Morale relativism is the prescriptive or normative position that, as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral standards. In other words it is cafeteria morality, where one picks and chooses moral values as they see fit, ignoring the real purpose of religious doctrine, that values and truth are best left to god, not man. If one had to look at the personification of progressive morale relativism, one need not look any farther than Nancy Pelosi. Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) denounced a "dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and ... desires." One might be able to excuse another persons misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine, but Nancy Pelosi is an “ardent, practicing Catholic”. Below is a interview with Nancy Pelosi by Tom Brokaw about abortion.
REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…
MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…
REP. PELOSI: I understand that.
MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.
REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions. And we want abortions to be safe, rare, and reduce the number of abortions. That’s why we have this fight in Congress over contraception.
The reality of course is since 70AD, the Catholic Church has said that life begins with conception and abortion for any reason is murder or at the very least, the taking of a human life. The only “controversy" is the progressive relativism of Nancy Pelosi. So in this case, Pelosi appears to place her progressive political beliefs over the deepest beliefs of her church, as the Pope said for her “own ego”.
Next we go to her pronouncement that the Cap and Trade Bill passed in the House was about, “Jobs, jobs. jobs”. The test case for green jobs has been in Spain, where each green job resulted in two regular jobs being lost. So at a time of 10% unemployment, Nancy Pelosi’s progressive agenda was to increase unemployment by 50% for every green job; this being an ends and means tactic based on a relativism scale of economic planning vs human misery. Speaking of unemployment, Nancy Pelosi would tell us that money given to the unemployed creates jobs.
Or that the Healthcare reform Bill is a job bill.
While Nancy Pelosi may seem comical at times, one should not let their guard down, because these propagandized descriptions, that government will cause the sun to in the morning and it will be a job creator, has a purpose of making the truth relative, which produces a climate of cynicism that intellectual inquiry is even possible. Of course, the Healthcare reform bill will have to become law before we even know what’s in it.
Since that time we have learned that every promise made by the President and Nancy Pelosi are off the table; healthcare will not lower the deficit, you will not be able to keep your insurance if you want to, you will not pay less than you are paying now, you will not be able to keep your doctor, there will be panels run by Nancy Sebelius, who will make decisions on patient care.
Then there is the “Word”
Here is a transcript.
They ask me all the time, ‘What is your favorite this? What is your favorite that? What is your favorite that?’ And one time, ‘What is your favorite word?’ And I said, ‘My favorite word? That is really easy. My favorite word is the Word, is the Word. And that is everything. It says it all for us. And you know the biblical reference, you know the Gospel reference of the Word.
And that Word is, we have to give voice to what that means in terms of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word. The Word. Isn’t it a beautiful word when you think of it? It just covers everything. The Word.
Fill it in with anything you want. But, of course, we know it means: ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us.’ And that’s the great mystery of our faith. He will come again. He will come again. So, we have to make sure we’re prepared to answer in this life, or otherwise, as to how we have measured up.
Apparently it’s been a long time since Nancy Pelosi has been in Catechism, as her understanding of scripture at the beginning of the book of John deluded at best. In the book of John, the “Word” means “Jesus”; the two are interchangeable in the book of John. In Hebrew Scripture, “the Word” was “the source of God’s message to his people” or “god” himself. Nancy Pelosi seems to think that “the Word” can mean anything and everything. She goes on the say that public policy has to reflect Christian values and no one called her on it, because her message was so convoluted is was viewed as laughable.
Progressives do not believe that liberal* (*meaning Constitutional) politicians act in good faith; they are truly astonished that the citizenry would chose a liberal* government and believe it can only be accomplished through fear mongering, misrepresentation and evil intent. Progressives;Still Lost in the 20's. Two examples of this are Nancy Pelosi’s Astroturf statement, where her deep cynicism makes her unable to believe that any grassroots political movement is possible. The reason, most likely is all the so-called grassroots demonstrations she been involved with, were the result of political financing and planning. Every liberal progressive rally in the last 20 years seems to have included bus transportation by SEIU or Acorn.
Nancy Pelosi later makes similar statements about New Yorkers opposed to a mosque near ground zero of 911. This may be Nancy Pelosi most arrogant public moment. While 911 was an attack against the entire citizenry of the United States, and ground zero is hallowed ground to all Americans, the lasting emotional damage was with the people that experienced the horror first hand. This makes the ground zero mosque an emotional and local issue.
Again you see Nancy Pelosi’s inability to comprehend that the collective consists of spontaneous individuals. I’m sure Nancy Pelosi believes that the French Revolution was the result of some bankers paying the citizenship to show up for a demonstration and planned March to the kings chateau (Versailles). Even more remarkable is Pelosi’s inability to truly separate the political from the emotional. While the mosque issue had been picking up some political steam, it was not until President Obama made two statements about the mosque. The first was the obvious statement that building the mosque was legal under the second amendment, then he re-stated his opinion in an obvious attempt to muddle his message.
It has become obvious that Nancy Pelosi believes that she is the planner of a Socialistic government that took over when President Obama was elected. As with all socialistic states, the truth “becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it”. (The Road to Serfdom) Using her "the Word" analogy, Nancy Pelosi has accumulated so much personal power, she believes she can create reality by the power of her spoken word; that truth and reality are relative to the a world view she is creating in her own image. And when she finally falls from power, it can only be the result of an evil cabal, as the collective has not the insight to see beyond the Word that she sees as herself.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Taking the wonderingmind42 Challenge
Recently I was sent a link to an old YouTube video, “The Most terrifying video you’ll ever see”. Narrated by wonderingmind42, who apparently a math teacher. The video is about 3 years old, but I have not seen it, but apparently 7 million viewers have.
wonderingmind42 has a common sense way about him where he presents his view of Global Warming. He shows a grid with his presumed 4 possible results of either paying to reduce global warming or not;
1)We pay to reduce global warming and it does no occur = (the) “Cost $” (resulting in a) Global Depression
2)We do nothing and global warming does not occur = (smiley face)(we save the money and no Global Depression)
3)We pay to reduce global warming and it does occur= (smiley face)(the) “Cost $”
4) We do nothing and global warming does occur= Catastrophes (including); social, economical, political, environmental (and) health
wonderingmind42’s conclusion: Considering the possible extreme results of global warming, there is no choice but to reduce our carbon footprint and pay the price. And then he asks for feedback as to where he has errored. Well wonderingmind42, Ill take you up on that.
Without going any father than your chart, in #3 the result of paying to reduce global warming, whether it happens or not, will still result in the same depression as with #1. Now we also have to look at what the United States by itself could do to slow global warming. According to Joel Rodgers founder of the Apollo Alliance, a liberal think tank and Green policy adviser to President Obama, the United States would have completely de-industrialize and it would still have minimal impact on Global warming.
Okay, forget that, lets consider the practicality of de-industrializing enough to actually reduce global warming. We would first need world government, as China (the worst offender), India and most emerging third world countries will not jump on the global warming bandwagon, so we are looking at the cost of a world war, which will have the same effect as #4. Okay lets forget that, lets look at the current effect of going green in the world. The current policies of the IMF, which have forced struggling countries to switch from food crops to alternate energy crops, which has led to, according to the United Nations themselves, the unintended consequence of being the direct cause over 1 million people starving to death per year. Ouch! This is the reason we found a thriving business in Haiti selling mud biscuits.
Based on these unintended consequences, there is now evidence that the amount of C02 that we produce is related to the population we can support. The ratio seems to be close to 1 to 1. In other words with our present technology, if we reduce C02 production by 10%, there would be a reduction in the ability to support 10% of the population. If your not understanding this, it means reducing Co2 will lead to the death, usually by starvation, of large percentages of the world. President Obama wants reduce US green house gases by 28% and the US produces about 29% of the worlds green house gases; this should result in the death of 8.12% of world's population.
Hmmm trying to stop this global warming thing is not looking good. But look you added another video, “How it all ends”.
The first thing I noticed is you removed any downside to #3 leaving only a smiley face. Apparently just stopping global warming will eliminate the massive effects of the cost and likely global depression. You also added scientific organizations like NAS and AAAS and energy and chemical companies that back global warming. First lets discuss the scientific evidence and reputations. For one thing you did not mention the IPCC, the United Nations Climate Organization that is responsible for supply the NAS and AAAS with 75% of their data. Turns out the IPCC was so concerned about their reputations, that the ignored contrary data, fudged computer models and attempted to discredit the life work of any scientists with contrary conclusions. Oh, I’m sorry, this occurred 2 years after you made these videos. Let me also add this from my blog, Progressives; Lost in the 20's It is no coincidence that progressive thought and science are both produced in academia. The idea that science cannot be influenced and comes to its conclusions independently is historically absurd. The truth is science has always been used to protect and prove the status quo, while independent inquiry is usually done in darkened rooms with notes written in code. Most scientists are employed by large corporations and are not paid to do independent research.
And then there are all the energy and chemical companies like BP, Shell, GE Dow, Dupont, PGE, Siemens..etc, are all pushing for green energy. Well, not really, what they are pushing for is carbon credits. You see they are in the unique position of having control of the carbon credits market and the derivatives that will result in a cap and trade system. By all accounts, cap and trade will do little to reduce green house gases as industry will simply pass down to the consumer the added cost of carbon credits ; that’s why it is referred to as pay to pollute, as these companies will reap billions in the carbon credit market. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron, with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron (remember them?), with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind.
wonderingmind42, I’m guessing many of these issues have already been brought up, but there is something about 7 million people watching this kind of propaganda that kept me up for about 20 minutes last night. One more thing, returning to Joel Rodgers for a minute, if your wondering why one of the biggest supporters and promoters, has pretty much written off ever reducing or stabilizing of Global Warming, the answer is simple. Like all progressives, Rodgers is a redistributionist. When all is said and done, all global warming will end up being, is a scheme for redistribution of wealth through carbon credits. By the way, good Alton Brown imitation.
wonderingmind42 has a common sense way about him where he presents his view of Global Warming. He shows a grid with his presumed 4 possible results of either paying to reduce global warming or not;
1)We pay to reduce global warming and it does no occur = (the) “Cost $” (resulting in a) Global Depression
2)We do nothing and global warming does not occur = (smiley face)(we save the money and no Global Depression)
3)We pay to reduce global warming and it does occur= (smiley face)(the) “Cost $”
4) We do nothing and global warming does occur= Catastrophes (including); social, economical, political, environmental (and) health
wonderingmind42’s conclusion: Considering the possible extreme results of global warming, there is no choice but to reduce our carbon footprint and pay the price. And then he asks for feedback as to where he has errored. Well wonderingmind42, Ill take you up on that.
Without going any father than your chart, in #3 the result of paying to reduce global warming, whether it happens or not, will still result in the same depression as with #1. Now we also have to look at what the United States by itself could do to slow global warming. According to Joel Rodgers founder of the Apollo Alliance, a liberal think tank and Green policy adviser to President Obama, the United States would have completely de-industrialize and it would still have minimal impact on Global warming.
Okay, forget that, lets consider the practicality of de-industrializing enough to actually reduce global warming. We would first need world government, as China (the worst offender), India and most emerging third world countries will not jump on the global warming bandwagon, so we are looking at the cost of a world war, which will have the same effect as #4. Okay lets forget that, lets look at the current effect of going green in the world. The current policies of the IMF, which have forced struggling countries to switch from food crops to alternate energy crops, which has led to, according to the United Nations themselves, the unintended consequence of being the direct cause over 1 million people starving to death per year. Ouch! This is the reason we found a thriving business in Haiti selling mud biscuits.
Based on these unintended consequences, there is now evidence that the amount of C02 that we produce is related to the population we can support. The ratio seems to be close to 1 to 1. In other words with our present technology, if we reduce C02 production by 10%, there would be a reduction in the ability to support 10% of the population. If your not understanding this, it means reducing Co2 will lead to the death, usually by starvation, of large percentages of the world. President Obama wants reduce US green house gases by 28% and the US produces about 29% of the worlds green house gases; this should result in the death of 8.12% of world's population.
Hmmm trying to stop this global warming thing is not looking good. But look you added another video, “How it all ends”.
The first thing I noticed is you removed any downside to #3 leaving only a smiley face. Apparently just stopping global warming will eliminate the massive effects of the cost and likely global depression. You also added scientific organizations like NAS and AAAS and energy and chemical companies that back global warming. First lets discuss the scientific evidence and reputations. For one thing you did not mention the IPCC, the United Nations Climate Organization that is responsible for supply the NAS and AAAS with 75% of their data. Turns out the IPCC was so concerned about their reputations, that the ignored contrary data, fudged computer models and attempted to discredit the life work of any scientists with contrary conclusions. Oh, I’m sorry, this occurred 2 years after you made these videos. Let me also add this from my blog, Progressives; Lost in the 20's It is no coincidence that progressive thought and science are both produced in academia. The idea that science cannot be influenced and comes to its conclusions independently is historically absurd. The truth is science has always been used to protect and prove the status quo, while independent inquiry is usually done in darkened rooms with notes written in code. Most scientists are employed by large corporations and are not paid to do independent research.
And then there are all the energy and chemical companies like BP, Shell, GE Dow, Dupont, PGE, Siemens..etc, are all pushing for green energy. Well, not really, what they are pushing for is carbon credits. You see they are in the unique position of having control of the carbon credits market and the derivatives that will result in a cap and trade system. By all accounts, cap and trade will do little to reduce green house gases as industry will simply pass down to the consumer the added cost of carbon credits ; that’s why it is referred to as pay to pollute, as these companies will reap billions in the carbon credit market. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron, with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind. The company that first invested in the concept of carbon credits was Enron (remember them?), with BP, Shell and Phillips not far behind.
wonderingmind42, I’m guessing many of these issues have already been brought up, but there is something about 7 million people watching this kind of propaganda that kept me up for about 20 minutes last night. One more thing, returning to Joel Rodgers for a minute, if your wondering why one of the biggest supporters and promoters, has pretty much written off ever reducing or stabilizing of Global Warming, the answer is simple. Like all progressives, Rodgers is a redistributionist. When all is said and done, all global warming will end up being, is a scheme for redistribution of wealth through carbon credits. By the way, good Alton Brown imitation.
Progressives; Still Lost in the 1920s
The divide between progressives and conservatives (liberals*) has reached its pinnacle with the progressive Obama Administration. The progressive movement started in the 1838 with Charles Darwin and a new scientific paradigm. It is no coincidence that Eugenics theory was extrapolated by Darwin’s cousin from “Origin of the Species”, which was supported by the British “fabien socialists” John Maynard Keynes of Keynesian economic theory and many of the British Conservatives* of the time. Next we have the Communist Manifesto by Marx in 1848, which even today is the most influential theory that drives progressives and the left. You also have the theories of Sigmund Freud, which emerged as he published his books in the early 1900’s. During WWI, (1914-1920) the concept of Fascism was developed by Italian socialists and rose to power in Italy and Germany, Romania during the Depression following the war. It is this time period, primarily between the end of WWI and the Depression, which resulted in the birth of progressive idealism, that human nature could be understood, defined and controlled by science.
*Since England has no constitution, the governing philosophy of the conservatives varies from American conservatives. In Europe, American conservatism espousing individual rights were referred to as a liberal, as believing in liberty for the individual.
The starting point for progressive political thought is the oppression by free market capitalism; that all wealth is created by exploiting the workers, which or course is a basic tenet of Marxism. Progressives have the belief that the majority of workers live a life of quiet desperation and it is the job of government to redistribute wealth to relieve this misery. They also have an irrefutable belief that all their views and policies are the result of in-depth study and the scientific method and they belong to an intelligentsia class that are intellectually superior. One should not forget that Marx was praised for a scientific grasp of the inevitable direction of societal evolution. British writer C.H. Waddington wrote an article in Nature magazine (1941), titled “The Scientific Attitude”. Waddington writes that the “profound scientific philosophy” of Marxism is “almost, if not quite, identical with those underlying the scientific approach to nature.” The progressives of the time, Marx, Engel, Darwin, Freud and Julian Huxley were the intelligentsia that developed humanistic sciences like Eugenics, which along other schools of thought bolstered their belief in a division between the superior intelligentsia and the need to control the collective. This new scientific paradigm was Newtonian in nature; that the human condition could be reduced to data, plugged into a mathematical equation and reproduced. This entire process of basing the political on science is but a deception. It is no coincidence that progressive thought and science are both produced in academia. The idea that science cannot be influenced and comes to its conclusions independently is historically absurd. The truth is science has always been used to protect and prove the status quo, while independent inquiry is usually done in darkened rooms with notes written in code. Most scientists are employed by large corporations and are not paid to do independent research.
Because progressives believe they exist on a higher intellectual plain, they are particularly disturbed by the constraints of the rule of law and view the US Constitution as a constraining document; Senator Obama, “it (the US Constitution) doesn’t say what the Federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” This is of course unless the rule of law can be used to forward their agenda, then once again the rule of law becomes sacred; it is the progressive tenet of relativism. If a progressive cannot discredit a liberal* who is obviously as educated as they are, the liberal* is personally attacked and judged as obviously evil. There is absolutely no room in the progressive mind for intellectual independent inquiry. The idea that someone may spread a false, anti-progressive message, which would water down or alter progressive propaganda, is often met with demonstrations and physical restraint or violence. Progressives truly believe that their scrupulous study, high standards and intelligence are the only true salvation of human kind and they are the guardians of the true (new) freedom, which is a collective, free from economic hardship and choice. In “The Road to Serfdom”, F.A. Hayek describes how the progressives of the day, “have attacked the “metaphysical” idea of individual rights and insisted that in a rationally ordered world, there will be no individual rights but only individual duties.”
Progressives will continue to use government to re-distribute wealth and energy as they get their power by offering security at the price of weakening the free market. Since the security offered by a free market society is variety and mobility, a planned, non-competitive society eventually removes any security offered by the free market. The problems that naturally occur as the government intervenes more and more into the economy, creating quasi-government organizations, can only lead to economic collapse. The progressive will then blame a lack of oversight over the organizations they themselves created and will offer themselves up as the only persons that can fix the problem. Progressives will continue to promise more than they can ever deliver, continually moving toward government control and a planned economy. The idea that a market should exist, uncontrolled and with it’s own rules is their definition of true evil. Progressives do not believe that liberal* politicians act in good faith; they are truly astonished that the citizenry would chose a liberal* government and believe it can only be accomplished through fear mongering, misrepresentation and evil intent. Harry Reid’s recent statement, “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican” is definitive of this astonishment. This makes any discussion with a progressive impossible, as the end result will be the non-progressives argument is not based on intelligent thought, but allegiance to the unscrupulous or irrational emotion; hence the common rebuffs that liberals* are racists or in the pocket of “big business”.
As England fell into WWII, Lord John Maynard Keynesian was tasked with constructing a wartime British economy. As the war wound down, he was impressed by the production and stability of his planned wartime economy. He pondered that if the same wartime economy was maintained during peacetime, the British economy would continue to enjoy the prosperity of government steering and planning. The absurdity of the idea was Keynes being oblivious to human nature. While Keynes planning of England’s wartime economy certainly led to it’s stability, it was the sacrifice of the British workers that made it successful. This is the common mistake made by all progressives, that workers will continue to sacrifice solely for the good of the state. When progressives realize that workers will strive for human dignity, even to the exclusion of security, they blame the worker without doubting their science; the historic result of this has been catastrophic.
In the final analysis the commonality with progressive thought is their failure to move beyond this historical scientific paradigm to more contemporary views. Newtonian science has been supplemented with Chaos Theory; Freudian analysis has been replaced with “client centered” psychology. And history shows us that socialism is an unworkable economic theory and there is nothing less scientific then to continually run the same experiment and expect a different result (Albert Einstein said this the definition of insanity). It is as if the progressive movement suffers from a collective form of Borderline Personality Disorder, which presents as a compulsive need to control their environment and every one around them with perceived specificity rules known only to them and where the lessons of history is irrelevant. As F.A. Hayek ended his book, “The Road to Serfdom, “If they (our grandfathers) had not yet fully learned what is necessary to create the world they wanted, the experience we have gained ought of have equipped us better for the task. If in the first attempt to create the world of free men we have failed, we must try again.”
*Since England has no constitution, the governing philosophy of the conservatives varies from American conservatives. In Europe, American conservatism espousing individual rights were referred to as a liberal, as believing in liberty for the individual.
The starting point for progressive political thought is the oppression by free market capitalism; that all wealth is created by exploiting the workers, which or course is a basic tenet of Marxism. Progressives have the belief that the majority of workers live a life of quiet desperation and it is the job of government to redistribute wealth to relieve this misery. They also have an irrefutable belief that all their views and policies are the result of in-depth study and the scientific method and they belong to an intelligentsia class that are intellectually superior. One should not forget that Marx was praised for a scientific grasp of the inevitable direction of societal evolution. British writer C.H. Waddington wrote an article in Nature magazine (1941), titled “The Scientific Attitude”. Waddington writes that the “profound scientific philosophy” of Marxism is “almost, if not quite, identical with those underlying the scientific approach to nature.” The progressives of the time, Marx, Engel, Darwin, Freud and Julian Huxley were the intelligentsia that developed humanistic sciences like Eugenics, which along other schools of thought bolstered their belief in a division between the superior intelligentsia and the need to control the collective. This new scientific paradigm was Newtonian in nature; that the human condition could be reduced to data, plugged into a mathematical equation and reproduced. This entire process of basing the political on science is but a deception. It is no coincidence that progressive thought and science are both produced in academia. The idea that science cannot be influenced and comes to its conclusions independently is historically absurd. The truth is science has always been used to protect and prove the status quo, while independent inquiry is usually done in darkened rooms with notes written in code. Most scientists are employed by large corporations and are not paid to do independent research.
Because progressives believe they exist on a higher intellectual plain, they are particularly disturbed by the constraints of the rule of law and view the US Constitution as a constraining document; Senator Obama, “it (the US Constitution) doesn’t say what the Federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” This is of course unless the rule of law can be used to forward their agenda, then once again the rule of law becomes sacred; it is the progressive tenet of relativism. If a progressive cannot discredit a liberal* who is obviously as educated as they are, the liberal* is personally attacked and judged as obviously evil. There is absolutely no room in the progressive mind for intellectual independent inquiry. The idea that someone may spread a false, anti-progressive message, which would water down or alter progressive propaganda, is often met with demonstrations and physical restraint or violence. Progressives truly believe that their scrupulous study, high standards and intelligence are the only true salvation of human kind and they are the guardians of the true (new) freedom, which is a collective, free from economic hardship and choice. In “The Road to Serfdom”, F.A. Hayek describes how the progressives of the day, “have attacked the “metaphysical” idea of individual rights and insisted that in a rationally ordered world, there will be no individual rights but only individual duties.”
Progressives will continue to use government to re-distribute wealth and energy as they get their power by offering security at the price of weakening the free market. Since the security offered by a free market society is variety and mobility, a planned, non-competitive society eventually removes any security offered by the free market. The problems that naturally occur as the government intervenes more and more into the economy, creating quasi-government organizations, can only lead to economic collapse. The progressive will then blame a lack of oversight over the organizations they themselves created and will offer themselves up as the only persons that can fix the problem. Progressives will continue to promise more than they can ever deliver, continually moving toward government control and a planned economy. The idea that a market should exist, uncontrolled and with it’s own rules is their definition of true evil. Progressives do not believe that liberal* politicians act in good faith; they are truly astonished that the citizenry would chose a liberal* government and believe it can only be accomplished through fear mongering, misrepresentation and evil intent. Harry Reid’s recent statement, “I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican” is definitive of this astonishment. This makes any discussion with a progressive impossible, as the end result will be the non-progressives argument is not based on intelligent thought, but allegiance to the unscrupulous or irrational emotion; hence the common rebuffs that liberals* are racists or in the pocket of “big business”.
As England fell into WWII, Lord John Maynard Keynesian was tasked with constructing a wartime British economy. As the war wound down, he was impressed by the production and stability of his planned wartime economy. He pondered that if the same wartime economy was maintained during peacetime, the British economy would continue to enjoy the prosperity of government steering and planning. The absurdity of the idea was Keynes being oblivious to human nature. While Keynes planning of England’s wartime economy certainly led to it’s stability, it was the sacrifice of the British workers that made it successful. This is the common mistake made by all progressives, that workers will continue to sacrifice solely for the good of the state. When progressives realize that workers will strive for human dignity, even to the exclusion of security, they blame the worker without doubting their science; the historic result of this has been catastrophic.
In the final analysis the commonality with progressive thought is their failure to move beyond this historical scientific paradigm to more contemporary views. Newtonian science has been supplemented with Chaos Theory; Freudian analysis has been replaced with “client centered” psychology. And history shows us that socialism is an unworkable economic theory and there is nothing less scientific then to continually run the same experiment and expect a different result (Albert Einstein said this the definition of insanity). It is as if the progressive movement suffers from a collective form of Borderline Personality Disorder, which presents as a compulsive need to control their environment and every one around them with perceived specificity rules known only to them and where the lessons of history is irrelevant. As F.A. Hayek ended his book, “The Road to Serfdom, “If they (our grandfathers) had not yet fully learned what is necessary to create the world they wanted, the experience we have gained ought of have equipped us better for the task. If in the first attempt to create the world of free men we have failed, we must try again.”
Friday, August 13, 2010
The End of Truth in Politics; The Road to Serfdom
This article uses excerpts from FA Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". The book is the definitive work on the human effect on economic theory by demonstrating time and time again there can be no freedom without economic freedom and vice versa. Further, he explains the causal failure of all collective or planned economies, which is the human condition; that freedom and free market capitalism is the only economic theory that recognizes and rewards truth, hard work and the dignity of man.
The White House and the powers that be seem to have the belief they can sell the American people state guaranteed economic security (the new freedom) and without loosing political freedom, even though historically the two have always been mutually exclusive. In order to do so they must refine "truth" as expediency. The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in particular instance the evidence (or standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it. (The Road to Serfdom)
Since the first victim of this new freedom is the truth, it is important to remember that a tenet of this form of economic freedom is to promise more than can ever be delivered. Since they know the American people are politically astute, and that they will eventually be legislating against the will of the people, they will therefore create a state of exigency, touting every new governmental program or authority being necessary for the very existence of the state. Since the American people are also wisely suspicious of "socialism," euphemisms will be crafted for what they know would be unpopular policy; socialized medicine becomes “Affordable and Quality Healthcare” or "The Public Option"", Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants becomes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and The Cap and Trade or redistribution of energy tax, becomes "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs" or the “Green Jobs Bill”. In a society used to freedom it is unlikely that many people would be ready deliberately to purchase security at this price (socialism). But the policies which are now followed everywhere, which hand out the privilege of security, now to this group and now to that, are nonetheless rapidly creating conditions in which striving for security tends to be stronger than the love of freedom. The reason for this is that with every grant of complete security to one group the insecurity of the rests necessarily increases… the essential element of security which the competitive systems offers, the great variety of opportunities, is more and more reduced. (The Road to Serfdom)
The only tool that the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress has to create the illusion economic security is the re-distribution of wealth, i.e. social justice. In order to make this work, much has been said if the community organizer tactic from Saul Alinksy’s "Rules for Radicals". "Whenever we think of social change; the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issues of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms." However, when means and ends are viewed from a collectivist government, they take on an even greater importance. “The principle that the ends justify the means, is in individualist regarded as the denial of all morals. In the collectivist ethics, it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because the “good of the whole” is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The "raison d’etat*", in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency.” (The Road to Serfdom)
*raison d’etat- the justification of overriding state power for nation interests or security.
When the Healthcare Bill was being presented, President Obama was indignant that it was being called a tax.
However Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz, trying to circumvent the Obamacare's mandatory purchasing of private health insurance, tells the patronizing lie (as if she is so much smarter the American Citizen) that it is nothing more than a Federal Income tax status, like Married or Single;
When this finally ended up in a State court challenge, Obamacare was defined as a tax.
President Obama and Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz also colluded in the big lie that Obamacare would not add to the deficit by "one dime". This video contains information that will be corroborated in the next video by Rep Paul Ryan.
Again you have Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz parroting the CBO numbers promising ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. But the congressional leaders, Schultz, Reid and Pelosi purposely left out federal obligations, the CBO's cost analysis was purposely was manipulated to lie to the American people.
When Obama was a candidate for President he ran on hope and change. After President Bush, the American people wanted two things, transparency and honesty.
Almost from the beginning the pundits have commented on the "disconnect" that exsists between the President Obama and the American people. It's as if the White House and Democrat leaders have taken on the behavior of sociopaths.This has been explained as Obama's unemotional nature. The real disconnect however is between what the President says and what he does. While the President has said he was going to concentrate (like a laser beam) on American joblessness, he has practically ignored unemployment for an entire year to pass his terribly flawed and unpopular heathcare reform bill. His response? "I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are" America Knows It's Core Values, as if values are to be directed by the state.
When confronted with this obvious lack of transparency, the President expects the American people to respect the "new truth", previously explained in "The Road to Serfdom", it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.
The "new truth" is the end of truth.
All I have discussed in this article is known to the President. He has studied Marxism, Socialism and Saul Alinsky, but somehow missed the individual liberty that is the life blood of every American; something he really doesn't seem to understand. These lies have purpose; they are designed to make us feel powerless and lead us the collective nightmare in which "no avenue to wealth or honor would subsist save through government*." But Americans are not yet ready to turn away from truth. Not yet..
*Benjamin Disraeli
The White House and the powers that be seem to have the belief they can sell the American people state guaranteed economic security (the new freedom) and without loosing political freedom, even though historically the two have always been mutually exclusive. In order to do so they must refine "truth" as expediency. The word “truth” itself ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter of whether in particular instance the evidence (or standing of those proclaiming it) warrants a belief; it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it. (The Road to Serfdom)
Since the first victim of this new freedom is the truth, it is important to remember that a tenet of this form of economic freedom is to promise more than can ever be delivered. Since they know the American people are politically astute, and that they will eventually be legislating against the will of the people, they will therefore create a state of exigency, touting every new governmental program or authority being necessary for the very existence of the state. Since the American people are also wisely suspicious of "socialism," euphemisms will be crafted for what they know would be unpopular policy; socialized medicine becomes “Affordable and Quality Healthcare” or "The Public Option"", Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants becomes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" and The Cap and Trade or redistribution of energy tax, becomes "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs" or the “Green Jobs Bill”. In a society used to freedom it is unlikely that many people would be ready deliberately to purchase security at this price (socialism). But the policies which are now followed everywhere, which hand out the privilege of security, now to this group and now to that, are nonetheless rapidly creating conditions in which striving for security tends to be stronger than the love of freedom. The reason for this is that with every grant of complete security to one group the insecurity of the rests necessarily increases… the essential element of security which the competitive systems offers, the great variety of opportunities, is more and more reduced. (The Road to Serfdom)
The only tool that the Obama Administration and Democratic Congress has to create the illusion economic security is the re-distribution of wealth, i.e. social justice. In order to make this work, much has been said if the community organizer tactic from Saul Alinksy’s "Rules for Radicals". "Whenever we think of social change; the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issues of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms." However, when means and ends are viewed from a collectivist government, they take on an even greater importance. “The principle that the ends justify the means, is in individualist regarded as the denial of all morals. In the collectivist ethics, it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves “the good of the whole,” because the “good of the whole” is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done. The "raison d’etat*", in which collectivist ethics has found its most explicit formulation, knows no other limit than that set by expediency.” (The Road to Serfdom)
*raison d’etat- the justification of overriding state power for nation interests or security.
When the Healthcare Bill was being presented, President Obama was indignant that it was being called a tax.
However Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz, trying to circumvent the Obamacare's mandatory purchasing of private health insurance, tells the patronizing lie (as if she is so much smarter the American Citizen) that it is nothing more than a Federal Income tax status, like Married or Single;
When this finally ended up in a State court challenge, Obamacare was defined as a tax.
President Obama and Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz also colluded in the big lie that Obamacare would not add to the deficit by "one dime". This video contains information that will be corroborated in the next video by Rep Paul Ryan.
Again you have Rep Debbie Wassermann Schultz parroting the CBO numbers promising ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. But the congressional leaders, Schultz, Reid and Pelosi purposely left out federal obligations, the CBO's cost analysis was purposely was manipulated to lie to the American people.
When Obama was a candidate for President he ran on hope and change. After President Bush, the American people wanted two things, transparency and honesty.
Almost from the beginning the pundits have commented on the "disconnect" that exsists between the President Obama and the American people. It's as if the White House and Democrat leaders have taken on the behavior of sociopaths.This has been explained as Obama's unemotional nature. The real disconnect however is between what the President says and what he does. While the President has said he was going to concentrate (like a laser beam) on American joblessness, he has practically ignored unemployment for an entire year to pass his terribly flawed and unpopular heathcare reform bill. His response? "I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are" America Knows It's Core Values, as if values are to be directed by the state.
When confronted with this obvious lack of transparency, the President expects the American people to respect the "new truth", previously explained in "The Road to Serfdom", it becomes something to be laid down by authority, something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.
The "new truth" is the end of truth.
All I have discussed in this article is known to the President. He has studied Marxism, Socialism and Saul Alinsky, but somehow missed the individual liberty that is the life blood of every American; something he really doesn't seem to understand. These lies have purpose; they are designed to make us feel powerless and lead us the collective nightmare in which "no avenue to wealth or honor would subsist save through government*." But Americans are not yet ready to turn away from truth. Not yet..
*Benjamin Disraeli
The End of Truth in Politics; Barney Frank
This is the first installment on the Washington culture of lies.
These videos have been around for a while, but they are worth showing again. The key to remember about progressives and socialists is there disregard for the truth. This is how FA Hayek described "The End of Truth". The general intellectual climate which this produces, the spirit of complete cynicism as regards to the truth which engenders, the loss of the sense of even the meaning of the truth, the disappearance of the spirit of independent inquiry and of the belief in the power of rational conviction, the way in which differences of opinion in every branch of knowledge become political issues to be decided by authority, are all things which one must personally experience- no short description can convey their extent. Perhaps the most alarming fact is the contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established but one which can be found everywhere among intellectuals who have embraced a collectivist faith and who are acclaimed as intellectual leaders even in countries still under a liberal regime* (The Road to Serfdom).
*Hayek is using the European meaning of liberal, meaning a belief in individual liberty; the Declaration of Independence is considered the definitive example.
Here in 2005 we have Rep Frank saying the Democrats plans for Freddie and Fannie are solely for the purposes of home ownership with no possibility of a bubble.
Then 3 years later after the bottom fell out of Fannie and Freddie, Rep Frank blames the Republicans for backing a plan for excessive home ownership, while he was in favor of only rental property being purchased.
If you have a brain, even if you reside on another planet, it is obvious Barney Frank is a lair.
These videos have been around for a while, but they are worth showing again. The key to remember about progressives and socialists is there disregard for the truth. This is how FA Hayek described "The End of Truth". The general intellectual climate which this produces, the spirit of complete cynicism as regards to the truth which engenders, the loss of the sense of even the meaning of the truth, the disappearance of the spirit of independent inquiry and of the belief in the power of rational conviction, the way in which differences of opinion in every branch of knowledge become political issues to be decided by authority, are all things which one must personally experience- no short description can convey their extent. Perhaps the most alarming fact is the contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established but one which can be found everywhere among intellectuals who have embraced a collectivist faith and who are acclaimed as intellectual leaders even in countries still under a liberal regime* (The Road to Serfdom).
*Hayek is using the European meaning of liberal, meaning a belief in individual liberty; the Declaration of Independence is considered the definitive example.
Here in 2005 we have Rep Frank saying the Democrats plans for Freddie and Fannie are solely for the purposes of home ownership with no possibility of a bubble.
Then 3 years later after the bottom fell out of Fannie and Freddie, Rep Frank blames the Republicans for backing a plan for excessive home ownership, while he was in favor of only rental property being purchased.
If you have a brain, even if you reside on another planet, it is obvious Barney Frank is a lair.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Where is the Outrage From Mainstream Muslims?
The question has been asked continually; where is the outrage? Recently 10 workers from a US aid group were killed by the Taliban. One reason they were killed is because they represented the love of an outside Christian world. Christians have been bringing medical care throughout the world without proselytizing for decades. The Bible says you will know Christians by the way they love and that is why they are so feared by Islamic Extremists. The politically correct explanation is the Taliban and other Islamic Extremists, have corrupted Islam and do not represent mainstream Muslims. However, the actions of these extremist have never been to a corruption of Islam, instead they interpretations by respected clerics of fiery edicts in the Koran. To understand this, one must understand more about Islam, it’s history and how it compares to the history of Christianity. My comparison to Christianity is not based on any perceived superiority to Islam, but because it is the religion always referenced when the subject of the extremists corruption of Islam is discussed. The history of Christianity shifted from a faith group to a faith movement that was co-opted by a government and political organization that eventually fractured and divided and is currently devolving back into a faith group. That is not to say that the faith groups ever disappeared from Christianity, but the scope and influence has evolved and devolved over time.
The history of Islam starts with it's founder, the prophet Mohamed, who brought together the Nordic Arab tribes in modern day Saudi Arabia, under a single religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam fundamentally brought these tribes together not only as a religion and code of behavior, but a conquering force. Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, "sharia", which aspires to govern all aspects of life. (www.discoverthe nerworks.org) Islam’s rise and fall ranged from it’s birth in 600 AD through the 9th century where Islam dominated half the known world. It was after that time that Islam began to fracture into different autonomous empires. During the 18 and 19th centuries Islam began to take a backseat to non-Islamic governmental powers. By the 20th century the Ottoman Empire was the last standing regime under Islamic control. The area was divided up by Britain into the Middle Eastern countries of today. Recently there has been a resurgence in Islam, whose past and present message of equality among all the people irrespective of race, color, caste, and creed and a devotion to God and family is again attracting millions of followers. The dark side of Islam is referred to as Islamic Extremists, terrorists or Islamo-fascist. Their belief is the entire world should live under the strict rule of Islamic Fundamentalism.
The fact that Christianity and Islam are the largest religions in the world, both have been named and are responsible for numerous atrocities. While the Muslims have been described as accepting and open-minded conquerors, the reality is they espouse a from of proselytizing called Dawa, which is designed to co-opt a current government to clear the way for Islam. The same can be said for the Catholic Church, which was an oppressive government from the 6th Century through 16th century. The true judge of mercy and love of come from their holy scriptures; for Christianity it is the New Testament and for Islam it is the Koran. In the New Testament there is simply no justification for the atrocities of the Christianity. While Old Testament espouses the strict behavior of the Jews and littered with intolerance and genocide, Jesus defines a new covenant based on the love for God and your fellow man. The New Testament defines not a religion but a relationship with God. While there is still no lack of causes espousing a Christian identity, many times a corrupted identity, they would be hard pressed to identify a basis in the New Testament, because it would not be there.
Islam is based on it’s five pillars, the first four mainly taken came from the Old Testament and Mohamed's poor knowledge of Christianity. An understanding and study of the Koran is considered the life long obligation for a Muslim. In Fundamentalist Islam, schooling male children consists of memorizing the Koran (there is no schooling of woman who are oppressed and treated as subservient). Since there is no central authority in Islam, interpretation of the Koran is done by autonomous Islamic religious clerics who can eventually attain the level of Ayatollah; Ayatollahs have the authority to issue their own edicts or laws, based on their interpretation of the Koran and other sources of Islamic law. Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state", which has resulted in conflicts with the rule of law in autonomous nations. The previously described "Dawa" often results in a dual system of secular courts and religious courts and is referred to as Sharia compliant. This issue has met it's biggest challenge with the United States, where the Constitution and rule of law define the Republic of the United States.
It is the subject of Jihad, where Islam tends to take a left turn.
Jihad is freely defined as a struggle or battle. In a Christian sense it is man’s continuing battle against sin. But, Jihad can also be defending the nation or community of Islam. The definition of the defense, the nature of the enemy, the nature of the threat and nature of the tactics used is based on a clerics study and interpretation of the Koran. The Koran and other sources of religious law are also rift with contradictions, some of which was purposeful via “scriptural precedence”, or the most recent scripture takes precedence. However once again, it is up to the clerics to decide if it is indeed a contradiction or what scripture will take precedence. What would seem to be a violation of Mohamed's edicts against the killing of none co-habitats, is explained away by some through study of the Koran and the interpretation of Jihad. This is not mainstream Islam and most Muslims will tell you that is not the way of Mohamed, but their condemnation is always respectful. The reason is the clerics that make these interpretations are still men deserving of great respect in Islam. Ask any Muslim about certain aspects of their faith and they will usually mitigate some of the answer to the need to consult with an expert on that aspect of the Koran. The result of this misdirection allows a Muslim to counter almost any argument by quoting numerous clerics who have studied and interpreted those areas of the Koran that espouse the peaceful and loving Islam, but have not studied or interpreted the more violent aspects of Jihad and are therefore moot on the subject (an excellent example of this is the Wikipedia entry on Apostasy). Many Muslims also live under a veil of fear from extremists. Like those living in a gang-infested neighborhood, the authority of extremists is maintained by terrorism, retaliatory murder and mutilation. It is estimated the 1-2 percent of the Muslims in the world are radicalized; with 1.6 billion Muslims, that's 16-32 million terrorists. Compare that to "Christian Extremists"; while the Department of Homeland Security offers no numbers, they are generally described as 200-300 decentralized groups that range from a few members to several hundred. It is like comparing a hand grenade to an atomic bomb.
With no central authority for Islam, it's sense of morality and direction, while maintaining it's core beliefs, tends to mirror the local community. This leads to great disparity throughout the world and runs the gambit from the archaic (Afghanistan) to the post modern (New York and California); that which works in New York will not work in Kabul. While the two may be mutually exclusive with the expectations of behavior required of their followers, they are still both Islam. Mainstream Islam may not approve or agree with extremists, but they still view them as fellow Muslims. Until a break from these violent factions occurs, and the extremists are denounced as evil and apart from Islam, there will be no outrage from the Muslim world for the atrocities of their extremists.
The history of Islam starts with it's founder, the prophet Mohamed, who brought together the Nordic Arab tribes in modern day Saudi Arabia, under a single religion. Unlike Christianity, Islam fundamentally brought these tribes together not only as a religion and code of behavior, but a conquering force. Islam is a comprehensive political, social, and economic system with its own authoritarian legal framework, "sharia", which aspires to govern all aspects of life. (www.discoverthe nerworks.org) Islam’s rise and fall ranged from it’s birth in 600 AD through the 9th century where Islam dominated half the known world. It was after that time that Islam began to fracture into different autonomous empires. During the 18 and 19th centuries Islam began to take a backseat to non-Islamic governmental powers. By the 20th century the Ottoman Empire was the last standing regime under Islamic control. The area was divided up by Britain into the Middle Eastern countries of today. Recently there has been a resurgence in Islam, whose past and present message of equality among all the people irrespective of race, color, caste, and creed and a devotion to God and family is again attracting millions of followers. The dark side of Islam is referred to as Islamic Extremists, terrorists or Islamo-fascist. Their belief is the entire world should live under the strict rule of Islamic Fundamentalism.
The fact that Christianity and Islam are the largest religions in the world, both have been named and are responsible for numerous atrocities. While the Muslims have been described as accepting and open-minded conquerors, the reality is they espouse a from of proselytizing called Dawa, which is designed to co-opt a current government to clear the way for Islam. The same can be said for the Catholic Church, which was an oppressive government from the 6th Century through 16th century. The true judge of mercy and love of come from their holy scriptures; for Christianity it is the New Testament and for Islam it is the Koran. In the New Testament there is simply no justification for the atrocities of the Christianity. While Old Testament espouses the strict behavior of the Jews and littered with intolerance and genocide, Jesus defines a new covenant based on the love for God and your fellow man. The New Testament defines not a religion but a relationship with God. While there is still no lack of causes espousing a Christian identity, many times a corrupted identity, they would be hard pressed to identify a basis in the New Testament, because it would not be there.
Islam is based on it’s five pillars, the first four mainly taken came from the Old Testament and Mohamed's poor knowledge of Christianity. An understanding and study of the Koran is considered the life long obligation for a Muslim. In Fundamentalist Islam, schooling male children consists of memorizing the Koran (there is no schooling of woman who are oppressed and treated as subservient). Since there is no central authority in Islam, interpretation of the Koran is done by autonomous Islamic religious clerics who can eventually attain the level of Ayatollah; Ayatollahs have the authority to issue their own edicts or laws, based on their interpretation of the Koran and other sources of Islamic law. Islamic law does not distinguish between "matters of church" and "matters of state", which has resulted in conflicts with the rule of law in autonomous nations. The previously described "Dawa" often results in a dual system of secular courts and religious courts and is referred to as Sharia compliant. This issue has met it's biggest challenge with the United States, where the Constitution and rule of law define the Republic of the United States.
It is the subject of Jihad, where Islam tends to take a left turn.
Jihad is freely defined as a struggle or battle. In a Christian sense it is man’s continuing battle against sin. But, Jihad can also be defending the nation or community of Islam. The definition of the defense, the nature of the enemy, the nature of the threat and nature of the tactics used is based on a clerics study and interpretation of the Koran. The Koran and other sources of religious law are also rift with contradictions, some of which was purposeful via “scriptural precedence”, or the most recent scripture takes precedence. However once again, it is up to the clerics to decide if it is indeed a contradiction or what scripture will take precedence. What would seem to be a violation of Mohamed's edicts against the killing of none co-habitats, is explained away by some through study of the Koran and the interpretation of Jihad. This is not mainstream Islam and most Muslims will tell you that is not the way of Mohamed, but their condemnation is always respectful. The reason is the clerics that make these interpretations are still men deserving of great respect in Islam. Ask any Muslim about certain aspects of their faith and they will usually mitigate some of the answer to the need to consult with an expert on that aspect of the Koran. The result of this misdirection allows a Muslim to counter almost any argument by quoting numerous clerics who have studied and interpreted those areas of the Koran that espouse the peaceful and loving Islam, but have not studied or interpreted the more violent aspects of Jihad and are therefore moot on the subject (an excellent example of this is the Wikipedia entry on Apostasy). Many Muslims also live under a veil of fear from extremists. Like those living in a gang-infested neighborhood, the authority of extremists is maintained by terrorism, retaliatory murder and mutilation. It is estimated the 1-2 percent of the Muslims in the world are radicalized; with 1.6 billion Muslims, that's 16-32 million terrorists. Compare that to "Christian Extremists"; while the Department of Homeland Security offers no numbers, they are generally described as 200-300 decentralized groups that range from a few members to several hundred. It is like comparing a hand grenade to an atomic bomb.
With no central authority for Islam, it's sense of morality and direction, while maintaining it's core beliefs, tends to mirror the local community. This leads to great disparity throughout the world and runs the gambit from the archaic (Afghanistan) to the post modern (New York and California); that which works in New York will not work in Kabul. While the two may be mutually exclusive with the expectations of behavior required of their followers, they are still both Islam. Mainstream Islam may not approve or agree with extremists, but they still view them as fellow Muslims. Until a break from these violent factions occurs, and the extremists are denounced as evil and apart from Islam, there will be no outrage from the Muslim world for the atrocities of their extremists.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Keynesian; A Tool of the Progressives
No one can show the arrogance of the neo-Keynesian economics embraced by the Obama administration, then it’s loudest mouthpiece, Paul Krugman. This time he attacks Paul Ryan and his plan of reducing spending. Krugman’s main complaint, as always, is without high taxes, government will not be able to pay for it’s obligations, in this case, a $4 trillion short fall over 10 years, compared to the Obama alternate scenario. What Krugman will not acknowledge is the economy will grow if you cut taxes on business, that any attempt to cut taxes always shows up a zero sum gain; more taxes equals more tax revenue, less taxes equals less tax revenue. Never mind that in US economic history, especially in hard times, tax reductions resulted in the money being re-invested, record growth, higher profits and more employment; the taxes on these higher profits, even though it was a lower percentage, often results in higher tax revenues than with the higher tax rates. Further, the Obama is back loading the national debt, so by 2020 the GDP to debt is 87%, 2040- 233% and 2060- 433%!. This compared to Paul Ryan’s plan, which never exceeds 99% over the same time periods. (The Congressional Budget Office). Which scenario would you want? I guess it depends whether you want to start paying for the debt now or pass it on to your grandchildren.
Well the Neo-Keynesians (aka Paul Krugman) are beside themselves because, try as they will, no one will buy their snake oil anymore; we have come a long way since said Time magazine said, “We are all Keynesians now”. It (Keynesian economics) can, he said, achieve calculated prosperity by manipulating three main tools: tax policy, credit policy and budget policy. Their use would have the effect of strengthening private spending, investment and production”. $2 trillion worth of stimulus appear to have had little effect on the economies continuing to slide into a worsening recession. The Keynesians were well known for their dire warning that the GI’s returning from WWII would cause rampant unemployment and a clasped economy if not steered by their theories. The result, without Keynesian steering was the opposite, yet the Keynesians were so entrenched, they gave themselves credit for the prosperity that followed.
The inherit flaw in Keynesian theory is the human element. John Maynard Keynes assisted running the wartime economy during WWII and theorized that if the same type of government planned economy were to exist during peace time, then one could have the idealized government planned economy without sacrificing societal freedoms that occurred in Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The problem is, the British were sacrificing because their very existence was at stake. Take away that inducement, and citizens start questioning the extent of their sacrifice just for the good of the State. The welfare state the neo-Keynesians are now suggesting, has had to create a new entitlement that can only be defined as guaranteed employment. The result of their failed policies has resulted in 9.5% of the population actively looking for work and 16-20% unemployed. In order to address these near depression numbers, the federal government has extended the 6 month unemployment compensation to 2 years. In typical demand side idealism, the Keynesians claim with money in their hands, the unemployed with start spending again and the economy will pick-up. Reality of course is something quite different. When one is faced with living on 60% of their previous wages and no real relief in sight, the unemployed are going to cut back and save wherever they can. Further, it ignores one of the basic truths that exist between citizenry and government. If the government subsidizes something, the people will do it, be it home ownership and marriage, or Welfare and now unemployment; instead of unemployment being a cushion as Welfare was supposed to be, it will become a lifestyle.
In reality, Keynesian theory is just an obscure economic theory that was co-opted by the Progressives to justify big government and the welfare state. Keynesian theory, much like the Man Caused Global Warming scheme, is the classic scheme of an emerging totalitarian regime, using cult science to justify tyranny. Progressives are already talking up the imaginary separation between a planned economy and Democratic politics. "Such assurances are usually accompanied by the suggestion that by giving up freedom in the pursuit of higher values. On the ground people who abhor the idea of a political dictatorship, often clamor for a dictator in the economic field." (F.A. Haytek).
In a forum response to the first paragraph printed in the Santa Cruz Sentential 8.15.2010 under the heading "Thanks for Krugman". The writer complained of failed Republican policies, this was my response.
"Bush 43 raised the debt 2.5 Trillion dollars in 8 years, Obama has exceeded that in 18 month. Bush 43 was a Progressive and a Keynesian, not a conservative, nor was his father. As with Reagan, his tax cuts were not offset with government spending cuts, but this time the economy could not absorb the debt so the economy floundered. With the exception of rhetoric, Obama has not only continued all of Bush 43 policies, he has accelerated them. One can rightfully blame Bush 43 for our economic mess, since he set in motion all of Obama's policies! As I wrote yesterday, to paraphrase the President, "The choice is whether we want to go forward or we want to go backwards to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place....(Democrats) have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people. They don’t have a single idea that’s different from failed Keynesian tax and spend ideas -- not one".
Well the Neo-Keynesians (aka Paul Krugman) are beside themselves because, try as they will, no one will buy their snake oil anymore; we have come a long way since said Time magazine said, “We are all Keynesians now”. It (Keynesian economics) can, he said, achieve calculated prosperity by manipulating three main tools: tax policy, credit policy and budget policy. Their use would have the effect of strengthening private spending, investment and production”. $2 trillion worth of stimulus appear to have had little effect on the economies continuing to slide into a worsening recession. The Keynesians were well known for their dire warning that the GI’s returning from WWII would cause rampant unemployment and a clasped economy if not steered by their theories. The result, without Keynesian steering was the opposite, yet the Keynesians were so entrenched, they gave themselves credit for the prosperity that followed.
The inherit flaw in Keynesian theory is the human element. John Maynard Keynes assisted running the wartime economy during WWII and theorized that if the same type of government planned economy were to exist during peace time, then one could have the idealized government planned economy without sacrificing societal freedoms that occurred in Italy, Germany and the Soviet Union. The problem is, the British were sacrificing because their very existence was at stake. Take away that inducement, and citizens start questioning the extent of their sacrifice just for the good of the State. The welfare state the neo-Keynesians are now suggesting, has had to create a new entitlement that can only be defined as guaranteed employment. The result of their failed policies has resulted in 9.5% of the population actively looking for work and 16-20% unemployed. In order to address these near depression numbers, the federal government has extended the 6 month unemployment compensation to 2 years. In typical demand side idealism, the Keynesians claim with money in their hands, the unemployed with start spending again and the economy will pick-up. Reality of course is something quite different. When one is faced with living on 60% of their previous wages and no real relief in sight, the unemployed are going to cut back and save wherever they can. Further, it ignores one of the basic truths that exist between citizenry and government. If the government subsidizes something, the people will do it, be it home ownership and marriage, or Welfare and now unemployment; instead of unemployment being a cushion as Welfare was supposed to be, it will become a lifestyle.
In reality, Keynesian theory is just an obscure economic theory that was co-opted by the Progressives to justify big government and the welfare state. Keynesian theory, much like the Man Caused Global Warming scheme, is the classic scheme of an emerging totalitarian regime, using cult science to justify tyranny. Progressives are already talking up the imaginary separation between a planned economy and Democratic politics. "Such assurances are usually accompanied by the suggestion that by giving up freedom in the pursuit of higher values. On the ground people who abhor the idea of a political dictatorship, often clamor for a dictator in the economic field." (F.A. Haytek).
In a forum response to the first paragraph printed in the Santa Cruz Sentential 8.15.2010 under the heading "Thanks for Krugman". The writer complained of failed Republican policies, this was my response.
"Bush 43 raised the debt 2.5 Trillion dollars in 8 years, Obama has exceeded that in 18 month. Bush 43 was a Progressive and a Keynesian, not a conservative, nor was his father. As with Reagan, his tax cuts were not offset with government spending cuts, but this time the economy could not absorb the debt so the economy floundered. With the exception of rhetoric, Obama has not only continued all of Bush 43 policies, he has accelerated them. One can rightfully blame Bush 43 for our economic mess, since he set in motion all of Obama's policies! As I wrote yesterday, to paraphrase the President, "The choice is whether we want to go forward or we want to go backwards to the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place....(Democrats) have not come up with a single, solitary, new idea to address the challenges of the American people. They don’t have a single idea that’s different from failed Keynesian tax and spend ideas -- not one".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)