Campaigns and modern Liberal/Conservative Politics

The problem with McCain is that he’s run a terrible campaign. There’s really no argument on this, at the very least it must be recognized that Obama has done an impeccable job and harnessing new technologies and fund raising. He’s literally drowning in money, with iirc $150 million left to spend in only 5 or so days. He truly cannot spend all the money he’s made.

For McCain, the opposite isn’t his problem. He’s not bathing in money, but he’s also not dehydrating in the middle of the desert. He does have enough to have his message heard. The problem is that his message, is largely a losing message. This is not to say that his message is a bad one, or that he would be a worse president, here the opposite is true.

The problem is that McCain has been placed into a position where he has to play politics as usual. He has been competing against a message of change, which most ironically, is the message he’s been toting for the past 27 years. You see, Obama is the “obvious” candidate. His policies and positions are so obviously moral that he offends no one. He can make no enemies by supporting education. He can make no enemies by giving bigger tax cuts to more people. He can make no enemies by saying everyone deserves health care. He has little of a past, and an impeccable soapbox which cannot be attacked for anything.

But this soapbox isn’t made of wood to hold soap, it is actually made of soap. These ideas he has are almost without exception either ill defined or patently incorrect. As a result McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He can’t choose to wash away Obama’s soapbox and explain how each and every one of his issues are wrong, because he’ll make far to many enemies. Many simply do not care, and will never be convinced. Far too many vote solely on “Who will give me the bigger tax cut?”, but when the economic problem we have is a lack of investment resulting from bank crashes, increasing demand is exactly the wrong thing to do. Giving “Joe Six-pack”, though I hate the name, more money won’t change anything, the banks have been doing that for the past few years.

But just as he can’t be open about the need to decrease the upper brackets more than the lower(which he actually has the balls to say), he can’t be open about any issue, health care, terrorism, etc. That said, he also can’t change his position because he has a 27 year track record.

The point is, McCain should have done as he wanted, and brought the straight talk express right through town. He should have laid out his real position, without trying to make it more politically likable and said, “Here’s me, I’m sure you’ll disagree with some, but here’s my arguement.” He should have shown is record, and rather than campaigning for the presidency should have spent a year and a half arguing the points. Like the real world, they aren’t on their face the most appealing points, but they have the benefit of being true and correct. He needed to pull the nastiest campaign ever seen, not against Obama, but against his positions. Like Obama supporters say day in and day out, this election is bigger than the presidency. It had the opportunity to be real change, a referendum on American politics. Instead, he listened to his advisers, he listened to common wisdom and as it opposed his common sense and good wisdom, it resulted in an erratic campaign. A campaign which mixed, like America’s economy, thing which people want to hear with thing which people need to hear. It under supported points and over-emphasized others.

If this election is lost for McCain, then it would have been lost no matter what he said. If he had done what I here suggest and lost, then that would have been a referendum. If he had done it and won, that would have been a referendum. The referendum isn’t what the people choose, but whether the people actually are given a choice. Because while the outcome of this election will determine the direction of the nation, its lack of discourse has all but damned it’s destiny.

Biology of Race

I’ve written on this before, but I watched a video in class which argued that there’s no biological basis for race, and implied that because of this we should not use race as a social factor. Well, if you’ve read what I’ve written over the years it’s clear that I completely agree with the ultimate cause that biology should not be used for any legal or social purpose. Actions, while possibly rooted in biological or social causes, are not to be judged by what caused them but by their character.

However, the way they went about it was terrible. Throughout the show they went along with a class which was testing their mitochondrial DNA, and demonstrated that the students were just as often similar to those of other races as to those of the same. They cited that 85% of genetic variation occurs amongst a group rather than between groups.  They said, there is no genetic basis for race. In sum, they completely ignored the point.

As some in my class noted, mitochondrial dna doesn’t actually code anything for people, it’s simply the remnants of long ago, and is passed down within the mitochondria from the mother. It is useful only so far that it traces you back to your mother, and her mother, and so on, but without actually saying anything about anyone on the lineage.

This, in conjunction with other evidence such as the 85% stat demonstrates that races are not fundamentally(I totally forgot a much better word than fundamentally) different. However, race is not simply about differences between groups, indeed it is mostly about similarities within in, and this claim means that 15% of genetic variation occurs between races. In truth their statistic may more accurately read to say that those of a ‘race’ are 15% more likely to share important coding dna.

This may not be a perfect translation of the information, I’m kind of tired, but the point remains. They fail to address sufficiently the aspect that race is useful for some things because some traits are more popular among certian groups. They even demonstrate this when citing sickle cell trait, but cast it aside as resulting from region rather than race… but they just showed that skin color, the most recognisable basis for ‘race’ is also related to region. In essence they only prove that race decribes where you come from… Well, that really doesn’t do much for moving the arguement.

Reasonable Psychosis

Humans are relatively predictable beings. Although not relatively when compared to the predictability of gravity or such, they are predictable in that they respond to stimuli. As a matter of fact, when it comes to experiencing trauma as a child such as rape or abuse, their reactions are extremely predictable. This leads to the idea that, if the reactions to each and every input could be cataloged and understood, thus understanding the nurture aspect, and similarly for the biological nature of men, then every action of man could be understood entirely and he thereby entirely be controlled through stimuli imposed by others.

After all, that is the direct result of understanding; control. As the study of science and physics masters the physical world, so does the study of man’s reason master man. But this I feel cannot be done, because as we see with many, there is this great thing called psychosis. Where one’s actions are predicted and their outcomes therefor under the control of another, the benefit of reason is lost. When reason fights reason, the more capable always win. They are able to predict the actions of the other. But when reason is objected to, and when it is thrown away, the opponent loses his edge. Where the weak are by definition disadvantaged, the selective use of psychosis, allows for them to negate the effectiveness of the powerful’s logic.

When you act illogically, and i don’t mean as a predictable response to te inability to act otherwise, but truely illogically, when you have no reason to harm yourself and yet do, and take risks which provide yourself no benifit, when you take the less likely course, not because you think your enemey won’t, but simply because.. rather just simply. You gain a 50:50 chance. If he, by knowing you, knows your actions, then you are destine to fail. But if you remove from your own hands, from his hands, from logic’s hands, the ability to decide, when appropriate, you create a chance where none existed.

Stereotypes vs. Discrimination

Welcome to the first post of my new blog… anyway.

Stereotypes are assumptions and generalizations about a group of individuals. They, as with all ideas and ideologies exist only so far as they are useful. It is entirely useless to think that blue is green and green is blue because it has absolutely no effect on your interpretation of the world. Similarly, thinking pain is pleasurable finds little support as it is contrary to existence; it leads to death(read Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals for the exception). The point continues, that stereotypes only persist if they are useful to those who hold them, or at least not harmful to them. Because of this, for a stereotype to persist, a trait of those considered does not have to be true for all individuals in the group. It does not even need to be true for the majority. So long as it is true for a significant number such that it can prove useful to base actions partly on the stereotype.

Now, there are two uses as I see it. One it can be useful in protecting the holder of the belief. For example the fear that black men may rob you can protect the bearer of the belief in the very few cases where it is true; implying that the trait must be significantly more prevalent in the group, otherwise the theory’s relative utility would be neutralized and cause harm. The other possibility, is that the theory can be useful in “keeping them in their place”, or maintaining the current order.

Now, I’m not one who believes the empowered try to “keep them in their place”, or so far as they do, it is an unconscious activity which is the tangential result of stereotypes which prove useful for the prior cause. That said, it is clear that some do use stereotypes to impose the order. However, there is is HUGE difference between stereotypes and discrimination. While stereotype may alert extra attention to the black man entering the elevator, it does little. In fact, it does nothing, because they are but thoughts. And while actions are based upon thoughts, they are separate, and under the control of the individual. If he or she decides to act upon a stereotype without confirmation that the belief is true in this particular case, and implicit in the word, this action causes harm to the one acted upon, it becomes discrimination.

Therefor, discrimination should be strictly opposed. It should be fought against. In fact, discrimination does not even rely on stereotypes. To discriminate, could be motivated by other causes, namely the wish to remain in power. As a result we need to differenciate between the two. For if stereotypes persits so strongly, then it is likely that there is truth in them, as a result, we must address the  truth in the belief. Only when the stereotypes subside is it possible that the underlying causes may have dissapeared.

Hello World!

Hi, welcome to my new blog. I’ve decided that rather than have a jumbled mess of blog entries, some of a personal and others of a political nature, all intermixed together, I’ll just set this one up; plus it offers the benefit of allowing for exporting so I can later shift to personal hosting if necessary. Anyway, if you’re interested in my personal blog check it out: blog.myspace.com/mygodarethereanynamesleft

I’ll also note that every blog before this one has been transfered over, so the actual dates of writing differ ranging from December 2005 to just recently. Chronological order, however, has been mantained while skipping un-related posts.

A topic much discussed.

Now I’ve talked about this before, and if you’re reading this, you’ve probably read that too. But the relevance of my classes recently compels me to clarify. You see, in contemporary political thought we’ve read a couple essays and parts of books which demonstrate the way in which society may become auto-totalitarian; how in Soviet style countries during the cold war the green-grocer put up signs saying “Worker’s of the World Unite!” Yet, he was not the only one to do so. His neighbor did so, the office-worker did so, everyone did so, because in truth they were compelled to do so. In some part it was the government, but mostly, it was because one did that the other must. And in doing so they did not genuinely tell workers to unite, rather they expressed their submission, while saving face behind the security of ideology and in doing so created a perception, and a practical reality that a united opinion existed. While this is considered, even in our class, to be a fairly recent occurrence I’m not sure. I am however sure it is occurring today, not here, but in the Middle East. This is exactly the auto-totalitarianism which we are facing. While they may not put signs in their window pronouncing “Death to America” they put scarves on their face and submit to the power of the ideology. However, it is not mere ideology, as in the case of communism, it is simply an opinion, a belief that we would be better off, a belief that the government at hand is actually communist, rather than a state capitalism. With Islam the forces are much greater, the belief stronger, the punishments not only harsher, but prescribed by god himself, the imposition that the more strict. Where a velvet revolution was possible in Czechoslovakia, taking the signs down are not enough. The majority is too large, the minority to uneducated of the alternative. It is a sense of oppression which drives revolution, but in order to feel oppressed there must not only be an alternative, but you must genuinely know of it; you must on some level be able to experience it, or see it. This is what the US invasion of Iraq aims to correct.

We can’t invade every country that has oppressed people, but in this case the ideology was not simply opposed to ours, but actively trying to destroy, not our way of life, but us as individuals.

I can’t say for certain that this was George Bush’s goal. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t Colin Powell’s. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t the majority of the congress’s. In truth, I can’t say that it was the goal of anyone in particular, but it is the effect, and even if it is the most improbable of co-incidences, it’s one I’ll take.

A summary of the flow chart…

Labour is labor, it is employment, and it produces both Income for the laborer and Capital for the employer. This income is either spent on goods, driving demand, or it is saved. Investment arrives from both the Savings of the company and the savings of the Individual as lent by banks. This leads to the relationship between demand and investment, or demand and production which requires investment and determines employment. This means that the unemployment rate measures the efficiency of the demand + investment equilibrium. On one hand demand for goods drives the demand for labor, if there’s no demand for goods there’s no reason to hire people to make them. But if there is demand for goods, and there’s no investment/capital, there’s no money to hire people with.

The final aspect, I’ll explicitly consider here is that the effeciency of labor plays a role. Specifically, what I mean by the effeciency of labor is that a worker makes $500 worth of products in a day and is paid $70, the employer makes $430 minus other costs. The labor’s transaction is ineffecint because he is not getting the full value of his work. The less the value of his work he gets, the more that money is centralized in the hands of the employers and locked into drive investment. This also means less money is available to drive demand. It thereby leads directly toward disrupting the equilibrium between demand and investment. Some may argue that this is exactly the check with Marx cited, and although I’m not entirely ready to disagree, I tend to think not, for as long as the worker is not making enough, the system slows to a halt, the employer stops profiting…. idk there’s more i can say but I’m hungry.

Economics

I’ve always thought that both supply side and demand side economics seemed to be oversimplified. They both almost seems to go out of the way to support their particular preferences, and it wasn’t until about a week ago or maybe less that I sat down and came up with the following flow chart of the economy.

Shot at 2008-10-20

This seems like the best blend of the two and makes sense. A supply of goods does no good if buyers have no money to buy with, yet buyer’s can’t buy anything if suppliers don’t have the capital to produce goods. Thus income from labor is split into savings and expenses, where expenses fuel demand and savings fuel production. It requires a balance between the two for the economy to work properly. Also the efficiency of the laborer is ‘profiting’ is important and I haven’t fully thought that out yet, butt.. I was reading on plastic.com a note on the argument of ‘conservatives’ that supply side creates wealth whereas giving money to the middle/lower class only spreads it around..

Not that’s not a wording I’ve heard before, and it’s one which makes a lot of sense. If money is invested then it allows for the production of more efficient means, and produces goods. If money is spent, it moves from person to person. I need to figure this out, because there’s good logic in it.  But I’m too tired. It’s a shame, there’s a real breakthrough in the relationship between labor’s production and this concept, and I’m tending to think it results in a need for consistent(though not necessarily predictable) revolutions. Probably crazy. /goodnight

Falling Gas Prices

Well, I’m watching NBC Nightly News, and as you know, gas prices have dropped quite dramatically. However, the certain cause, as the media sees it is dropping demand. This is simply not true, or at least not as they portray it. It is honest in that the demand for oil futures had plummeted, but in terms of actual consumption… think about your personal consumption. You may have cut usage by 5, 10 or even 20%, but you did this back when oil was nearing $3.50. You did this back when it was $4, but prices didn’t drop then. Prices dropped with the market for the simple reason that the prices we’ve been seeing were entirely unjustified. It’s true that China has been using more oil, but they did not double consumption in the past year or so then magically cut it coincidentally when the US market fell. The point is, investors who’ve been buying oil futures at exorbitant rates realized that like home prices, these were unrealistically high. My point is, the news is utterly failing to comprehend even the most basic elements of our economy. My all means, keep an ear to the ground, but do not believe the word on the street.

The more important point is, if you believe that consumption has dropped 30% in the past month(fueling the 30% price drop), then you’re the same person who believed the rise in prices was the result of an increase in consumption or the “closure of oil refineries” in the southeast during a hurricane…In all truth, that doesn’t make sense. We’ve got plenty of gas refined before and after the hurricane that it shouldn’t jump, and if it did, it should immediately drop back down to pre-hurricane prices within a week or so of passing.

What the president should have said:

Today, my fellow Americans, we are in a somber state of affairs. Several of the nation’s greatest banks have passed and several more are on that same path. They have been plagued by the disease of failed mortgages. They have lent unfounded money to borrowers who’ve had no ability to return it, and consequences if this are now readily apparent.

Indeed, these are of the most sudden passings which have shocked both citizens and shareholders across the nation.

Yet, while it is not unheard of for a man to fall dead mid-stride, such death of a great many does not occur; rather, it is the death of these few which has broken the ranks of the silently ill. Their fate, their failure, can no longer be concealed.

Too many have been mislead regarding the health of these institutions, and the savings of far too many are set to fail with then.

Let it be clear that those who have partaken in fraudulent or in anyway inappropriate and illegal actions will be pursued with the utmost severity.

I’ve instructed congress to proceed with negotiations regarding a reimbursement plan for those investors who such banks have defrauded.

This will be a slow procedure, and the markets will undoubtedly require time to regulate, but the foundations of our economy are strong and America will continue to prosper

Regarding the buyout.

So, if I understand this correctly, John Doe buys/gets a mortgage for 200,000 house he’d buying, and say he’s paying 6%, meaning over thirty years he’s gonna pay a total of 431,000 including 231,000 of interest. So the bank will make a profit of 231,000 over 30 years, or 7,700 a year for 30 years.

Now the bank packages 35 of these together. Now you see they lent out $7 million and over 30 years will get that plus $8 million profit back. However, it takes a long while to get that money back. So instead of waiting, they sell the package to Frank Richass for 9 million. They get their 7 million back, make 2 million profit, and are free to walk away. 2 Million profit today is better than 8 over 30 years.

Well the bank quickly realizes, shit, all we have to do it give out a bunch of mortgages sell them off. Now, people aren’t stupid. They say, hey, how do I know these people are gonna pay their mortgages? And banks say… Well I guarantee it. If they don’t then then we’ll pay the difference. But what about when people actually start defaulting on their mortgages?

Well, the people who own the MBS stop making money. If everyone’s paying it they get their 269,500 a month, if 5 of the 35 don’t then it’s 231k a month. However if 20 of the 35 don’t pay if off, then that only gets to 9 million, and they don’t make any profit. Plus! If people who do pay it off pay pay off the mortgage quicker than anticipated, then they don’t have to pay as much interest.

My math is clearly not perfect, and the numbers/rates/and percentages are off from the real world, but at the end of the day, if they make a bunch of bad loans, the back can’t pay off all they guaranteed. So the bank goes bankrupt, and the investor either doesn’t make a profit/as much of one/or even the money he put in.

Apparently the 700 billion would purchase the MBS, now I’m not certain if that’s the cost of the MBSs. If it is, we theoretically could get some of the 700billion back, if theoretically everyone kept paying their houses then we’d get it all back.

Of course, that’s not gonna happen. If the banks are going bankrupt paying to MBS holders what the homeowners didn’t, then it’s clear that those securities are not good ones. The big companies wouldn’t be pushing them on the government, and Congress/Bush wouldn’t be so eager to buy them if they were good investments.

Their theory is that if we buy them, and take the loss, then the banks won’t go bankrupt paying what they guaranteed the securities would. (I’m not sure if they want to buy both the MBS which “people” hold or even the bad loans which banks hold). As a result the banks and MBS holders could keep their money and keep lending to people(presumably with legislation to make sure they didn’t go too crazy again). But what if we don’t pay $700+ billion for them?

Then, the banks have to pay out what they guaranteed the MBSs would until they run out of money. Now shouldn’t they have a lot of money stockpiled? Probably not, as soon as they sell it for 9 million they go out and give 9 million in loans and sell it for 15, then again then again, and then the shit hits the fan. People start realizing the housing market’s crashing. They realize that people are defaulting on mortgages, and the bank has to start paying what they guaranteed the MBSs would. But all their free money is tied up in more bad(and even worse mortgages given at the height of the boom) which no one is willing to buy as MBS. So the bank is stuck with a ton of bad mortgages and so are the MBS holders. And the cards fall where they may, and people lose money.

But why do we need the banks need to give mortgages? Well the argument is Demand-Side. They say, if banks don’t have the money then businesses can’t get loans to start or expand, if they can’t start or expand, they can’t hire people, and no one will be able to get a job or buy a house since there won’t be anyone to give you a mortgage.

But does that make sense? Housing prices are lower and still falling. Other than money in the stock market… People still have income, they’re still working, they still need houses, they still need cars, they still need all the same things they needed before. And at the end of the day.. That money’s still out there.

As a matter of fact, remember who why it was lent in the first place? It was lent to people to purchase overpriced homes. Which means, all this money ended up going to the former owners of the homes. Some of it went to construction companies, some went to reality companies, some went to developers, and a whole lot went to private individuals who sold their home.

So where is it now? two places: those people who profited off selling a house, put it in the bank(or stock market), others spent it or are going to spend it on goods. Ultimately, it’s no big deal. Its a little hard for the people who put money in the stock market and it will be hard to get a loan for something you can’t afford…

Well you know what? You shouldn’t buy something you can’t afford…. Did you see what I saw at the top when writing this????? On a 200,000 loan at 6% you pay $231,000 in interest! How about you save and just wait to buy a damn house when you have the money? It takes 14 years at the most. Or maybe instead of saving for 14 years and spending 300k save for 7 years and get a 150k house and work for 7 more). Most importantly!! When you’ve bought the house you won’t have to keep paying a mortgage to the bank for 16 years. You’ll be able to actually save for your own  retirement.!

What gives you the right?

So far I’ve really only read Nietzsche’s  first essay and parts of he second in the Genealogy of Morals, but he seems to have very good point, in many ways similar to what I already believed, and influencing my though in general.

The point however is, “What gives you the right?” I saw this as a question a while ago. I’ve heard it as a question; as an attack. I’ve read the Habits of the Heart, and they’ve attacked individualists morality as lacking substance. Yet, who has authority? Does not each individual have complete authority over himself? Nay, does not an individual have authority over all things which he both claims authority over and which submits to his authority? The slave is a slave only so long as he is submits to his masters authority rather than his own; and his master’s claim to ownership, to authority over the slave is only valid in that the slave consents. Indeed it is the same with government. For so long as we submit to the laws of the land and authority of of the state, we are it’s subjects. Yet, it is important to note that this, subjection is not inherently bad. Indeed, as I recall previously stating, a subject of a “free” state is demonstrably more free that he who is not; for he who is not may my just in acting beyond the laws of such a state but is too in danger of being justly injured in such a way which law would have prohibited.

But when another asks of you, “What gives you the right..” do not answer god, or law, but rather I demand this right! I demand self determination. We have agreed in this nation upon a constitution, of methods of amendment and legislation, of limits upon powers and actors, and I will uphold my end of that bargain. I will vote. I will work for a just state, and as our independence declares, I will make sure “you” uphold your end too.

spending money that isn’t there

Ok, lets say the gov has $200billion but wants or needs to spend $500billion. The obvious solution is to borrow $300billion from someone. The government says by these “bonds” or IOUs and we’ll pay you back with interest later. But what everyone you talk to is only willing to let you borrow $100billion? Well then the government just “prints” $200billion more. However the government doesn’t print it and forget it. That, as well as the $100billion it borrowed gets listed as “debt”. So when it comes time to pay the bond-holders back we pay them and all is good.

But what if we still don’t have the extra $100billion to pay off that debt? Well, we “print” the money. At the end of the day, all the debt ends up being extra money we printed. This causes inflation. Since there’s more money in the system the money you have is worth less. Everyone’s money is worth equally less. Indeed, the government just borrowed that money, the value lost due to inflation, from you. So to pay it back, the government must tax a total of $300billion, then burn it all. This revalues the money in circulation, “paying back” the public.

At the end of the day, assuming this money isn’t “earned and burned”, deficit spending(thats the right term right?) is just another way of taxing the public. However it is one which allows for immediate spending and does not tax through regular means such as income, but by taxing accumulated wealth at a flat rate. Now progressive tax structures are another talk. But.. you see where it goes.

the condition of racial middling

caution, this obviously contains generalizations which ought not be considered without exception for even the majority of cases. indeed this is an unnecessary precaution I take here to warn against being offended, since it ought be well known that I intend no offense and support no racism.

Why does the “black man” want the white woman? Indeed why does the “black woman” want the white man in so increasing a fashion? The reason I’ve sensed is not that the “black man” does not want the “black woman”, but rather that the black woman does not want the black man. Over time the black man has gained for himself a poor reputation (not to delve into the sociological causes which may have precipitated this). However, it is indeed not an arbitrary reputation perpetuated merely by media, but by virtue of the circumstances, is one of fact. Sixty percent of black families are headed by a single parent, mostly women* . More than ninety percent of black children will be raised in such a female headed household**.

In the eyes of the black woman who has experienced this trouble, the black man all too often unfit for fatherhood. As a result, she does not want the black man. Of course, this does not even address the entire culture of drug related crime while has come to define “black culture”. And while the causes of this may be traced(I have to an extent in other blogs), the truth remains that it affects the perception of the black woman. So when such a woman dismisses the approach of those she senses are unable or unwilling to provide for her and any possible children, the black man is forced to look elsewhere. This is why the “black men want white women”. The inverse is also true, white men do not suffer from the same problems. They not only appear to be more capable(in providing), but more respectful since “white culture” places far more value in women.

Yet why does the the black man gain any ground if the white man is more desirable? For many, specifically the upper and middle class, the realities of life are not apparent. Unlike the lower classes, the “upper class” women do not see the troubles which black women have seen for so long. It is simply ignorance combined with a distaste for the racial prejudices which remain to some extent within “white society”. For those white women in the lower class who like black men, ignorance/ambivalence is similarly true. It seems naive to suggest that poor black/white women do not see the situation of black fathers. More likely they simply do not care. They may feel their relationship is different, as it may be. Or they may recognize the struggles related to black fatherhood, and decide to continue with relationships with hopes of fighting the causes which bear upon the black man.

Ultimately I find this logic far preferable to the alternative which suggests black men seek the company of white women out of some sort of malice. That said, even this belief has some weight considering that the resentment of black men toward the society which injustices them is often strong. To place this blame on the white man as a race is however clearly misguided. For as time progresses, assuming no “corrective” measures, this trend of black women and white men or black men and white women will continue to the point that races are effectively and entirely destroyed. And if still no measures have been taken to equal the poor then the difference with remain.

* Nathan Rutstein (1993) Healing Racism in America (pg. 4)
** Hill, R. (1999). The strengths of Black families. New York: Emerson-Hall.

on friendship

Everyone knows what friendship is. I’m in no peculiar position to lecture others on the nature of friendship. Indeed my perspective is just that, and is apt to miss much of that which other perspectives may clearly see. But in the nature friendship, of literally having one another’s back, I feel it is important to let others know what I see so that, as a community, a complete outlook may be had.

For me, friendship is talking to another guy; on the phone, on the verge of tears, for 2 hours, without anyone calling you gay. It is having one another’s back. It is meaningful; not just in that it carries the weight of others support, but that it carries the weight of other’s respect and reputation. Unlike family, friends may be chosen. You are not born into them and throughout life many may, as with family, come to let you down.

But it is for this reason that you are judged by the company you keep; for no wise man would knowingly keep company with scoundrels. Indeed, doing so would subject him to the danger of being their next victim; whether intended or not, and with this the case, it may be presumed that those who keep company with scoundrels either support their actions or are ignorant thereto.

Now of course, we are imperfect beings and are destine to commit wrong at some point. That said, humanity can only excuse so many actions, and the severity and frequency must be taken into account when judging whether an individual is good company. Yet, most importantly it is assumed that no malicious intentions were present. I mean, of course, if they were then it would be downright stupid to forgive the act. Of course, for those of whom such actions are unheard of, even fairly sever offenses may be forgiven in appropriate disapproval is displayed (and the inverse is also true).

on morality and accomplishment

to define accomplishment is most elementarily to meet goals, it implies more than mere progress. And while our society tends to assume that those goals which ought most be reached are those we set for ourselves. Yet as the books and professors clearly profess, there are many other goals which may be accomplished. There are goals and obligations which society and family and country and neighbor place upon you. There are morals and values which the church and society hand down to you, and which we supposedly have cast aside in favor of our self-determined sense of morality. Yet while these morals and goals may well be arbitrary, that is really, not a point that’s in question. Indeed that is MY very point. Who or what organization is to attribute validity and substance to the accomplishments we wish to seek? Is not the church’s morality equally arbitrary? Is it because the church claims it’s truths to be irrevocably certain? Is it because they are based on underlying principal? What if those principals are wrong? What if the value of the whole is not greater than the value of its parts? What if those parts are not quantitative? I am not a number! My value is not. You may claim I am the definition of ego, but I am society. Society exists for me. My accomplishments are not those things which others decide they want of me. My accomplishments are those things I demand of myself. If others are so disturbed by the fact that I do not live up to the obligations they hold me to then that is that. They can choose not to interact with me. They can choose to do whatever they want. In ignoring their wishes of me, I make clear exactly that. I do not want part of that society. Is my morality any less valuable than yours? I would suggest that it is not. I would expect that all men would respect one another’s morality and goals. But indeed, if you choose not to respect mine, I do not really mind; fortunately we life in a society where your beliefs do not bear any consequence on me.

Of course, if you try to change that…

Habits of the Passive Heart

the world is just about over. Or so at least the prophets claim, and while prefaces edited revise the prediction to cast it further into the already arrived upon future, we see that there is little that can be done to save us.

we must learn to help one another. we must learn to destroy our individualism and materialism. it is through community which the whole may survive. for the free market has only allowed the few to prosper and the masses to sink. social security is the security of society, …

But when we take from the youth to pay for the elderly, we are in fact acting on the belief that the youth and middle-aged are unable to plan for their future. In fact, we are acting on the belief that the masses are unable to care their own basic needs, and if this is the case… does that not mean that this experiment of a nation has failed? Indeed it was founded on the concept of liberty, and inherent to liberty is the concept of individualism and self reliance. Without individualism and the self-determination which it implies, there is no freedom.

There is no future in this line of thought. While it may seem to some that the actions of Europe have proved successful, they are still the actions of old Europe. They are based in a conception that man is incapable of self-governance. Incapable of governing his immediate surrounding and daily aspects of life, and incapable of governing his fellow man.

Nay. Patrick Henry had it right; give me liberty or give me death for I’m riding this one into the dirt. I’m putting all my eggs in this basket. I cannot say without a doubt that a free nation can forever endure, but so long as it’s citizens prefer a secure life to the dangers of a free one I know that it cannot.

I wish a nigga would.

There is that point; the “I wish a nigga would” point; The point where you wish you had a clear justification for what you know are already have justification for; The point where you wish you could turn to violence.

Well you can, for by the nature of that thought you realize that the tyranny you are suffering is greater than that which would be imposed in open violent conflict. It is therefore the point where the utility of that other, or that government is exhausted. To continue without violence is to submit to intellectual slavery. It is to recognize your abused status yet leave the power of action in the hands of those who oppress. Be it intentional or accidental, the clear justification which you are waiting for may never come.

And, while it may be an attractive idea to inspect the actions of the oppressor in search of that obvious infraction, it serves only to demonstrate a belief that the oppressor is of weaker intellectual fortitude; that he will slip up and allow that clear justification to manifest. Yet, it is naïve to assume the oppressor is of weak intelligence. Indeed, that is exactly the trait with which he initially gained power. So with a physical weakness already demonstrated, why should one ever wait beyond that point? While the state may have loosened its hold on the body of man, that is no justification for the converse. It has merely lulled society into a mentality of pacifism.

A peculiar cycle

There is no doubt that at least some illicit drugs are harmful to the user. The individual detriment of marijuana, alcohol, and lsd may be minimal or at least manageable by a non-addictive person. And while I’m also sure there are others with limited inherently harmful effects, there is no doubt that many are harmful, and even the three previously listed can have very harmful effects if not used wisely and in moderation. So it’s clear that there is a social motivation to restrict access or prohibit the drugs.

However, as with speed limits, the compliance is often either rare or at least frequently broken by very significant portions of the public. As I write this I can can say with confidence that you have probably broken substance laws, if not do so fairly often.

But the effect of this, other than millions of arrests for drug charges, is far more detrimental than many would initially suspect. Many cite that crack cocaine for example can cause crime as it drains the financial resources of the addicted and drives them to illegal means of profitability like robbery, or drug dealing.

However, that is not nearly the worst affect of drug’s illegalization. Rather, since many many individuals, especially the “black”/poor community commonly possess marijuana or crack they are constantly breaking the law, and frequently felonies which carry significant jail time. Because of this, when they are the victim of a crime against them, they are in a particularly sticky situation. While law enforcement is established to protect everyone, including petty criminals, they are still subject to arrest for that pot/crack. This causes those individuals to resort to other methods of self defense and community policing that don’t subject them to the constant threat of jail time.

In fact, I feel it is solely because of the illegal status of popular drugs that gangs exist. It causes large portions of the public to fear the police and the government which are intended to protect them. They feel that the police are not there to protect them, and to some extent, they are not.

And while I didn’t initially intend to go into the affect of gangs, I must note that since gangs operate through largely illegal means(many arrested for felony drug charges thus prohibiting the possession of firearms while are society’s main tool of self defense). And because individuals come to rely on the protection of gangs, they enter a place where they can no longer report the socially harmful actions of the gang. And as their power grows so does their ability to harm without repercussions.

So the question remains as to what should be done. And while I wasn’t sure when I began writing, I now lean to the idea that we should legalize at least those drugs which are popular such as marijuana and crack. While crack is almost universally understood to be very harmful, that is in some way why it should be legal. With cocaine as tobacco, the fact that it’s harmful is known by all. And with the assistance of educational campaigns very very few would fall into the harmful effects without doing so by their own weighed decision.

On the other hand, the presence of gangs, not only harms very many in the community and promotes crime such as robbery, retributional murder, and so forth, it challenges the authority of the government. It steals the public allegiance from the the stable government to unstable social organizations, and as they realize the instability of this ancient social design, they lose all sense of security. They become essentially citizens of no state with no defenders but themselves, and as a result of felony drug charges, they are not even allowed to own guns to protect themselves with.

In fact while drugs alone only harm the user and those close by, the gangs which their illegalization create harm the whole of society. It makes it so that government, no matter how much it wishes cannot represent large portions of its citizenry.

It is exactly what we saw with the prohibition of alcohol. That was far worse because almost all of society drink alcohol at least occasionally and many do frequently. However while the effects of alcohol prohibition may have nearly devastated the government and society in just 14 years, the popularity of other drugs is just at the level that government/society can survive under the costs. Yet while the we continue to survive the costs (financial and not), the social harm significantly outweighs the benefits. It merely hasn’t yet bankrupted society.

What if God was one of us?

What if god was one of us?

I don’t just mean like a stranger on the bus, but simply as with Socrates, What if God was a man?

If god was a man, and all men are mortal… Then what if god was mortal? Would you still be religious if the book you read was the word of a mortal? Would you still take it as the truth even if you knew the writer was non it communion with a higher being? Would it still mean anything to you if it was all invented in the back of a bar two thousand years ago? If it was passed down and added to over hundreds of years?

I was just wondering, I know my answer. I’ve thought about it. But I have another, semi-related question, too.

Is it better to blindly believe a religion that’s right, or doubt one that’s not?

I’m running in circles with this so I’m gonna quit.

the new truth.

the new truth, while it sounds like some new age book, written by either some leftist or someone like who’d be on the interviewed on the Colbert Report, it’s actually now all that new.

The Truth has always been written by the victors. Well, not always, always by the literate, those able to pass knowledge on, those who live. I suppose some truth has been found settled under dust and dirt and encapsulated in the ash of conquered lands, but even so, the discoverers of that truth, are in fact survivors who could just as well destroy that which they find in favor of any other truth.

However the new truth is as the guy on the Colbert Report said, subject to the will of the public at large. With the internet, anyone can blog about events or experiences, or wiki anything they wish, true or false, from their eyes and ears, or straight from their ass.

But when you think about it, what trust it takes to assume that any “other” would do different? Would it be wise to entrust the dictation of truth the the elite newspaper printers? The Television reporters? The pope? Who should say what they saw, what they report? We should know by now that all men are capable liars.

At the very least all are capable of misinterpretation, and inaccurate observation. We all know how unreliable eye witnesses are. Two people can view the same incidence yet swear on significantly different happenings.

Knowledge is not foolproof. It is not certain. It must be determined, truth must be determined amongst a forest of inaccuracies. Like the Holocaust. To simply insist it occurred weakens the impact more than any denier ever could. But through trial may all truths be proven to a point certain.

Which brings me to the greatest annoyance of mine, the newspaper. The way in which articles are written yet no documentation or sources given. Well, maybe it is untrue to say “no sources”, however not all claims are substantiated, which is inexcusable considering the similar way in which all reporters have had to incessantly document ever word of their writing throughout college.

And whilst it is claimed that such check are performed in-house, there are few vestige traces of documentation left for the public reader. Yet, we are supposed to believe what is written. We are supposed to trust the paper’s good name.

But trust is an old idea. pre-renaissance?, regardless, today we are in the age of doubt, we doubt our god, our religion, our government, our mayor and president. Most of all I suppose, we doubt the internet. We realize the internet is mostly anonymous. Everyone can be tracked down, but no one trusted. We know this because we ourselves lie. We recognize the opportunity and have all fulfilled the adolescent idea of vandalizing the truth, edited entries in wikipedia, lied to chatters, made hoaxes of videos. It’s humor and fun. Sometimes it’s profit.

But the time comes that we must write a paper for class. Or research a topic. And still we go to wikipedia. We look at blogs. We read what it has to say, and we click on the linked source. And we see, the source, is simply another web page. It is the online Tampa Trib. Or Sports Illustrated. Or whatever it may be. But regardless, they tell you the truth. Unequivocally. the “truth”. be it right or wrong.

But that’s not it, we weigh the arguments, the claims, determine our own truth based on the information at hand. the ideas, the claims, and that’s what we argue.

I need to stop writing, it’s beginning to stop making sense. But I finished my book a few weeks back, and felt the urge to write again, i need to get it published. if someone would help that would be great.

What is a reasonable expectation of privacy?

Privacy, as in the truest sense, the ability to keep an action or matter secret. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines two states of privacy which lead to this end. First is “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation”. Secondarily, privacy is the “freedom from unauthorized intrusion”.

The second definition, is the right in private from the first, and is explicitly accounted for in the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, numerous Supreme Court rulings have overwhelmingly recognized that one’s “reasonable expectations of privacy”, seen in the first state, are also protected.

Obviously, the second type of privacy does not apply to public realms, but rather is likely a reference to the constitutional protection in private ones. However, since a person may be apart from both company and observation while in “public”, we are assured that some extent of privacy must exist in public.

In order to determine exactly how far that privacy extends, a line must be drawn at where that privacy does not extend; Namely anyone who accompanies or observes another is an exception to that other’s privacy.

However with the advent of video cameras, high-magnification lenses, and thermal imaging, the range, accuracy, and time order of observation have extended to an inhuman, and therefor unreasonable extent.

It is clearly unreasonable to suggest that everyone should expect to be observed by a completely imperceptible cameramen, equipped with a telescopic lense from miles away, let alone a satellite orbiting outer space.

It is also, clearly unreasonable to suggest that anyone should expect that another person may peer into a crystal ball, several days or years afterward, and watch exactly what they were doing halfway around the world at any particular instant.

And, as the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. US, it is clearly unreasonable to suggest that anyone should expect others to use Superman-like X-Ray vision to look directly through their household walls.

In summary, privacy is neither complete nor without exception. However, even in “public”, citizens have the right to have their reasonable expectations of privacy protected, and amongst that which is to be protected against is the governmental use of video, photographic and thermal imaging devices for warrantless observation.

Fired Federal Prosecutors

Now I haven’t, and never do, read the newspaper. And I don’t haven’t researched the topic thoroughly, but that’s why I have MSNBC and the Daily Show(and occasionally FOX).

The problem is, no one is actually saying anything about the firings. Sure, they’re throwing out their opinions. Someone mentioned that one of them was investigating a republican. But that’s it. Why won’t they give us the info.

Nationally, how often do these prosecutors investigate congress members? Is it even significant? How does it compare to the fired sample? Does the population investigate Democrats or Republicans more than one another? How does the fired sample compare?

Maybe it’s actually related to their performance. Instead of telling me that a couple had good “ratings”. Tell me what that means. May they have been focusing too heavily on illegal stock trading, and not prosecuting women and doctors who perform illegal abortions? Has anyone ever been prosecuted for an non-medically-necessary 3rd trimester abortion(illegal).

Maybe it’s political to the extent that those in charge felt they were not focusing heavily enough upon drugs, or anything. All I ask is that the news stations research this stuff. It’s basic. Just cover your bases. Is there anything significantly different between the fired ones and the rest.

Don’t just assume shit.

The Great Depression

This isn’t a metaphor. I’m just frustrated by the ignorance displayed by my professor, so I’ll correct him here instead of putting my grade at risk bickering with him.

“No one knows why the great depression started.” BS. Everyone should know why. During the Roaring Twenties, consumerism grew. Many people made money, and put it into banks. Some took out loans on cars, on refrigerators, appliances. More importantly, with the rising stock values, many took out loans to buy stock in hopes of selling it for a profit. However when vastly overvalued stocks fell, these people were unable to pay off the loans. When people went to the bank to withdraw their money, they found there was none. The banks had loaned it out to other people who bought stuff from other people, who then put the money back into the bank, to be loaned out to other people, to be…

This is why we have a little thing called the reserve rate. It is a percentage of money which the bank cannot loan out. So if a bank has $1,000,000 dollars in it, a 15% reserve would mean it has to keep 150,000 available at all times(maybe not in cash). If people tried to withdraw $200,000 the bank would go bankrupt, but the FDIC insures each account up to $100,000 so everyone would be left with up to that amount.

I’m not sure what a usual reserve rate is, but i believe that 15% is quite high. I think I might take some sort of econ soon.

Optimism

In the eyes of the Optimist
The Tank is always Half Full.
Introducing the new 2006 Lincoln Zephyr.
An open road. An open mind. The possibilities are endless. Lincoln Zypher.
With DVD-based navigation* and class-exclusive six-speed automatic transmission.***
Adventure is at your fingertips.
Lincoln. Reach Higher.

---

They say there is no truth in advertising, but perhaps by Freudian slip. However this piece is very truthful, directly attacking the mentality which competes against American car companies. They have fought the claims of alarmists for decades pollution, global warming, fuel “crisis”.

Yet if it one would believe any organization when it came to the life of oil reserves, wouldn’t it make the most sense to listen to the ones selling the least efficient cars? It is their live which the knife is pointed at. The blood spills from their futures into the engines of their own cars.

They have a legal obligation to protect their shareholders. To make money not only now, but more importantly, in the future. So why are they selling inefficient cars? Because they’re profitable, and they have time to create alternatives. That, or they already have.

I beg you to do the research. Who is furthest along? The Japanese have a good number of hybrids, but so do the Americans. But that’s chicken shit in the grand scheme of things. That’s conservation, not evolution. The Americans, they are evolving. They are investing the money, they are researching fuel cell technology, hydrogen, etc. They are building the prototypes, not for show, but for advancement.

What are the Japs doing? Making tiny 4-bangers and hybrids, and overcharging; 25k for a 17k car. That’s profit. Short term profit.

In no way though, am I saying tha the Japanese/Koreans are stupid. They don’t need to invest. The Americans are investing. Just as they always have done, they will steal the technology. They save their money till the Americans come out with a solid solution, then spend. Then they tweak it a bit and remarket it. Say they developed a better one.

Look to the past.
Who first introduced airbags? Ford and then GM.
Who invented side, and side curtian airbags AutoLiv an American/European company. Just the name DaimlerChrysler is responisble for 6 fuel cell cars.

If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my father.

Jesus was the son of god. However so are all men; we are his children, and as humans we are inherently flawed. We were made in his image, we are almighty. For even he has said, “… now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” Not even he, as he said, commands more power than man. And for good reason, we are flawed. But as Darwin theorized, flawes contribute to the natural evolution of the world. Not always is the right thing the best. God, knows what is right, he knows all, he is never wrong, and this is his flaw. For man, has stregnth in numbers, we are always right and always wrong. We know all yet are ignorant. Jesus, I believe was sent down to save man, to die for our sins. But we must remember that he to was human. It is the naturea of humanity and something not even god would will to change(he created it as such). So when Jesus died for our sins, he died for his sins too. He was not free of sin, rather free of evil. It was his life, as god intended, and as documented in the bible, that made clear that sin is not evil. Jesus was sent to save, to heal, to help. And he performed his duties on the sabbath. Was that sin,? assuridly. Evil? Of course not. Jesus said, “If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my father.” With no doubt, those are the words of a man. To have the will to seak retribution for wrongs is sin. God would forgive. God does forgive. And he already has.

Apparently Not, Or At Least Not Immideatly

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -Mohandas Gandhi

Everyone looks up to Gandhi, and recognises his innovative peaceful rebellion. However even he recognised that it violence sometimes is the answer.

Back from the United Kingdom

After centuries of oppression, of foreign and domestic tyranny in India, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and in their own home; through protestant reformations, massive exodus, and disastrous wars; the land of from which so many have come, has not changed.

Indeed it has; it’s colonies have dwindled and it’s power fallen significantly. However the mentality of the people, and oppressive nature and not changed in the slightest.

In a local pub words shocked me and the fell from the lips of a nice lady. A local to Scotland, she passed to us the history of her trip to America, and within it, the sight of a police officer carrying a gun. The fear in her eyes, over a year later, swelled up and she explained how she paniced. Not literally, she held her fear quite well, yet never explained the cause.

Truthfully, I did not understand it, and still dont. But I suppose it comes from a general culture of fear. The only good reason why a sane person would fear a gun, is if they feared the person holding it. So when a country moves to ban all guns, it’s not because they fear the gun. Only ignorance to suggest that, the individuals of the nation all feel as though there no one they can trust. They put of 17 million government cameras to watch one another, millions more private. But it is never enough. Because no matter what they do. There’s no one they feel they can trust.

I arrived during, as one TV station reported, “A terrible weekend of knife violence.” The Edinburgh reporter proceeded to say that only twenty some odd knives were turned in thus far, during the knife amnesty month. He threw the at the ground, a machete, a pocket knife, a butter knife, a butcher’s knife. And I laughed. But really I cried.

This is where we are going.

It’s not that they don’t trust one another, or maybe it is. But ultimately, they don’t trust themselves. They want to watch everyone. Everyone is either good or evil. But they fail to realize. Almost everyone is good. Most everyone tries to do what’s right, it’s differences here which causes problems. But in the end, these aren’t problems. Nor are truly bad people. For they cannot change. And they are destine to fail to be killed off theoretically or literally. But when everyone is afraid of one another, and no one can break the law, no one can break the law. And it is discretion, in the grand scheme of thing that cleanses the globe. Some times people need to be killed. Things need to be stolen. And hatred for criminals is so strong, and no one is willing to weigh the motives. well I’m yet to understand it all.

But I can say right now, this won’t happen here. I’ll figure out what I’m thinking. I will write it down and will change the way we are beginning to think. And if all fails, then I’ll simply prove ideas wrong, one by one.

I don’t know. Maybe it won’t be that bad. But is is for them. For them, it is too late for preventative measures. Terrorism will win there. The country will collapse. What happens afterwards is a direct result of America’s path. Will we fall too? Or will we stand. Will we rebuild? I will. I am right now.

Where’s the bigotry? Insane my ass.

I don’t want to sound like Tom Cruise, but in one very narrow sense I agree. There’s is no such thing as a brain disorder. Brains function in different way, and no two are alike. Some are more intelligent, others less so. Some recognize abstract congruences, others follow a straighter, more grounded, path. The point is, the is no right or wrong way to think. That is the point of the brain; to cast a large net with which to survive in Darwin’s world. The concept that one particular mind reaches different conclusions from the rest has no bearing on this philosophy.

Certainly, some chemicals or medicines may alter the processes of the deviant to think in a manner in line with others, but that is just that; an act. I feel neither for nor against the pursuit to conform. If taking the medicines helps you interact, more power to you, but it’s not curing anything. In order to cure, there must be a flaw in the operation of the body (ex. Broken bone, lacerated skin, etc.).

It is for this reason that the mentally deficient should not be treated any differently under the eyes of the law. Ignorance is no excuse. They didn’t choose to not know the effects, but on the same token, I didn’t choose to get pissed off when they called me fat. Either way, the way our brains process information decided to kill the other and we acted out.

This also applies temporary insanity. One could argue that by getting pissed off, I went insane. But who is to say I could not think? Who is to say what insanity is? An insane man still thinks. An enraged man still thinks, skewed, but such is the proper functioning of their body.

So unless something actually effects the processes of one’s brain(ex. Involuntary consumption of intoxicants, external electrical current to the brain effecting thought, etc.) the punishment should not change.

In summary I suppose, insane means nothing. In Communist Russia Capitalists were considered mentally deficient. Were they? Of course not. They just thought differently.

The Mexican immigration problem (and solution).

Of course hardworking immigrants benefit society. However, a growing population makes it harder to maintain a high per capita GDP. As with all problems you must look at the underlying cause rather than the result.

Mexicans are coming to America because they can make more money. Now we could either stop being profitable, or make Mexico more profitable. Obviously, the solution is to make Mexico better.

The problem with that is how we do that from up here? Well, I don’t really think it’s that hard. We’ve managed to do a fairly good job to instituting Democracy in Iraq so far. The difference is that Mexico is already “Democratic.” This may be a good thing or a bad thing.

Clearly Mexico’s Democracy isn’t doing much to stifle corruption, the drug trade, or protect those trying to change it. The underlying problem is the Mexican people’s lack of meaningful power. While they can vote for people, they have no way to enforce their votes, and no way to protect themselves from violent, government sanctioned, drug cartels. Or is it a drug cartel sanctioned government? Or is it both?

The solution is to give arms, and power to the people(Guns are illegal there.). It won’t significantly raise crime because criminals already have guns, and they pay off the government to prevent prosecution.

This with American political assistance, Mexico may cleanse their political system and their nation as a whole. And with liberty comes prosperity.

People will move out of the illicit drug market and into more stable markets. More Companies will operate there because they would no longer have to bribe government officials and can spend less on security, thereby increasing profitability.

Gun Blog; Part 2

So the question remains, could you fend off a gun wielding attacker for the average of 7-8 minutes it takes for cops to arrive? Maybe you could, maybe you couldn’t. A gun in your hand would surly help, but if you banned guns, or at a minimum handguns, that criminal wouldn’t have a gun now would he? Yes and no. After all, there are roughly 200 million guns in the US(PDF).

Would all those guns just disappear? Of course not, but they would slowly fade away as those owned by malicious criminals were found, and the only ones which remained from the pre-ban era would be those owned by normal citizens who didn’t want to give their guns up. Now those people would be “criminals”, but as we all know, criminality is a state of mind. Anyhow, people argue that after a period of say 10 years, those guns wouldn’t be in the hands of real criminals. And they’re right.

“Those guns” wouldn’t be a problem, but new guns would. If you need proof of that look at Washington DC.The Washington Times admits that despite the 30 year old DC gun ban which banned handguns outright, and , “… the District had a higher homicide rate last year than any other city in the nation with more than 500,000 residents”, as recorded by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report. Where do they get their guns? They simply get them from elsewhere.

We have to remember that it is illegal for convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship. It has been this way since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.

However that doesn’t stop felons from getting guns, because the obtained the illegally. Just as illicit drugs are sold, illicit guns are sold. And it’s no like they are a mysterious enigma that are far too difficult get. All you need is a couple hundred bucks and your set.

So when guns are banned, it only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens. Some contest that it would reduce the number of suicides committed by the youth. Again, I argue that what teen doesn’t have access to illegal drugs. While I don’t have any statistics off hand, I’m willing to bet you’d have a hard time finding a suicidal teen who couldn’t get weed if he wanted. And if you have access to weed, you have access to cocaine, steroids, guns, and all other “small” items on the black-market.

Then, the only people who don’t have guns are the people who don’t want to break the law. And then, when Joe Shmoe busts in your door, or breaks open you car window at a red light(and 5 out of 6 people are victims of violent crime(PDF)), he may still have that gun, but you won’t. If you don’t carry a gun, the situation wouldn’t be much different than before guns were banned. But it’s a much different situation for the people who do carry guns for protection, and mind you, not just to protect themselves, but to protect whoever may need protecting. They are the one’s willing to protect themselves and others no matter what the situation.

They are the people who sometimes have somewhat crazy ideas. They are sometimes the gun-nuts who go to the range every week, humorously talk with their buddies about zombie invasions, and hone their skills. Some may talk of dooms day, and they talk of what could be. They may hide guns in their walls, burry them under their driveway, build AK-47s from blank sheets of metal, write books on how to make ammunition out of lipstick lids; waste countless hours on the internet talking about things that will never happen, but they are the people you count on when riots churn over a young man’s death, and the crowds are burning your home, and when we flash back to Kristall Nacht, and Uncle Sam’s no where to be found.

Gun Blog; Part 1

I don’t blame people for being scared of guns. It goes back to everyone’s instinctive fear of death. I admit I’m scared of guns to an extent. Under no conditions do I want to look down a barrel to see a bullet waiting. Guns have the power to kill, to maim, to cause suffering of families and countries, and entire races. It’s only logical to think that it would all end if the guns weren’t there. If that man with the gun, was just a man with an attitude, then everything would be ok… or at least a little bit better.

But it wouldn’t be, because the gun is not the problem. On a similar note, I saw Hotel Rwanda just a week ago, and if you’ve seen it, I’m sure you’ll remember how the Hutus slaughtered nearly one million Tutsi, and this was just nine years ago, in 1994. Yet the worst part was not how soldiers shot innocent children intending to wipe out the next generation, but how they did so with clubs, machetes, or anything else they could scrounge up. Throughout the movie, the UN “peacekeepers” did virtually nothing.

Although it would be great to prevent all disasters, both large scale ones like in the movie, and small scale ones which are commonly seen throughout life, banning guns cannot do that because the evil is still there.

So instincts kick in. Fight or Flight. That’s interesting to me. Evolution has eliminated all the possible choices an animal can make, and left two. Most notably, it eliminated appeasement. Logically it did so because appeasement does not work in the majority of cases.

Getting back to what I was saying, Fight or Flight. The choice is to run, or to confront. Obviously, if you can escape, do it. Confrontation carries the risk of injury and death, and you generally won’t die in a successful escape(If you did then it would be pretty pointless). Yet since you may not have the choice of escaping, people have to be prepared to fight. Again, it is smart to get another person to do the fighting for you. After all you can’t get hurt, but it would naive to rely on another.

Reflecting back to Hotel Rwanda you will remember that UN helped just about the same amount as a lamp post. The same thing happened in Germany too. Utter disbelief wiht regard to the seamingly absurd rumors, disguised the truth from the Jewish populace. After all, not many liked the Jews, but they couldn’t seriously try to kill them all, especially not here, in industrialized Germany…

But it actually happened, and by the time Allied forces toppled the Nazis, 13 million were dead. Great for Mr. 13-million-and-one, but bad for everyone before him, and that’s the lesson we must learn. Help never arrives soon enough. To be protected, you must protect yourself.

In all seriousness, do you know how long it takes for the police to get to your house? The Washington Times reports that it takes an average of 7-8 minutes for metro police to respond to Priority 1 calls, which includes armed-robbery, assault, and shootings. Assuming your able to call 911, would you be able to fend off an armed, prepared attacker for even 5 minutes?

I’ll pick back up tomorrow.

Clarification of NSA activities

Disregarding Bush, and who did what and when(all presidents since Truman have known about NSA), let’s first determine if it is moral.

Obviously, I don’t want to be spied on. Although I have nothing to hide, I still have everything to hide. Of course, I also like living, so spying on our enemies is probably a good idea. Now considering that we have enemies both within and outside of the country, some American citizens, some not, we have to monitor citizens.

The only question is how we go about it. First, we’ve pretty much been monitored for the past half a century one effect or the other. With those decades of monitoring I don’t know of anyone who has been harmed by it.

Could it be right openly allow monitoring? Well, although there may be no, or very few infraction on the part of the NSA thus far, they have also been working in complete secrecy. It’s only fair to assume that caches of information could not be used because of this concealed nature, in effect serving as a check imposed by it’s self. Open acceptance would allow many more opportunities to infringe on our rights and negatively impact our lives.

So the solution is to be hypocritical. Staunchly defend the constitution, prosecute offenders, prevent spying, yet secretly do it all anyway.

Isn’t that what you always thought as a child? That the government had secret agencies with alien crafts, and bases where they tortured terrorists, and giant satellites that could read the notes you pass to your neighbor? That was security. That was freedom.

Wanna a lil’ NSA wire tappin’, ladies?

Quoted from FindLaw.com

Warrantless “National Security” Electronic Surveillance.–In Katz v. United States, Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ”national security cases” electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ”bug” in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ”inherent” presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ”reasonable” search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government’s duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. This protection was even more needed in ”national security cases” than in cases of ”ordinary” crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. The question of the scope of the President’s constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled. Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any “United States person” will be overheard.

This obviously pertains to the recent scandal which Democrats are making about the NSA’s eavesdropping on American Citizens who are calling out of the Country or are recieving calls from outside the country.

As FindLaw states the legality of this is still somewhat shady. We know that it is unconstitutional for the Government to tap Domestic-to-Domestic calls without a warrant. We also know that it is constitution for the Government to tap International-International calls without a warrant. We do not however(as far as I know) have a ruling deciding whether Domestic-International/International-Domestic, warrantless wiretaps are protected.

Is it protected? Certianly, the right of that American to be protected under the constitution does not change when conversing with someone who doesn’t have that right. If the .Gov could tap only the international side of the call, that would be constitutional. But they can’t. Now did the President break the law by giving the NSA permission to tap American-Internation/International-American calls for National Security Info? I do not believe so.

Such a search would be unconstitutional, and any information gathered through it would be subject to dismissal, but giving permission is not unconstitutional. The search is. Had he ORDERED his subordinates to do so, that would be unconstitutional. Grounds for impeachment? I wouldn’t go that far. Legally though? Possiblly so.

What would happen if they did such a search? Well, the person being charged would appeal, and the Supreme Court would presumably rule it unconstitutional, throw out the evidence, and try the person again.

Where’s the problem? The NSA(That’s kinda funny; NSA if you recall is also the acronym for No-Strings-Attached. And if they have their way, they’ll have no LEGAL strings attached either!). Anyway, I don’t like the National Security Agency. There’s no need for another agency. The entire government needs some major consolidation.

Anyhow, the republicans shouldn’t have made the NSA and the Democrats shouldn’t have agreed to it. Who’s more at fault? I can’t say. And before you start thinking that the Republicans are taking away all your rights, remember who’s taking away your right to protect yourself.

Robin’ (the) Hood

Remember that judgment that the Supreme Court handed down about the fifth amendment? Yes, the one which ruled that although no person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, the government can take that land for what many consider private use of that “private” use pays more taxes. Let’s talk about that.

First, and I’m talking on moral grounds rather than legal ones, can the government take private land for public use? In an “Anarchist Area”(there’s got to be a real name for that), what someone owns, they own, and they should not be deprived of that under any circumstances. But we’re a Democracy, and in Democracies the will of the people is law. So if the government, made of the people and for the people, should decide to take private property for “public use”, as defined by equal access by all the people, then certainly that would be fair, assuming that the private party was justly compensated.

Now the question becomes; “Does greater tax revenue constitute public use?” The government does have the right to enable it’s fulfillment of duties. It can levy taxes, which enable it to commit actions on the public’s behalf. It can reasonably do many other things, but “Does greater tax revenue constitute public use?” Well, by taking private property to give to another private entity which pays more taxes, the government is enabling a private entity to enable themselves to commit acts on the public’s behalf. Although this adds another chain into the link, it does end with the government committing acts on the public’s behalf.

While you and I may argue that there are too many chains in the link, the Supreme Court of the Unites States(SCOTUS). Ruled it to be public use, and there’s no changing that. Only changing the laws which are already on the books.

Still, even with that conclusion, a great injustice exists. How can the government take the property of a lower income household/entity and give it to a higher income household/entity. Why, that’s… that’s discrimination. And it is. Regrettably that isn’t the end.

15th Amendment Sect. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
So no the constitution does no protect against discrimination based of income. Nor do any of the Civil Rights Acts. They protect against “employment practice [which result] in a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…” So how can we correct the problem if it is completely legal to discriminate based on income? Pass new legislation, preferably a constitutional amendment.

I feel in my uneducated non-legal opinion that such an amendment would have a good fighting shot at passing. It would gain support from the “underprivileged” since they don’t want to be discriminated against for being poor. The wealthy would do so to protect their property.

And if we wanted to, and we would have to in order to get it to pass, we could have it exclude discrimination based on income in situations pertaining to financial aid(scholarships, welfare, etc.). That way the middle and upper classes could be discriminated against for having good jobs.

To Free Trade or not to Free Trade!

Free Trade and Tariffs shouldn’t be about protectionist ideas of helping out the American worker. As with welfare, help weakens those that receive it. The government has no place supporting private enterprise, only maintaining security and acting in foreign affairs(and possibly other things which I haven’t thought of but are irrelevant to this discussion).

As a Capitalist nation our goal is to have a perfectly free market. Of course, a completely free market, one with no rules or regulations would foster the development of monopolies and bullies which would inevitably collapse the system into complete anarchy. That is the difference between a Free Market, and an “Anarchist Arena”. Rules are set to make sure that no one gains control or an unfair advantage.

In a global economy I can think of two major examples of how companies gain control and take an unfair advantage over others. First a company can gain control by selling products below cost forcing others out of business, a clear attempt to Monopolize. The second, a company may take advantage of foreign governmental support, or the lax domestic policy of foreign nations.

This second case is what occurs when companies export jobs. By paying workers less than American minimum wage, paying lower taxes, and or harming the environment in ways illegal within the States, companies gain an advantage over American companies.

This is where the government gains jurisdiction(They always had legal jurisdiction, this is moral jurisdiction). To protect the people of foreign nations, the government must levy tariffs greater than or equal to the unfair advantages gained by residing in another country.

This does not mean they should tax companies from “Country A” because it has large reserves of cheap iron. That is not an unfair advantage since it is available to everyone. If “Country A” only allowed companies from their own country access those reserves, then it would be unfair. It’s really fairly simple.

The effect of taxing these imports is that it deters companies from setting up there, forcing these countries to treat workers properly, quit unfair practices because after all, they need to make money off their economy. And if they don’t mind having no companies operate there and thus a crappy economy, then screw ‘em. They’re probably a Dictatorship anyway and need to be “restructured”.

Later I’ll write on something else. I would be why the Free Market is stable, but I haven’t been in Macroeconomic in weeks so I forgot all the info that I’d need to think it through.