Ancient Chinese Thought for the Day

"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished...The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tse

Beliefs and Theories: Religion vs. Science

Many years ago, I read Paul Watzlawick's How Real Is Real, which made a great point about the difference between belief and opinion.

Basically, a person's beliefs are immutable. A person will die before they change their beliefs. On the other hand, opinions can change over the course of a lifetime. Even the strongest opinions can be changed. (I am paraphrasing from memory as I could not find my copy of the book if my life depended on it.)

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal had a quote today that reminded me of Watzlawick's book:

...science-minded people often scoff at those who do not "believe in evolution." The problem with this is not that they are wrong to defend evolution, but that they mistake evolution, a scientific theory, for a belief system. When you demand adherence to a set of beliefs, you are no longer doing science but something that has the form, if not the substance, of religion.

Too often, we tend to give science too much credit. In essence, we give science a blind faith that is undeserved, and frequently not even sought by the scientists involved.

When someone says, "I have a theory...", you will listen and give the person's supposition a fair hearing, usually accepting or rejecting said "theory" on it's own merits or demerits, with some weight lent to the person's credibility. But let a scientist give you a theory, and most people will more likely than not accept it on faith.

Let more than one scientist espouse a theory, and most people will take it as if Moses came down from the mountain holding tablets. It becomes gospel at that point.

I apologize for the religious terminology, but therein lies the problem: Too many people treat science as a religion.

Ironically, both science and religion have their theories. For example, is the Creation story a myth or a fact? Even among different religions, there is no agreement on this subject. If asked about this, most scientists would give you the "Big Bang Theory", or the "Evolution Theory", as explanations of how the world came to be. The problem in this discussion is that neither science nor religion have conclusive proof to back up their respective claims. That said, I personally lend more credence to science in this debate, but that is my OPINION.

When science gives you a theory, it should be remembered it is exactly that: a theory, to be judged on it's own merits or demerits.

If your religion told you that you needed to do something that wasn't logical, would you question why? If they came back with "God said so", that might be good enough, although I personally would want a little more than that. I might need philosophical backup to support my religion's belief. Even then, it might not hit my personal belief system, and remain limited to my opinion system. In other words, I would retain my doubts.

So when science tells you that you need to do something, would you question it? If they tell you "studies show...", would you immediately change your life? For many, the answer is a blind yes.

But what happens when later scientific studies disprove the original studies? You would think "once burned, twice shy" would apply to our views of science, yet how many times have scientific theories, backed up by studies, later get overturned, yet we continue to lend blind faith to science?

Even worse, what happens when scientists fudge the data, then hide the data, while using political machinations to keep opposing scientists from proving them wrong, as recently happened with the Global Warming theory? I am amazed that there are STILL people who believe the flawed theory of Global Warming blindly.

If you don't believe me, just visit Copenhagen this week.

Debt? What debt?

"Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren...America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." - Barack Obama in 2006

I guess the federal debt is only a problem if you aren't the president? Otherwise...party on dudes! The tab is on "them"!




(quote from the Wall Street Journal website)

Why the U.S. will fail in Afghanistan

I can predict the failure in Afghanistan in two important quotes.

First, from SunTzu, the ancient Chinese military philosopher and author of "The Art of War":

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

Second, from General Stanley McChrystal (the U.S. commander in Afghanistan), during Congressional testimony on Tuesday, December 8th (also as quoted by Slate's Fred Kaplan):

There is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand.

Fox News and Climategate Killed Big Journalism

“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” - Jon Stewart

What is sad in the above comment is the fact a comedian is discussing a scandal BEFORE ABC, CBS, or NBC news have even mentioned it. And they have yet to mention Climategate.

How does a scandal, that involves a scientific theory driving government policy decisions all over the world, get ignored by a major news organization? There was a time when any news editor worth anything would have been utterly ashamed to get scooped by another news organization on a major story, yet these organizations continue to ignore this story even AFTER Congressional investigations have been requested. How can this be?

There is only one answer, and it isn't pretty: The news media is no longer employing journalists. They employ propagandists. If you want to see or read journalism, look to the Internet.

I blame Fox News for this. The irony is that it wasn't Fox News Corp's NEWS shows that did it: It was their opinion shows. Whenever you hear Leftists talk about the evil of Fox News, they always mention the opinion shows: Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. And since Fox News gets the ratings, all the other news shows look to duplicate Fox's success.

But when you look at network news shows, they USED to be strictly about reporting the news. But they saw Fox's OPINION show success, and they sought to duplicate it. Unfortunately, the network news was filled with Left-leaning journalists, so they jazzed up the network news with Left-leaning opinions. Unfortunately, it didn't help their ratings, and made news anchors like Bret Hume seem absolutely objective.

By the time of Climategate, the network news was so beholden to the Left, they couldn't even report a news story they would have been tripping over themselves to get thirty years ago.

But now they have been scooped by a comedy show, which leaves the average viewer to look upon the naked kings and see them for what they really are: propaganda arms for big corporations who spew Leftist altruism in order to secure their own power.

Contrary to what the average news consumer has been told, the science behind Global Warming theory has NOT been settled, since it was never actually reviewed. Regardless of whether Global Warming is true or not, the news consumer can look upon the news purveyors with a critical eye, and see the naked bias.

What worries me is HOW the news consumer will choose to interpret this event. Will they merely turn away from the liberal news organizations who lied to them? Of course, but then...do they turn JUST to Fox News for telling the truth? I suspect many of them will. However, I personally hope they use this event to teach them to view news stories with a discriminating eye. Never trust any single news source on it's own.

The irony in the case of Climategate is that it is a news story at all. Anyone with a brain in their head could see the great flaw in Global Warming theory. It doesn't take into account the heating and cooling of the single greatest source of "global warming": the sun.

Unfortunately, big media put all their eggs in the Global Warming basket, and to report that it might be wrong would make them look like what they are: fools. So rather than report something that makes them look wrong, they choose to ignore the story and hope nobody notices. Maybe they are right. Just speaking for myself, it has been years since I watched a network news broadcast.

Quote of the Day: Social Justice

"Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for?" - Thomas Sowell

The Light Bulb on Climategate

Anyone out there still under the anthropogenic Global Warming delusion?

It may be difficult to come to terms with the fact you have been duped by some climate scientists, but as the Washington Post reports:

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

...In one e-mail, the [Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia's] director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

And these are just a few examples for the public to wrap their heads around. Yes folks, the science is not only "not settled", it has had a huge hole blown in it by the simple fact that scientists were using every political means available to them to silence detractors, from intentionally keeping the data used for their research away from potentially skeptical researchers, to applying pressure to peer-review journals to keep the opposing research from being seen.

But don't feel bad. Here's the first Climategate joke from James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal:

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.

Stop the country! I wanna get off!

Headlines from Drudge:

Climategate: 'Greatest scandal in modern science'...
Call for Congressional investigation...
Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers...

And the pièce de résistance:

Obama: 'Step closer' to climate deal...

Can our glorious leader be any more clueless? NO HE CAN'T!

Global Warming and Prostitution

“Climate change could reduce income from farming and fishing, possibly driving some women into sex work and thereby increase HIV infection." - Suneeta Mukherjee, Philippine representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund

What is funny about the inherent stupidity of that comment, is the article (link here) which includes it actually gives the REAL problem causing the high levels of prostitution in the Philippines:

Of the 92 million Filipinos, about 60 percent are living in coastal areas and depend on the seas for livelihood, said former Environment secretary Dr. Angel Alcala.

Alcala said that “we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our marine environment."

But as the sea’s resources are depleted due to overpopulation and overfishing, fishermen start losing their livelihood and women are forced to share the traditional role of the man in providing for the family.

So explain how "overpopulation and overfishing" are caused by the myth of anthropogenic Global Warming?

Actually, I have figured out one side effect of Global Warming: It fries people's brains. Unfortunately, it is not the heat, but rather the inherent stupidity of the concept of Global Warming.

The American Principate

I was reading about the Roman Emperor Alexander Severus on Wikipedia, who was noted as the last emperor of the Roman Empire's Principate period. What struck me was the significance of the Principate period (from Wikipedia):

"The Principate is characterized by a concerted effort on the part of the Emperors to preserve the illusion of the formal continuance of the Roman Republic."

After the Principate, Ancient Rome went through nearly a century of upheaval, before it entered the period of the Dominate, which was the "despotic" last phase of Ancient Rome.

As I watch the United States government continue, with impunity, to erode the rights of Americans, it occurs to me we are living through the American Principate, where our government is characterized by a concerted effort on the part of our political oligarchs to preserve the illusion of the formal continuance of the American Republic.

Knowing the history of Ancient Rome, I have to wonder: Who will be the American "Alexander Severus"? Based on Alexander's biography, Obama certainly fits the bill in one respect:

"...when campaigning against...Germania, Alexander Severus apparently alienated his legions by trying diplomacy and bribery, and they assassinated him."

However, on the whole, Obama's reign doesn't resemble Alexander's:

"The luxury and extravagance that had formerly been so prevalent at the court were put down; the standard of the coinage was raised; taxes were lightened; literature, art and science were encouraged; the lot of the soldiers was improved; and, for the convenience of the people, loan offices were instituted for lending money at a moderate rate of interest."

All things considered, I suspect we have at least another leader or more to go before we reach the end of our government's pretense of republicanism. But with Obama's ineptitude, I may be surprised sooner.

Break America Now!

A simple question for everyone: Regardless of your political persuasion or ideology, regardless of where you live, regardless of your religious or personal philosophy, what do you think the odds are of the U.S. government doing what YOU believe is right, in your lifetime?

If you are liberal, do you honestly think the U.S. will stop fighting wars in oil countries? Consider the fact we have the most liberal president since Jimmy Carter in office now, and we are STILL in Afghanistan and Iraq. LBJ's "military-industrial complex" is alive and well, and will continue to be around for the rest of our lives.

If you are a social conservative, do you honestly think you will see a legal ban on abortion? Until Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it is not happening. You will never get enough votes for a Constitutional Amendment.

If you are a fiscal conservative, do you honestly think the U.S. government will ever show any kind of fiscal responsibility? Sorry to dash your hopes, but as long as there are sheep who will vote for any buffoon who brings home the pork, the government punch bowl will continue to overflow with other people's money, including yours. As long as we have a Federal Reserve which will happily enable our legislative spending habits, the party will continue, and you and your children will pay the tab.

If you are a civil rights liberal, I have one word for you: Guantanamo. And I bet you are loving the prospect of people being jailed for not having health insurance! I have some more news for you: These violations will not end, as our federal government gets more power.

If you are a socialist, you may get your dream of universal health care, but it will look more like Britain than some of the smaller European countries, simply because we don't have enough health care providers to take care of 300 million people. So you will get higher taxes, long waits, and STILL have poor quality health care. Since the wealthy will go outside the system for their health care, you STILL won't have "equality".

Frankly, unless you long for the good old days of the old Soviet Union, odds are you are not happy about something the U.S. government is doing. You can expect to be that way for a long time, because no matter what you want, there is someone else who doesn't want it. THAT is why state's rights are important.

THAT is why secession from the union is more important now than ever before.

Mulling "Rogue"

With the release of Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue, I do have some thoughts on her.

Overall, there are some things I like about her (she seems to be a small government conservative), and other things I dislike (her fundamentalist beliefs make me question how fiscally conservative she truly is, since most fundamentalists have no problem with using government to their own ends, much like liberals).

During last year's election, I found it humorous how political pundits basically classified her as a rube, while promoting a presidential candidate with even less experience than Palin. I think we would do better with the rube in the White House, since the intellectually elitist Obama has proven to be a complete failure.

But that was never the choice, which is why the Republican ticket lost. John McCain had the taint of Washington on him, as he flip-flopped and nuanced his way to a loss. While Palin made plenty of mistakes, I can't look at them and say I wouldn't have made a few of them myself. McCain's mistakes were in their subtlety, whereas Palin's mistakes were more from her brutal honesty.

One can question whether Palin is smart enough to be president, and one can question her qualifications based on specific issues, but I don't think one can disqualify her based on honesty.

Marxism of the Night

I had "Marxism of the Day" before, so this was only appropriate...

From A Night at the Opera, the infamous contract scene:

Chico: Hey, wait, wait. What does this say here, this thing here?
Groucho: Oh, that? Oh, that's the usual clause that's in every contract. That just says, uh, it says, uh, if any of the parties participating in this contract are shown not to be in their right mind, the entire agreement is automatically nullified.
Chico: Well, I don't know...
Groucho: It's all right. That's, that's in every contract. That's, that's what they call a sanity clause.
Chico: Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You can't fool me. There ain't no Sanity Clause!

(hat tip to Wikipedia)

The Death of Capitalism

A poll from the BBC signifies the end of free market capitalism, and the rise of centralized government power:

"Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC poll has found widespread dissatisfaction with free-market capitalism.

In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it was working well."

With the death of capitalism also comes the death of freedom. Perhaps not yet, but it is only a matter of time. Once government controls the means of production, and the world's people have forgotten that free market capitalism IS the means of production, then what is to stop the government from going further?

If I can make you work WHEN I want, HOW I want, and for HOW MUCH I think you should make, why should I stop there? Once I have this control over your life, what other controls can I apply to you?

Free market capitalism allows you to do ANY job you want and are capable of doing, and make however much money other people are willing to pay you for it. Now if I can make you believe THAT is a bad thing, I do believe I can make you believe anything!

Freedom of religion? Separation of church and state fixed that. We have a new religion in town: secularism.

Freedom of the press? The press is already dead. Heck, they LOVE this idea anyway!

Freedom of speech? We will need to control the internet. After that, we may have the perfect totalitarian state.

I know, you'll say "How does the death of free market capitalism lead to all this?" Just consider who will make ALL economic decisions? The government, of course. And since you have already allowed them to control your economic lives, why on Earth do you think they would stop there? Just because they used altruism to sell you this pile of manure, don't think they actually practice it!

I can hear the politician whispering the sweet nothings in your ear now, "You are fallible. You make mistakes. Let me take care of you. Life will be so much easier..."

Free Trade vs. Protectionism

"If Joe the American sells blankets to Mary the American for $15 each, and if an opening to trade allows Mary to buy Chinese blankets for $5 each, then three things happen:

1. Mary is better off by $10.
2. Joe is worse off by at most $10—because Joe can always match the Chinese price if he wants to, taking a $10 hit. On the other hand, he also has the option of getting out of the blanket business, which he’ll choose only if he prefers it to taking that hit.
3. Frieda, another American, who might not have been willing to pay $15 for a blanket, picks up a Chinese blanket for $5 and goes to bed warm tonight.

Of these, only the second effect is bad for Americans, and it’s got to be outweighed (or at least matched) by the first effect. The third effect is pure gravy." - from Steve Landsburg's website, thebigquestions.com

Using this example, the protectionist argument says we need to protect Joe. Unfortunately, protectionists only have two hammers for this nail: tariffs and "buy American".

Tariffs, as we have learned from the historic example of Smoot-Hawley, only lead to tariffs against us. In other words, we protect domestic production at the expense of exporting production. It is a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite your face.

As for the alternative protectionist strategy of "buy American", it completely ignores Frieda, and forces Mary to spend more than she otherwise would have. Since we live in a free country, then "buy American" is a meaningless appeal to patriotism, which usually falls on deaf ears when a consumer is forced to make hard economic choices (i.e. spend $5 vs. $15) for two comparable products.

Instead, protectionists should look towards the roadblocks which our government has put in front of our manufacturing sector:

1. The Minimum Wage: Fortunately, dollar inflation is about to make the minimum wage irrelevant soon. But what purpose does it serve? No one would work for less money than they need to live. The minimum wage is a "feel good" law that only screws up the economy by artificially inflating wages.

2. Corporate Taxes: The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world (only Japan has higher). Next time you want to complain about companies moving operations overseas, or complain about the death of American manufacturing, why don't you spend some time complaining about corporate taxes FIRST? On a related note, you do realize that corporate taxes only get passed along to consumers in higher prices?

3. Environmental Regulations: While I won't say that all environmental regulations are bad or unnecessary, can you honestly say you know and understand the environmental requirements of our corporations? Of course you don't. Like most voters, you simply assume that the government wouldn't make an environmental regulation if it wasn't necessary, or at the very least beneficial in some respect.

I won't say that any of the above three items is the only reason we can't compete, but you can't have all of them and expect to be able to compete with other countries who don't hamstring their manufacturing sectors like we do.

Money for Nothing

“I think the general broad principle is simply that people who are paying for their own expenses aren't subsidizing folks who simply choose not to until they need money and then suddenly they expect free money. That's -- that's basic concept of responsibility that I think most Americans abide by...penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their expenses.” - Barack Obama

Actually, Barack Obama did NOT say that. I took a quote of his (quote link here)about penalties for not having health insurance, and made it about money in general.

This does beg the question: Why is it appropriate to have penalties for lack of health insurance, but NOT lack of money? It would seem to me, in the grand economic scheme of things, you need to have money before you can have insurance, n'est pas?

Mind you, we ARE talking about health insurance, NOT health care, so don't go off on a tangent about denying people health care. This is about money.

But here is a thought for Obama. If you want penalties for not having health insurance, why not try the ultimate penalty: Denial of health care.

Marxism of the Day

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx

You weren't expecting something from Karl, were you?

The Blank Wall

John Stossel nails the true meaning of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall:

There was one bad thing about the fall of the USSR: We lost a very visible bad example of big centralized government.

With Washington now turning to central planning to “fix” healthcare, clean the environment, and “create” jobs, it’s helpful to have role models of failure. They remind citizens of the politicians’ arrogance.

For the young, the example of the Soviet Union resonates less and less.

On the bright side, Stossel does have this to say:

We do, however, still have North Korea, Cuba, State Motor Vehicles Departments, K-12 education, and the Us Postal Service.

That said, I don't have Stossel's faith that the young will recognize government incompetence when they see it. After all, there is still the problem of government education.

Separation of School and State

"Suppose that newspapers were run by government and funded by taxpayers, and that each American was assigned to read only the newspaper published in his or her local area. Clearly, the resulting quality of journalism would be atrocious.

Would anyone seriously suggest that this problem would be solved if only there were better schools of journalism, or higher pay for journalists, or more people who are “called” to journalism, or newspaper readers who take more active roles in digesting and interpreting the news? Surely not. All sensible people would understand that these fixes would all fail as long as newspapers faced no competition – indeed, as long as journalism is produced by the state." - Don Boudreaux

The above was a letter to the New York Times editor, on the subject of education. It is also one of the finest points I have heard made in the neverending discussion of how to fix our education system.

But reading it gave me an idea: We need a Constitutional Amendment, along the lines of the 1st Amendment, which will separate the federal government from ANY involvement in our schools. I would suggest something worded as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment or form of education, or abridging the rights of the people to acquire education in any manner. Congress is also restricted from providing any funds for the purpose of education.

I can hear the squeals of protest already, but think about it: If the federal government cannot provide funding, they cannot put strings on it either.

Also, do we really need to funnel money for college educations through the federal government? Last time I checked, there are still many people in the U.S. without a college education. So exactly how do federal scholarship funding and college loans actually help ALL of us? There are plenty of private scholarship funds out there which could do the same job as the federal government. If people believe in providing scholarships for college educations, let them donate their money to the private scholarship funds, rather than have their money taken from them under the implied threat of government force which supports our income tax system?

In addition, without having to send education money to the federal government, there will be more money available in the private sector to enable the EXACT amount of education funding we need, rather than the amount our legislators THINK we need.

Finally, in K-12 education, let the states and local school boards decide how education should be done, rather than having to promote some federally mandated curriculum, which has done nothing to help the state of education in this country. (Although I think the states should only be involved in education funding, NOT in the actual business of education. But that is a separate discussion.)

We have tried everything in public education, and NONE of it works. It is time to remove the federal government from the education system completely.

Quote of the Day

“I carry with me a personal conviction that nothing can be allowed to interfere with our determination and our resolve and our conviction." - Hillary Clinton

This begs the question: If something were to interfere with our conviction, would she still have the same conviction, or would she need a new conviction, or would she just change her conviction to fit the new situation?

I think my resolve is waning...


(Hat tip to Bloomberg.com)