good which may result.

Extremists do not like moderates. To the extremist the moderate is a coward. To the extremist the moderate is a wimp. To the extremist the moderate is weak. Those who are willing to accept failure rather than pay the price for success simply must not be listened to. Their views must be ignored.

Nor do moderates like extremists. To the moderate the extremist is dangerous. At his worst, claims the moderate, the extremist can be truly evil. To the moderate some cures really are worse than the disease. The moderate is concerned about the price of success. The moderate asks whether the village really was saved if trying to save it lead to its destruction? Was trying to create heaven on earth worth it if hell on earth was the result? To the moderate those who consider asking such questions a sign of weakness and cowardice are among the most dangerous people who ever walked the earth.

The most critical battle is not between the Muslim and the non-Muslim. Nor is it between West and East or Republican and Democrat. The truly important battle is between moderate and extremist. The question is what price should be paid for success? is it possible for sucvcess to cost more than can be paid?

Why the Animosity to Religion, part 1

2007-02-24T14:15:00.000-05:00

Time was when the less faithful would at least tolerate those who had faith. That day has passed. Today the faithless have just as much animosity towards those who have faith as the faithful have towards the faithless. Indeed one reason for our highly polarized political life is that the animosity of the faithful, who are mostly Republicans is returned at full strength by the faithless, who are mostly Democrats. How did we come to this point?

911 for one thing. On September 11, 2001 we all watched in horror as the towers of the World Trade Center came down. They were brought down by men who acted in the name of Allah. Now some people blame Islam for this event. But some go farther and blame the idea of faith for it. The event itself was evil. It was done in the name of God. It was done by men who could never be convinced God did not endorse it. So we must conclude either God is evil or the men who were behind 911 are deluded fools. Either way faith has been exposed as wishful thinking. Dangerous wishful thinking. 911 the best advertisement atheism has ever had.

The question here involves the certainty of knowledge. Faith creates the illusion we have certainty of knowledge. But in reality there is no such thing as certainty of knowledge. All wise persons live with some degree of doubt. Doubt simply reflects our realization there is in reality no such thing as certainty of knowledge. It is only through doubt in what we presently know that we can grow in wisdom and knowledge. If we do not doubt we can never become wise. But doubt is not popular. Through faith we can rid ourselves of doubt. But in ridding ourselves of doubt we replace reality with illusion. Since we are no longer able to question our view of reality we cannot know when it is in error. Eventually reality retaliates against those who ignore it. And people of faith are always ignoring reality. How could it be otherwise? Understanding reality as it is requires doubt. And the purpose of faith is to eliminate doubt.

So here is one reason for the existing animosity to religion. Believing in any religion requires faith. Which means belief in any religion brings to the believer all the disadvantages of faith.
The faithful become arrogant. The faithful come to believe the holiest of ends justify the vilest of means. And those who disagree with them come to act the same. How could they not?

Does al-Qaeda care?

2007-02-23T16:07:00.000-05:00

Those who support the war in Iraq claim opposition to the surge motivates our enemies to fight us all the harder. Weakening our resolve is supposed to be a part of the al-qaeda strategy for defeating us. But this is not true.

Al-Qaeda hates us. They will continue to hate us whatever we do. They don't care if we stay in Iraq or not. Indeed it would prefer we stayed in Iraq. We are easier to hit there and everything we do to defeat it in Iraq simply creates more supporters for it. Indeed to the extent that staying the course President Bush has put us on makes us hated the more al-Qaeda likes it.

Let's understand something. Let's understand it well. The enemy doesn't care what we do. He is not listening to our debates over how to defeat him. He is not strengthened by those who argue for what are sometimes called defeatist strategies. The enemy does not care if our resolve is strong or weak. The enemy does not care what Congress does. He does not care what the President does. Exhibiting strength does not awe him. Exhibiting weakness does not encourage him. The only thing the enemy cares about is our acceptance of his claim Allah has give to him alone the right to rule over all of us. We can either accept that claim or go to hell. And that as they say is that.

Oppose the Foot and Mouth Disease solution for Terrorism

2007-02-21T11:11:00.000-05:00

What is the Foot and Mouth Disease solution for terrorism? If there were no Islam there would be no Islamic terrorism. And how do we insure there is no Islam? We kill all the potential carriers of the "Islamic virus." Which means killing all Muslims. Which means committing genocide against all Muslims. One must note the proponents of this strategy have yet to actually endorse genocide. But how else can they achieve their goal?

We call this the Foot and Mouth disease solution because it is similar to the way in which Foot and Mouth disease is controlled. Foot and Mouth disease is a contagious disease which affects hoofed farm animals. The disease is not fatal but does spread rapidly. To limit the spread of the disease it is standard practice to destroy all infected animals as well as animals subject to infection in the area of an outbreak. While killing these animals is hard on them doing so does lessen the economic damage done by an outbreak. It is therefore standard practice.

On the Islamophobic right advocating the same solution to the problem of terrorism is common. Indeed once one comes to the conclusion there can be no such thing as a moderate, or non-violent Muslim, it is inevitable. If we cannot reason with these people or trust these people, if we must kill them before they kill us then we must commit genocide in order to survive. Since those on the Islamophobic right condemn anyone who suggests we can reason with the enemy, talk to the enemy, negotiate with the enemy and avoid killing the enemy before he kills us as allies of the enemy it is obvious what their policy really and truly is. It is genocide.

The purpose of this blog

2007-02-02T10:07:00.000-05:00

And that skunk sure does stink. Because it is dead. It was killed by all the drivers on the left and right who didn't see it. They were so caught up in their ideologies they couldn't see reality was not what they believed it was. Most of them didn't even care. After all, some on the right side argued, we make the realities to which others must adapt. Meanwhile some on the left side claimed there was no such thing as reality. Reality was something made up by the oppressors to rationalize oppression. Soon both sides came to believe the ends justify the means. Since both sides believed theirs was the best of ends they could rationalize most horrible of means. This blog means to expose such fanaticism for the danger it is. It does have its work cut out.