We're starting to hear calls for the IMF to create a new reserve currency. Imo, this is bad for the US, US allies, and the world, in that order.
People have been talking about hyper-inflation for a while, but it hasn't hit yet. Between Washington's proposed social programs, wars, bailouts, and money creation, our paper money should be worthless at this point. If China, India, and other debt holders drop the dollar, it will hit. A new reserve currency would help accomplish this.
But what's really going on? I think (international) bankers are jumping ship. The Fed audit has them scared, they've drained the dollar of its value, and now they want to move on to something bigger and better without accountability and traditional US morality hindering them.
Stealing through money creation only works when there are a lot of people holding that currency. At first it was all US citizens, then other countries started pegging to the dollar and holding the dollar. In the current situation, where the US in in debt and the rest of the world holds dollars; when we create money we're stealing from the Chinese and guys stuffing dollar bills under their mattresses in Mexico.
Oh, and before I forget - all the foreclosures we've had are basically a way to steal from the international community who bought our securitized debt obligations (mortgages). Though the bailouts reduced that theft.
So, the world's pretty mad at the US right now. And they should be. But a new reserve currency is a bad idea for everyone. The new currency would give bankers more opportunity for abuse, not less. In the US there are still folks like Ron Paul who are trying to hold the bankers responsible. He's getting a lot of support domestically and, I believe, internationally. As soon as you move to the new currency, it becomes much more difficult to hold the bankers responsible. Which is what they want, and is probably why there are so many otherwise bad ideas coming out of Washington right now: they're trying to scare world leaders into a new currency that will be easy to abuse. Don't do it. Help the US keep the banksters honest - don't play into their hands. My advice is to dump some of your dollars, which will cause inflation and force the US to work instead of steal; buy durable goods and commodities; and diversify your currency holdings - but you're already doing that, aren't you?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Going the Wrong Way? - On Prohibition and Tobacco
Some are pushing for legalization of ganja. BHO just broke a pen record signing a tobaccy prohib res. My friend once failed a drug test and had to go to rehab or loose his job. Hint, hint.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why N. Korea - Why now?
Been thinking about this N. Korea thing. Last time we fought them it was a cold war proxy fight with "communism" aka China (maybe Russia, too). China's kinda peeved at us for inflating the currency (remember the Geithner trip?). So, methinks this is about holding the US accountable for trade shenanigans; notably money creation and protectionism.
People have been saying it for years, but China (and India to a lesser extent), is about to start making waves. I see Russia aligning with the US, Europe, and Australia in a very dirty new war. It may be carried out covertly through spies, economics, and sabotage but it may escalate to widespread, but contained, battles including limited nuclear warfare.
But what's new about that?
People have been saying it for years, but China (and India to a lesser extent), is about to start making waves. I see Russia aligning with the US, Europe, and Australia in a very dirty new war. It may be carried out covertly through spies, economics, and sabotage but it may escalate to widespread, but contained, battles including limited nuclear warfare.
But what's new about that?
Free Market Caveats
I want to rant a bit on some of the edge cases of capitalism. Socialist politicians love this stuff, because they can say, "see, see - capitalism doesn't work here". But capitalism is still the best system I know of for the real world, and hopefully this will help you argue around the edge cases.
List of Problems:
Monopolies
- natural monopolies
- competition
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
Charity
Monopolies
Natural Monopolies
There are two main problems with monopolies: natural monopolies and competition. I define natural monopolies as: any industry that is impractical to reproduce. These are things like streets, gas, electric and water infrastructure, security (police, military). It's just silly to think that there should be at least two roads between every two destinations, two or more power lines going from an electric power plant to your home, etc. Imo, these rare industries need to be wholly owned by the government, but maintain a close parallel to a competitive market (no "free" electricity). I also think those industries should be owned at smallest appropriate level: town streets owned by the town, inter-city highways owned by the state, no roads owned by the national government (though interstate air travel should be run at the national level). The inefficiencies and corruption that occur in government run enterprises are offset by the impracticality of duplication, though border case industries might continually cross the line when managed by very inefficient or very corrupt governments.
Competition
Most goods and services do not fall under the above "natural monopoly" definition. Think clothing, cars, food; and yes, even medical services. The best way to serve the population here is through regulated competition. If you're in the market for a new car, you read up on several different models, take a few for test drives, figure out your cost/benefit estimations, and pick a car that fits your needs. Regulation is in place to keep the car companies honest: they don't display false advertising, they don't employ child or slave labor, they don't sabotage other companies, etc. If a company becomes very successful they may drive their competition out of business (think WalMart) - and this also becomes a problem for capitalism. Unfortunately, the government should also step in, in these situations, to re-introduce competition in the market. So long as there are at least two competing companies (who have not formed a cartel), the government should not intervene.
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons, briefly, is the problem where, if no one owns a resource all will abuse and waste it until it is drained. Think global warming and air pollution. If you had to pay for the air you pollute when you drive your car you might drive less. This is the general goal of cap and trade: charge the polluters so they don't waste/abuse the resource. Unfortunately, the implementation of these tragedy of the commons solutions are prone to corruption, and even perfectly executed solutions usually have at least a short term negative impact on the economy. I don't have a better solution than fines/taxation for solving the tragedy of the commons problem, however, I do recommend using it sparingly and making sure the cost/benefit ratio is well on the benefit side of things. You probably won't see many complaints about cap and trade on this blog - even if it turns out to be a bad idea, there are bigger fish to fry.
Charity
Ah, the heartless capitalist. Liberals love this argument, and it gets them a lot of votes. Take hurricane Katrina. Everyone complained that GWB didn't do enough soon enough; or that he hates black people; or the poor; or Jazz music. BS. I don't want Washington involved in state matters. Those guys lived in a hurricane zone and had many warnings that their levy system was vulnerable: you reap what you sew. But, the American people are very forgiving and loving: I know people who went down there, people who volunteered their time and money. That's when America is at its best - not when we're guilted into something, not when the people of California have their taxes increased to pay for the sins of Louisiana, but when we volunteer and donate our labor and savings towards causes we believe in - that's when America shines. We can't do that, though, when our government steals our productive potential from us by interfering in the free market.
List of Problems:
Monopolies
- natural monopolies
- competition
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
Charity
Monopolies
Natural Monopolies
There are two main problems with monopolies: natural monopolies and competition. I define natural monopolies as: any industry that is impractical to reproduce. These are things like streets, gas, electric and water infrastructure, security (police, military). It's just silly to think that there should be at least two roads between every two destinations, two or more power lines going from an electric power plant to your home, etc. Imo, these rare industries need to be wholly owned by the government, but maintain a close parallel to a competitive market (no "free" electricity). I also think those industries should be owned at smallest appropriate level: town streets owned by the town, inter-city highways owned by the state, no roads owned by the national government (though interstate air travel should be run at the national level). The inefficiencies and corruption that occur in government run enterprises are offset by the impracticality of duplication, though border case industries might continually cross the line when managed by very inefficient or very corrupt governments.
Competition
Most goods and services do not fall under the above "natural monopoly" definition. Think clothing, cars, food; and yes, even medical services. The best way to serve the population here is through regulated competition. If you're in the market for a new car, you read up on several different models, take a few for test drives, figure out your cost/benefit estimations, and pick a car that fits your needs. Regulation is in place to keep the car companies honest: they don't display false advertising, they don't employ child or slave labor, they don't sabotage other companies, etc. If a company becomes very successful they may drive their competition out of business (think WalMart) - and this also becomes a problem for capitalism. Unfortunately, the government should also step in, in these situations, to re-introduce competition in the market. So long as there are at least two competing companies (who have not formed a cartel), the government should not intervene.
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons, briefly, is the problem where, if no one owns a resource all will abuse and waste it until it is drained. Think global warming and air pollution. If you had to pay for the air you pollute when you drive your car you might drive less. This is the general goal of cap and trade: charge the polluters so they don't waste/abuse the resource. Unfortunately, the implementation of these tragedy of the commons solutions are prone to corruption, and even perfectly executed solutions usually have at least a short term negative impact on the economy. I don't have a better solution than fines/taxation for solving the tragedy of the commons problem, however, I do recommend using it sparingly and making sure the cost/benefit ratio is well on the benefit side of things. You probably won't see many complaints about cap and trade on this blog - even if it turns out to be a bad idea, there are bigger fish to fry.
Charity
Ah, the heartless capitalist. Liberals love this argument, and it gets them a lot of votes. Take hurricane Katrina. Everyone complained that GWB didn't do enough soon enough; or that he hates black people; or the poor; or Jazz music. BS. I don't want Washington involved in state matters. Those guys lived in a hurricane zone and had many warnings that their levy system was vulnerable: you reap what you sew. But, the American people are very forgiving and loving: I know people who went down there, people who volunteered their time and money. That's when America is at its best - not when we're guilted into something, not when the people of California have their taxes increased to pay for the sins of Louisiana, but when we volunteer and donate our labor and savings towards causes we believe in - that's when America shines. We can't do that, though, when our government steals our productive potential from us by interfering in the free market.
My Email to Senator Boxer - Opposing Fed Powers
I recently wrote Senator Boxer (D - CA) asking her to oppose the newly proposed regulatory powers for the Federal Reserve. Here's the response I got (slightly modified):
Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Senate hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
Shortly after the hearing, I called General Walsh, and we had a friendly and productive conversation. We expressed our respect for one another and our determination to work together to protect our nation and communities from natural disasters.
Thank you again for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
The Disingenuous Left: Public Option Intellectual Dishonesty
The argument from the left, that the private insurance industry can compete with a "public option" is intellectually if not blatantly dishonest. Here's an analogy for you: A guy from the government comes up to you with a gun and says, "You can spend a year in jail, pay a $10000 fine, or pay $100 which is good towards our insurance which costs $150". "But I already have insurance, it only costs me $100, and I'm happy with it". "That's fine, you can keep your old insurance, but you still have to pay us $100". "So I have to pay $100 regardless, which makes your insurance (which I'm not happy with) only cost $50 vs. my current plan which will still cost me $100". "Yep". "Gee, thanks for robbing me of $100 and giving me something I already have". "That's what we do at the government, you're welcome".
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I Forgive Mark Sanford
I'm not from South Carolina, but I hate the idea that a weakness he shares with JFK and Clinton might keep him from being my president. Here's more about him.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Love vs the Nanny State: On Socialized Medicine
There's been a lot of debate lately on private insurance vs socialized medicine. This is the wrong debate because both are different versions of bad when we need good.
Let's take an idealized, individualist, capitalist approach first. I work and save up (real) money. Something bad happens to me. I go to a doctor and ask how much it would cost to fix me. I then decide if I want to spend the money on this doctor's cure. I could not spend the money, leaving it to the people I love if I'm terminally ill, or just suffer with my ailment because I would suffer more from the loss of my money. It's my decision.
There are other options, though. I rarely write about interdependencies (read 7 Habits) because if you don't understand independence you'll never get interdependence right, imo. But it applies here. In addition to my own concern for my well-being, there may be others who have an interest in keeping me alive. My parents may want grand-children. My employer may want to keep a good employee. My wife may want to keep her husband, and so on. All of these people who have an interest in keeping me alive may choose to donate or loan the money needed for my care. It's their decision - it's their money. Imo, this is the most valuable insurance you can get: the love and respect of those around you, therefore, instead of paying high insurance costs, or higher taxes, I highly suggest you invest in time and rich experiences with your loved ones.
Now, contrast that last investment with the two options currently being debated. With private health insurance you're paying someone regularly who has an interest in discontinuing service when you need them the most. This isn't too bad, because you can choose to not pay for health insurance. But with socialized medicine, you can't opt-out: if you choose to spend money on your children rather than taxes you'll be prosecuted for tax evasion. You've lost your freedom to do as you choose with your money, and lost the ability to invest in a more effective form of health insurance: love.
Que Bono? Baby Boomers are rapidly loosing their worth in America's economy. They're becoming productively obsolete and an enormous health care liability. If they were to go directly to their children with the cost of their treatments, they would be greeted with more "no"s than when those same children were pried from the toy store at the mall thirty years ago - put Viagra on your Christmas wish list and maybe if you're a good senior citizen there will be a present in your stocking. Instead they're legislating their health care burden onto their children, making it illegal to refuse care for the hedonistic and over-privileged 60's generation.
Campaign for Liberty is running a petition to stop the legislation, please help.
Let's take an idealized, individualist, capitalist approach first. I work and save up (real) money. Something bad happens to me. I go to a doctor and ask how much it would cost to fix me. I then decide if I want to spend the money on this doctor's cure. I could not spend the money, leaving it to the people I love if I'm terminally ill, or just suffer with my ailment because I would suffer more from the loss of my money. It's my decision.
There are other options, though. I rarely write about interdependencies (read 7 Habits) because if you don't understand independence you'll never get interdependence right, imo. But it applies here. In addition to my own concern for my well-being, there may be others who have an interest in keeping me alive. My parents may want grand-children. My employer may want to keep a good employee. My wife may want to keep her husband, and so on. All of these people who have an interest in keeping me alive may choose to donate or loan the money needed for my care. It's their decision - it's their money. Imo, this is the most valuable insurance you can get: the love and respect of those around you, therefore, instead of paying high insurance costs, or higher taxes, I highly suggest you invest in time and rich experiences with your loved ones.
Now, contrast that last investment with the two options currently being debated. With private health insurance you're paying someone regularly who has an interest in discontinuing service when you need them the most. This isn't too bad, because you can choose to not pay for health insurance. But with socialized medicine, you can't opt-out: if you choose to spend money on your children rather than taxes you'll be prosecuted for tax evasion. You've lost your freedom to do as you choose with your money, and lost the ability to invest in a more effective form of health insurance: love.
Que Bono? Baby Boomers are rapidly loosing their worth in America's economy. They're becoming productively obsolete and an enormous health care liability. If they were to go directly to their children with the cost of their treatments, they would be greeted with more "no"s than when those same children were pried from the toy store at the mall thirty years ago - put Viagra on your Christmas wish list and maybe if you're a good senior citizen there will be a present in your stocking. Instead they're legislating their health care burden onto their children, making it illegal to refuse care for the hedonistic and over-privileged 60's generation.
Campaign for Liberty is running a petition to stop the legislation, please help.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Social Engineering World Conflict
Hey Tehran, I heard Kim Jong Il disrespected the Koran. I even heard he drew a picture of Mohammed, peace be upon him. And he thinks Ahmadinejad is better than Mousavi, or the other way around ... really whatever ticks you off more. JK
My Latina Child Abuse Story
Until I was 5 years old, and my sister was 3, we had a 15 year old, female, white, babysitter named Vallerie. I loved her. I thought she was beautiful - gorgeous, really. Blond hair, blue eyes. She helped to teach me to swim. I felt as comfortable in her arms as in my mother's.
But when I was 5, and my sister was 3, my parents decided they needed to improve their progressive credentials. We got a new, 15 year old, female, latina, babysitter named Maria. She was also beautiful. The first night she sat for us my sister and I fell asleep watching TV with her on the couch - my sister proped up against her right arm and me leaning against her left.
The second night she watched us, Maria took me aside, "if you're a really good boy tonight I'll put your sister to bed early and we'll play a special game". I tried my hardest to be a good boy and imagined a game that would be more fun than playing GI Joes and Legos combined. Finally, she put my sister to bed, closed the curtains, and sat me down on the couch. She threw a blanket over the two of us. "Now get undressed like you're going to bed". She was also getting undressed. "Take your underwear off, too".
She performed fellatio on me. Then she had me suck on her nipples. Back an forth for about 20 minutes. Weird game, I thought. It wasn't very fun, but it felt good. She told me to not tell anyone about the game. The next time she came over we played again.
One day I decided to show my sister the game. My mom walked in on us. To her credit, she stayed fairly composed. She asked who taught me the game. I told her. Vallerie returned as our babysitter from then on. My sister and I couldn't be left alone any more because we'd start playing with our genitals. I was screwed up about sex until I was 25.
Not all latinas sexually abuse children. I have known, befriended and loved several who have been stand-up citizens. But Maria increased her wealth of experience by taking advantage of me when I was a 5 year old boy. I was never sexually abused by a white male (though I'm sure that there are white male child abusers). However, when Sotomayor says that she has experiences that a white male doesn't have, this experience flashes through my mind.
I wonder if Letterman would make sexually inappropriate remarks about Palin's children if he found his child's babysitter sodomizing his son. I even have a joke for the babysitter, "Hey Lettermen, let's get off of celebrity children, I just ...". Or is it that it's OK to abuse white children sexually and in the media? When will he start joking about the Obama kids?
But when I was 5, and my sister was 3, my parents decided they needed to improve their progressive credentials. We got a new, 15 year old, female, latina, babysitter named Maria. She was also beautiful. The first night she sat for us my sister and I fell asleep watching TV with her on the couch - my sister proped up against her right arm and me leaning against her left.
The second night she watched us, Maria took me aside, "if you're a really good boy tonight I'll put your sister to bed early and we'll play a special game". I tried my hardest to be a good boy and imagined a game that would be more fun than playing GI Joes and Legos combined. Finally, she put my sister to bed, closed the curtains, and sat me down on the couch. She threw a blanket over the two of us. "Now get undressed like you're going to bed". She was also getting undressed. "Take your underwear off, too".
She performed fellatio on me. Then she had me suck on her nipples. Back an forth for about 20 minutes. Weird game, I thought. It wasn't very fun, but it felt good. She told me to not tell anyone about the game. The next time she came over we played again.
One day I decided to show my sister the game. My mom walked in on us. To her credit, she stayed fairly composed. She asked who taught me the game. I told her. Vallerie returned as our babysitter from then on. My sister and I couldn't be left alone any more because we'd start playing with our genitals. I was screwed up about sex until I was 25.
Not all latinas sexually abuse children. I have known, befriended and loved several who have been stand-up citizens. But Maria increased her wealth of experience by taking advantage of me when I was a 5 year old boy. I was never sexually abused by a white male (though I'm sure that there are white male child abusers). However, when Sotomayor says that she has experiences that a white male doesn't have, this experience flashes through my mind.
I wonder if Letterman would make sexually inappropriate remarks about Palin's children if he found his child's babysitter sodomizing his son. I even have a joke for the babysitter, "Hey Lettermen, let's get off of celebrity children, I just ...". Or is it that it's OK to abuse white children sexually and in the media? When will he start joking about the Obama kids?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Why the Right Should Support Gay Marriage Only, and Why I Want the Government Out of Straight Marriage
As a libertarian, I want a small government that doesn't interfere with me and my freedoms. As part of that non-interference, I want the government's nose out of "straight" marriage.
I have worked with many Indians (from India) in my time. According to them, in India, if a man wants a divorce, he raises his hand to his wife's face and says, "I divorce you". If this was all it took, I'd be much more likely to get married, since it wouldn't be much different than the way I separate from girlfriends now. Instead, I've been avoiding marriage like the plague, in part because of the separation and alimony horror stories I've heard.
As a more graphic reason for avoiding government run marriage, watch Braveheart again. How would you like the right of prima nocte enforced? Wanna keep the rulers out of your affairs now?
Personally, I want this "freedom from government" for homosexuals, also. And for the Mormons who want polygamy, too. I mean, why do you want to give control over who you can marry to the government? Anyway, let's contemplate the scenario where only gay marriage is regulated by the state.
All of a sudden, extremists can target this group for taxation, persecution, concentration camps, and homosexual prima nocte rights. So by registering yourself with the state, you open yourself up to a whole mess of hardship. Welcome to marriage - and I though alimony was bad.
Instead, let's keep the government out of our business. We have laws for communal ownership, child custody, and the like. Let's stop letting government regulate our relationships; get their noses out of our business and our bedrooms, and prevent them from screwing up our lives.
I have worked with many Indians (from India) in my time. According to them, in India, if a man wants a divorce, he raises his hand to his wife's face and says, "I divorce you". If this was all it took, I'd be much more likely to get married, since it wouldn't be much different than the way I separate from girlfriends now. Instead, I've been avoiding marriage like the plague, in part because of the separation and alimony horror stories I've heard.
As a more graphic reason for avoiding government run marriage, watch Braveheart again. How would you like the right of prima nocte enforced? Wanna keep the rulers out of your affairs now?
Personally, I want this "freedom from government" for homosexuals, also. And for the Mormons who want polygamy, too. I mean, why do you want to give control over who you can marry to the government? Anyway, let's contemplate the scenario where only gay marriage is regulated by the state.
All of a sudden, extremists can target this group for taxation, persecution, concentration camps, and homosexual prima nocte rights. So by registering yourself with the state, you open yourself up to a whole mess of hardship. Welcome to marriage - and I though alimony was bad.
Instead, let's keep the government out of our business. We have laws for communal ownership, child custody, and the like. Let's stop letting government regulate our relationships; get their noses out of our business and our bedrooms, and prevent them from screwing up our lives.
Why I'm Pro-Choice
I am pro-choice for philosophical, contractual, and practical reasons.
Philosophical
I'm a big fan of Ron Paul: we're both libertarians and we both respect Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. He is, of course, pro-life and I see that position as a contradictory to his principles. One of her assertions was, roughly, that one person's need does not translate to an obligation on another. This is used to justify the rebellion of producers against the oppressive collectivist leeches. I see no difference when the leech is now called an embryo - its need for a host does not obligate the host. Now, one may say that the circumstances of pregnancy are different: the sexual act is involved and parents have a responsibility for their children. The first is only relevant if you believe sex should only be performed for procreation - which doesn't jive with Randites (or me) or that birth control is 100% effective. The second point (responsibility) is already defeated by Rand principles, but I'll also address it next.
Contractural
The parent child relationship is essentially a contract: parents have children in order to be more happy. In return, they provide the child with life and the opportunity to also be happy. Happy children are a blessing, so it usually all works out. However, if the parents do not view the child as contributing to their happiness, it's a bad deal: either they made a mistake, they were duped, or the child isn't holding up their end of the deal. If there's a bad contract, there is no obligation on either side to be held to it.
Practical
It is impractical to enforce anti-abortion laws. If a women doesn't want a child, she'll find a way to abort it. Whether it's back-alley abortions, pins in the head of the unborn, beatings to the uterus, or abandonment - women have ways of removing an unwanted fetus. If abortions are legal and tolerated we will only endanger one life (the leech) and not two.
A couple extra points. I don't want women to have abortions. I believe that no woman wants to have an abortion. I believe that one of the best ways to prevent abortions is to give a woman an alternative - I'd like to see some sort of fetus transplant technology emerge, with pro-lifers putting their money towards practical alternatives instead of protests. I further believe that some women have abortions for socio-economic reasons that can be avoided or ameliorated, and that much of the anti-abortion/pro-life motivation is targeted on these abortions. I believe that those socio-economic pressures are leaving certain demographics with a low birth rate through abortion and traditional birth control, and that this represents a very insidious form of demographic-ocide which may be fuelling the radical pro-life right. OK, I'm ranting.
Philosophical
I'm a big fan of Ron Paul: we're both libertarians and we both respect Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. He is, of course, pro-life and I see that position as a contradictory to his principles. One of her assertions was, roughly, that one person's need does not translate to an obligation on another. This is used to justify the rebellion of producers against the oppressive collectivist leeches. I see no difference when the leech is now called an embryo - its need for a host does not obligate the host. Now, one may say that the circumstances of pregnancy are different: the sexual act is involved and parents have a responsibility for their children. The first is only relevant if you believe sex should only be performed for procreation - which doesn't jive with Randites (or me) or that birth control is 100% effective. The second point (responsibility) is already defeated by Rand principles, but I'll also address it next.
Contractural
The parent child relationship is essentially a contract: parents have children in order to be more happy. In return, they provide the child with life and the opportunity to also be happy. Happy children are a blessing, so it usually all works out. However, if the parents do not view the child as contributing to their happiness, it's a bad deal: either they made a mistake, they were duped, or the child isn't holding up their end of the deal. If there's a bad contract, there is no obligation on either side to be held to it.
Practical
It is impractical to enforce anti-abortion laws. If a women doesn't want a child, she'll find a way to abort it. Whether it's back-alley abortions, pins in the head of the unborn, beatings to the uterus, or abandonment - women have ways of removing an unwanted fetus. If abortions are legal and tolerated we will only endanger one life (the leech) and not two.
A couple extra points. I don't want women to have abortions. I believe that no woman wants to have an abortion. I believe that one of the best ways to prevent abortions is to give a woman an alternative - I'd like to see some sort of fetus transplant technology emerge, with pro-lifers putting their money towards practical alternatives instead of protests. I further believe that some women have abortions for socio-economic reasons that can be avoided or ameliorated, and that much of the anti-abortion/pro-life motivation is targeted on these abortions. I believe that those socio-economic pressures are leaving certain demographics with a low birth rate through abortion and traditional birth control, and that this represents a very insidious form of demographic-ocide which may be fuelling the radical pro-life right. OK, I'm ranting.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Extreme Bigoted Left
I was on a job interview not long ago with a company that handles IT for non-profits. Now remember, I live in one of the most far left areas in the US, if not the world. I was talking to the CEO and he made a few comments like, "we try to avoid extremist organizations", and "we want to make money, but we also want to live in a community that agrees with us".
This got me to thinking, "Why don't you set up some guidelines such as: we won't support organizations that hurt humans or leave people financially destitute". He didn't like that since he would be interested in supporting "monkey wrench" style spiking of trees (they can hurt or even kill loggers), and PETA protests of ranches.
OK, "what about something like Bristol Palin supporting abstinence only education - it doesn't hurt anyone, improves public discourse on the issue, and may help her reach out to troubled teens?". "No, no, I wouldn't take on a charity like that - I don't think abstinence only works and it doesn't agree with my politics". I would take it on: you're supporting the first amendment, their proponents may get desperate and turn radical if not given a respectable outlet, and hell - they'd be payin' us.
I didn't convince him, and I didn't get the job. So be warned: it's not just Carlos Bledsoe and Bill Ayers; it's CEOs in some of the largest cities who are advocating violence for the extreme left, and performing political screening in their hiring process.
This got me to thinking, "Why don't you set up some guidelines such as: we won't support organizations that hurt humans or leave people financially destitute". He didn't like that since he would be interested in supporting "monkey wrench" style spiking of trees (they can hurt or even kill loggers), and PETA protests of ranches.
OK, "what about something like Bristol Palin supporting abstinence only education - it doesn't hurt anyone, improves public discourse on the issue, and may help her reach out to troubled teens?". "No, no, I wouldn't take on a charity like that - I don't think abstinence only works and it doesn't agree with my politics". I would take it on: you're supporting the first amendment, their proponents may get desperate and turn radical if not given a respectable outlet, and hell - they'd be payin' us.
I didn't convince him, and I didn't get the job. So be warned: it's not just Carlos Bledsoe and Bill Ayers; it's CEOs in some of the largest cities who are advocating violence for the extreme left, and performing political screening in their hiring process.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Let the F'in Market Clear!
I've been wanting to buy a house for a long time. I'm sure that there are a lot of people in my position. Instead of giving tax breaks and keeping interest rates low, the banks need to let the market clear.
My understanding is that the banks are only allowed to keep a small number of foreclosed properties on their books at any given time. Looks like that's not being respected. I don't know how they're getting around it, but I'd like to start seeing fines and/or eminent domain (imo it's better to use eminent domain against banksters than against people who had a plane land on their property).
My understanding is that the banks are only allowed to keep a small number of foreclosed properties on their books at any given time. Looks like that's not being respected. I don't know how they're getting around it, but I'd like to start seeing fines and/or eminent domain (imo it's better to use eminent domain against banksters than against people who had a plane land on their property).
Friday, June 5, 2009
Selective Enforcement
I have a Latina friend who recently became a citizen. She knew about affirmative action, equal opportunity, laws against sex discrimination, and separate but equal illegalities; so she was excited when she found out about a wonderful career opportunity. This business was made up entirely of men, so she should have an advantage due to her sex. There were almost no latin americans represented, so she should have a case there (plus, she was a Latina, so the wealth of her experiences should give her an advantage). She had majored in the subject in college where she had excellent grades and had been given many awards in the field. She'd been been in an serious debilitating accident recently, and got handicapped parking approval, but her day to day functioning was not impaired. When she applied, though, she was scoffed at.
This was for a position as a professional basketball player in the NBA. They do have the WNBA, but we all know that "separate but equal" is illegal (which is why I am against separate men and women restrooms and locker rooms). I recommend a strict quota - that at all times there be 2 men, 2 women, and a hermaphrodite in play for a team. Since we don't want any "equal work for equal pay" problems, we will require that every player in the NBA be paid exactly the same and endorsement money be equally disbursed. Rosters must contain a strict quota of all ethnicities in proportion to their representation in the nation's population. Further, because of the historical discrimination against the physically disabled and the vertically challenged, teams must have one of each in play at all times. If a team fails to find worthy candidates that meet the criteria mentioned, we will change the worthiness tests on which the candidates are evaluated until the desired candidates are approved. This will also be enforced at the collegiate and high school levels.
I wonder how Sotomayer will do on Obama's basketball team.
This was for a position as a professional basketball player in the NBA. They do have the WNBA, but we all know that "separate but equal" is illegal (which is why I am against separate men and women restrooms and locker rooms). I recommend a strict quota - that at all times there be 2 men, 2 women, and a hermaphrodite in play for a team. Since we don't want any "equal work for equal pay" problems, we will require that every player in the NBA be paid exactly the same and endorsement money be equally disbursed. Rosters must contain a strict quota of all ethnicities in proportion to their representation in the nation's population. Further, because of the historical discrimination against the physically disabled and the vertically challenged, teams must have one of each in play at all times. If a team fails to find worthy candidates that meet the criteria mentioned, we will change the worthiness tests on which the candidates are evaluated until the desired candidates are approved. This will also be enforced at the collegiate and high school levels.
I wonder how Sotomayer will do on Obama's basketball team.
More Fed Destruction
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3648-4049
I'm a bit worried about competing bills that will water down and/or distract from HR 1207.
Congress could take back the power to create the national money supply by:
(a) Nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
(b) Reviving the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a government-owned lending facility used by Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. Rather than merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, however, the RFC could actually create credit on its books, in the same way that banks do it today, by fanning its capital base into many times that sum in loans. Assuming $300 billion is left of the TARP money approved by Congress last fall, this money could be deposited into the RFC and leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. That’s based on a 10% reserve requirement. If the money were counted as capital, at an 8% capital requirement it could be leveraged into 12.5 times the original sum. That would be enough to fund not only President Obama’s stimulus package but many other programs that are desperately short of funding now.
I'm a bit worried about competing bills that will water down and/or distract from HR 1207.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)