Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 3

• Self-reliance is not the same as being selfish. Self-reliance means taking care of yourself and family. Entrepreneurs are self-reliant. Selfish means being egotistical and not sharing with others. Of course you can be self-reliant and selfish, but they are completely different things.
• Illegal drugs are pollution for the brain.
• If a country is a body, then the arm forces are the immune system of the country. It does not make sense to weaken the arm forces anymore than it makes sense to tell someone to weaken his immune system.
• Too much regulation can be strangulation for a business and therefore the economy of a nation.
• Punishing the successful does not help the unsuccessful. It may make the unsuccessful feel good for a while but that unsuccessful is still in the same situation.
• Liberalism is socialism lite.
• The primary function of any gov't is to protect its citizens from attack.
• You are not judged in the court of public opinion, you are judged in the court of the drive-by-cloned-media (DBCM). If the DBCM does not like you, you are guilty. (The drive-by-media was first coined by Rush Limbaugh. Dittos, Rush! I added the "cloned" part, since all mass media is more or less the same.)
• Gov't programs just about last forever. They seem to have a life of their own.
• I think the unemployment rate should be replaced by the employment rate. The employment rate would be more accurate to calculate. All a gov't would need to do is count the wages greater than zero on the IRS form. Calculating a negative number like the unemployment rate is always a tricky deal.

Third Parties

I should say that I nothing against third political parties. They have a right to campaign for your vote just the major two parties. After all the Republican Party was a third party until the Whig Party dissolved. But here are some points to think about. One, any political party main concern should be looking out for the country's best interest. National security is what I'm talking about here. After all it says in the Oath of Office the president takes:

...and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Two, voting for a third party may get a party elected that does not look out for the best interest of the country--ie by taking away votes from one of two major parties. A third party really has to be a viable contender in the race. It has to persuade voters like the major two parties. Probably harder because it is the underdog. Three, just because it is a third party does not necessarily mean it will do a better job when it gets elected. Every person in the legislature will get eventually absorbed by the system in place. They get lobbied by special interest groups, the president, their fellow politicians, etc. Read Rome Wasn't Burnt In A Day. The Real Deal On How Politicians, bureaucrats & other Washington barbarians are bankrupting America by Joe Scarborough to get an idea what goes on in power. Anyway, here is my take on some third parties. My rating for the parties are as follow: 1 - do not like. 5 - like very much. I do not necessarily endorse any of these third parties.

The Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party basically believes that gov't should not interfere with the daily living of its citizens as long as the citizen does not interfere with the rights of other citizens. I can sympathize with their cause. Like my bio says I have libertarian leanings. I give this party a rating of 4.3. It's interesting that the party wants to "End the Postal Service's monopoly and allow for the free competition in all aspects of mail delivery." That is a direct quote from their website.

The Reform Party. This is the party that Ross Perot founded. This party is okay, except it is all domestic policy (at least--nothing about foreign policy on their website). I guess that is what they want to reform, hence the name. No mention of illegal immigration or the war on terror. Not even about the war in Iraq. A party has to be concerned about both policies. It's not just the economy stupid, it's both the economy and foreign affairs. I rate this party a 3.7. It got a low rating because of no foreign policy. An interesting item on their website (and I quote): "Vote on Saturdays and Sundays - not Tuesdays - so working people can get to the polls." I believe this was one of Ross Perot's ideas. It probably should be Saturday or Sunday--not both.

The Constitution Party. Here is the mission of this party (a direct quote): "The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States." I rate this party a 4.8. It's interesting to note that they want to abolish the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of Education, and the Endangered Species Act among others.

The Green Party. The Green Party is (a direct quote): "Committed to environmentalism, non-violence, social justice and grassroots organizing." My rating for them is 1.8. In their ten key values they mention the term "economic justice" every once in a while. This is basically code for socialism. No mention of the war on terror or illegal immigration.

These are just a sampling of third parties. To read some more I refer the reader to the politics1 website.

Useful Idiots

A "useful idiots" was Lenin's phrase for the Western journalists and academics who supported Soviet Communism. Here I use the term as anyone who supports or sympathizes with Islamic terrorism who is not an Islamic terrorist. Here are what I define as specific characteristics of an useful idiot:
1) Anyone that believes the Iraq war is illegal. The United Nations had sanctions against Iraq when Hussein was in power. They never upheld any of those sanctions. So, the US and her allies had a right to upheld the sanctions. Also, if you believe the war is illegal then you are calling all the US troops over there criminals.
2) Any judges that make rulings that interfere with fighting the terrorists.
3) Anyone who refers to President Bush's surveillance program as a "domestic" spying program. It gathers info on people making contact with known terrorist nations or nations who support terrorists using social-network analysis and data mining techniques.
4) Anyone that believes you can reason with or appease the terrorists. If you are not one of them, they don't care what you say and what you think. They are only appeased when you're a Muslim or dead.
5) Anyone who is concerned about offending the Islamic terrorists. Thinking that offending them will increase more terrorism. What caused 911 then? Or what caused the terrorist attacks before that? Just being a Westerner (especially an American or Israelite or anyone who believes in democracy for that matter) offends them. That's what caused 911.
6) Reporters exposing national security secrets.
7) Anyone believing that Hussein had no connections to al Qaeda. Bin Laden was in Iraq during the 1990s. Read The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America by Stephen F. Hayes.
8) Anyone who thinks their is a moral equivalence between the terrorists and the US and her allies. Please! Is their a moral equivalence between a psychopathic killer and a law abiding citizen?
9) Anyone who thinks that the military is torturing terrorists. Yes, their has been cases of this, but overall the terrorists have been treated well.Ask anybody who has visited Camp Guantanamo-Bay. Oh, by the way keeping a suspected terrorist up all night is NOT torture.
10) Anyone who believes that terrorists should be covered under the Geneva Convention. They don't care about the Geneva Convention. The cowards fire their weapons out of Mosques for God's sake.
11) Anybody who believes the US gov't had any part of the 911 tragedy. These conspiracy kooks also probably believe that NASA faked the moon landing, and Jesus Christ slept with Mary Magdalen.
12) Anybody that thinks President Bush started the Iraq war because of oil. I don't remember President Bush talking about invading Iraq before the 911 tragedy. If this were true don't you think The New York Times would have found out about it and reported it? This belief is similar to 1).
13) Anybody who wants to understand the Islamic extremists for the sake of understanding them or thinking you can help them change. They don't want to change. You only want to understand them to stop them. Period. Think of an FBI profiler trying to understand a serial killer. That's the way a person should think about them.
14) Anybody thinking any kind of terrorist profiling is wrong. Israel has been doing terrorist profiling for a long time, and it works.
15) Anyone that thinks Christians and Jews are more a threat than Islamic extremists. If John Lennon had said "We are more popular than Mohammed" a fatwa would have been issued on him and some lunatic Islamic extremist would have tried to kill him. All the Christians did in protest was to burn the Beatles' albums and memorabilia. Then there is Salman Rushie who wrote the Satanic Verses book. The Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa on him.
16) Anyone who thinks the terrorists who crashed the planes into the Twin Towers are brave. A person who rescues a fellow human being from a building on fire is brave. A solder who jumps on a live grenade to save his unit is brave. Anybody protesting in a totalitarian state is brave. In other words, sacrificing your life to save another person is brave. Killing yourself and others to get virgins in the afterlife is NOT brave.
17) Anyone who believes America deserved the Twin Towers attack because God is angry at her. Terrorists decided to crash those planes in the towers. God had nothing to do with it. God is a creator not a destroyer.

Talking about useful idiots you might want to read, Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First by Mona Charen. It's a good book.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590)

I have one question to The New York Times (NYT) about the senators secretly blocking this bill. Where are you? Why aren't you exposing these people blocking the bill? Could not find any leakers in Congress? Or maybe the bill is not on your radar screen. I've checked NYT website and could not find any mention of the bill. I even searched using the bill number. Maybe the NYT did not mention the bill is because any potential leakers are on vacation with the rest of Congress and the leakers did not want to take time out of their vacation.

I first heard about this in my American Family Association newsletter. I am all for accountability and full disclosure for lawmakers. I hope this bill passes and the blockers are exposed. The blockers should say who they are and explain why they are blocking this bill. If you have good reasons for blocking this bill let's hear your reasons.

It's interesting if there is anybody lobbying against this bill. I suppose this bill would make some organizations nervous who are getting funded.

The Concept of Free Will

What separates homo sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom is free will. We have the ability to control our mental state and our actions. Other animals cannot do this. If a lion wants to mount a lioness, he just does it. We don't have to procreate. If someone insults us we can hit him or insult the person back or just ignore the remark. We can resist the impulse but it is hard to resist. It takes self-control.

Most democracies mention free will in their constitution. The US Constitution has the Bill of Rights for example. Such as the right to assemble, the right of free speech, the right to bear arms, the freedom of and from religion to name a few. The Declaration of Independence has the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." clause in it.

The concept of free will is a fundamental building block to any legal system. Without the concept of free will the legal system breaks down. If a person does not understand right and wrong then you cannot prosecute her. That's why animals, children and insane people cannot be prosecuted. Free will also differentiates between a premeditated crime and a crime of passion or involuntary crime.

I think one thing that separates cults from your "healthy" religions is freewill. Cults tend to manage, control or even diminish their members freewill, so that the members do not question the cult leaders authority. They do this through various mind control techniques. "Healthy" religions on the other hand should cherish, protect, and celebrate free will. Freewill is after all a gift from God. He gave it to us to choose between good and evil and even to worship Him or not.

It's interesting how the concept of freewill is treated by different scholars. In his book The Pliant Animal, George Weinberg talks about the five assumptions of early psychology. The third assumption was that people make real choices and are not simply respondents to their environment--ie they freely choose their actions. The fourth assumption was people choices affect their outlook on life. The fifth assumption was if people choose enough of the right actions, a person can produce real change in their mental state. Then comes along Sigmund Freud. He basically said we are controlled by our unconscious instincts. The id instinct who tells you "I want that...". The superego says "You cannot have that." And finally the ego who mediates between the id and superego. Enter the behaviorists. They say we are basically robots who are controlled by environmental factors. Either controlled by classical conditioning or operant (sometimes called instrumental) conditioning. Eventually, free will came back around with the cognitive therapists. Their theories include Cognitive Dissonance, Consistency Theory, and Reactance Theory.

Finally, when you limit someone's choices or give the person false choices you disrupt the normal functioning of freewill. Freewill depends on good reliable information. The only way to get good reliable information is to research the item you are choosing, because the item may not be giving you reliable information. Some people say that too much choice is bad as having no or very little choice. Possibly. If you have too much things to choose from you will get confused and have to research each choice which would take time. But given the choice (no pun intended) between too much choice or too little choice I would choose too much choice even though it would require more work to decide, because in the end you'll come up with a good choice.

Nepotism and Favoritism

I think why nepotism gets a bad rap is because of favoritism. I touched on this in my Nepotism Logic entry. Favoritism happens when someone in power favors some subordinate. This is not right, but it is human nature. It could be that the employee reminds the employer of herself someway. Because of this the employer starts to show favoritism. Or the employer finds out that the employee shares similar beliefs or belongs to the same social group as the employer. Then again maybe the employee is good at "brown nosing"-- ie kissing the boss' behind. All of the reasons for favoritism above do not necessary depend on the employee being someone the employer knows already. It could be the employee left a good first impression on the employer during the interview.

Favoritism does not necessary have to happen in the private sector alone. Government probably has favoritism in it too. The president usually hires staff he knows and trusts usually from the same political party. When a new president comes from a different party the staff is let go (although probably they would not want to work with the new president). The same goes for Congress and the House. They hire people they know.

Classrooms can have favoritism too. Ever heard of the "teacher's pet?" A teacher might call on a certain student all the time to answer classroom questions. Either because he raises his hand all the time more than the other students or just because he appears to be smarter than the rest of the class to the teacher. Or it could be because the teacher likes the student more for whatever reason.

Even families have favoritism in them. A parent could have a child because the child has a similar personality as the parent or they share similar likes and dislikes. Then the other siblings start to resent that child.

I could continue with other examples but you get the point. All social groups have some sort favoritism. I kind of got sidetracked from talking about nepotism to favoritism but the two are linked. You cannot understand nepotism without understanding favoritism first.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 2

• A loaded gun laying on a table does not hurt anybody. Only when somebody fires it at someone does it hurt somebody.
• Mankind has the capability for good and evil. A person chooses what path to take.
• Nature (the universe) is indifferent to mankind.
• Dictators only respect military strength.
• If a minority in a majority act in a certain way, outsiders who do not understand the majority will have a tendency to think all people belonging to that group are like the minority if the majority does not speak up against the minority to contradict the belief.
• National security should always trump business.
• Life is too complex for guarantees.
• Abortion hurts the social security system. Babies are potentially future workers who would pay into the system. If abortion is out-of-control the population does not replenish itself and eventually social security will go eventually bankrupt. It's already happening because people are living longer and having less kids.
• Judges are umpires. They should not make the law. They only decide if the law is being upheld or not.
• Any system or organization that gets too big tends to get corrupted and ignores the individual parts.

The Will to Fight Islamic Terrorism

In my "The New York Times" blog I said that the press always report the deaths of American solders. This is okay, but I wish the press would report the terrorists the good guys kill. It seems they only do this when they feel they have to do it. Again, it is all about balanced reporting. The family of the solders needs to know if their loved one has died in the war. Even the local press can report local solders who died. That is fine. Bring honor to the solders. I worry though if this is over done without reporting the good guys successes the American people might lose the will to fight. This is a war after all. I am not just talking just about Iraq and Afghanistan. I am talking about the global war to fight terrorism--ie the war to fight the Islamic terrorists. If we lose the will to fight then the terrorists win. And the world cannot allow that to happen. After all evil exists when good men do nothing as the saying goes.

Yes, fighting a war is hard and bloody. Good men die in a war. And it does not help if the enemy fights in a cowardly way. It also does not help that people are saying that the Islamic terrorists should be given Geneva Convention rights when the terrorists do not follow or care about the Geneva convention. It does not help that some people think President Bush and Wal-mart are the enemy, and not the Islamic terrorists. That's really sad--and potentially scary.

During the FDR's administration most people in the US were against joining the war against Hitler. I even saw footage on the History Channel of a woman during that time period holding a sign that read "Make Peace with Hitler." I could not believe what I saw. Then again back then people were tired of fighting (WW I had ended not long ago) and most people did not comprehend the whole situation. FDR had a political opponent when he was running for a third term who was an isolationist. Even Andy Rooney said at that time he was against the war until he started reporting the war. FDR understood what was going on and what had to be done. Churchill understood too. Hitler had to be stopped. He was trying to conquer the world just like the Islamic terrorists. He could not be negotiated with (he broke a non-aggression treaty with Russia and then attacked them). You can try to negotiate with the terrorists, I guess, but what are you going to do when that fails?

The past is repeating itself again. You have terrorists who wants to conquer the world. Countries are not taking the threat serious until probably it is almost too late. I wish the U.N. (Useless Nuisance--Zell Miller's term for the organization) would get involved in the war on terror but they are too busy blaming and hating America and Israel for everything. Their sanctions they create are worthless. One of the reasons the US and it's allies started the Iraq War was because the UN did not enforce its sanctions against Iraq when Hussein was in power. That and 911 happened. Is the Iraq War being thought effectively? That can be debated. To say we are losing the war maybe premature and saying that does help the enemy. That increases their confidence. At the very least it we are at a stalemate. This is probably why Americans might be losing the will to fight. They perceive the US is not winning. Maybe the UN building should be moved to Bagdad. Then the UN bureaucrats might think twice about getting the Iraqi infighting under control if they want to hold meetings there. Just a thought.

For those of you who are worried about President Bush taking your freedoms away, under Sharia law you basically have no freedom. Well, you do have some if the leaders say you do. If you are a married woman do not talk back to your husband--he is allowed to hit you. Keep all criticisms about the Muslim religion to yourself. Just ask Vincent van Goghs' great-grandson about what happens if you don't--well you could if he was not murdered by an Islamic fanatic. He was not even a Muslim! Want to switch from being a Muslim to a different religion? Just ask the ex-Muslim Abdul Rahman what happens. He converted from Islam to Christianity. The Afghanistan clerics were going to kill him as an apostate but declared him insane and let him immigrate to Italy. Thank God he's safe now. Any non-Muslim is given a chance to convert. If they refuse to convert they must pay a tax (called a jizyah). If a non-Muslim refuses the tax then Muslims must fight them. If the non-Muslim is not a Christian or a Jew and don't want to convert they are to be killed according to the Quran.

Before I end this blog I want to share a quote from Cal Thomas:

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.

America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Rumsfeld is right.

Tax Reform Opponents

I forgot to say in my tax reform blog why my tax reform will not be implemented. There are basically two reasons why. First, the powers that be use the tax code as way to reward the people they like and punish the people they don't like. In other words it's all about control--they don't want to give up the control. Second, too many business rely on the tax code for their income. Like tax lawyers, tax accountants, software vendors who make money off of complicated tax code. There would be probably a lot of lobbying by these groups not to drastically change the code. But among the two reasons the first would be the primary reason why it won't change.

Theories and Reality

It is interesting to observe what happens when someone's theory or model of the universe are contradicted. If the person has invested energy and time in the theory (s)he will defend the theory even if there is evidence against it. If the person has discovered evidence against her theory she might think the evidence is wrong or miscalculated instead of changing or discarding the theory. The evidence might be wrong then again the theory might be wrong. If another person comes up with a contradictory theory you might attack the theory or even get personal and attack the person who came up with the theory.

For example, if you believe people cause global warming then read in article saying there is global warming on Mars what do you think is causing global warming then? There are no humans on Mars. One thing that Mars and the earth share is the sun.

Copernicus said the planets revolve around the sun. When he said this the Church's belief about the universe revolving around the earth (the Ptolemaic system) was contradicted. The Church understandingly was upset. They ordered Copernicus' book that contained the theory to be burned. Both the heliocentric theory (Copernicus' theory) and the Ptolemaic system described the same phenomena. But Copernicus' theory was simpler and now we know it was the correct one.

Another example is cosmologists who belief in dark matter. Dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that is believed to make up 90 percent of the matter in the universe; it is invisible (does not absorb or emit light) and does not collide with atomic particles but exerts gravitational force. This theory has been around for a while. It helps explain how the universe operates. Then comes along Prof. Mordehai Milgrom's Modified Newtonian Dynamics theory which makes the cosmologist community nervous. All he did was with a simple equation to show you don't need the dark matter hypotheses to explain workings of the universe. But this is exactly how science works--theory is only valid as long as the universe agrees it is valid.

Beliefs can even be upset in juries. Take the Andrea Yates trial. She killed her five children was not convicted because the jury believed she was insane. Andrea Yates thought she was possessed by Satan and she was trying to save them from going to hell because she thought she had ruined their lives. I believe the jury had a hard time believing that a mother would kill her own children. So, instead of coming to terms with that fact they decided she was insane. But it does happen, sorry to say. A mother in Germany killed her eight babies and is currently serving a jail term for 15 years. That comes to about two years for each baby. That number of years is ridiculous. Back to the Andrea Yates trial. It said in a CBS article that the defense claimed Andrea Yates had postpartum psychosis. I did some reading on that diagnosis. That condition usually develops after two or three weeks after delivery. In rare cases the condition can happen in the first three months after giving birth. Andrea Yates' youngest child was six months old. Interesting.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 1

• Morality is not relative. Morality is based on actions. If you kill someone the victim is dead. If you hit someone the hitee can feel it.
• You cannot reason with a madman swinging an axe. Not only do you waste your time and the mad man's time but you can also get serious hurt or even killed.
• Poverty does not cause crime. If this were true then the reverse would be true and there would be no white collar crime.
• Having a good self-esteem does not necessarily mean your a moral person. Hitler, Stalin and most social paths have good self-esteem.
• Intelligent people can commit crime. Ever heard of a criminal genius?
• Evil is real and exists. The Holocaust is evil. Stalin is evil. The 9/11 tragedy is evil. Evil exists cause man has free will.
• Technology is not good nor bad. It's is how a person uses it. A pencil can be used to write with. It can also be used to stab someone with it.
• Mankind is imperfect and the inventions they create will also be imperfect. For example, the Titanic.
• Religion and science can co-exist. Both belief systems are basically have truth as their foundation. Dr. Michael Guillen says in his book Can a smart person believe in God? that to be a balanced person you have to have binocular vision: One eye sees the world through religion, the other through science. An interesting book.
• Persistence and ingenuity are a criminals best asset. This is why most defense systems like fire-walls or even military defenses fail. Eventually the criminal will find a weakness in the system being that the system is imperfect.

Prejudice and Reading Minds

Imagine this scenario. Bob avoids people at all possible. If someone is walking toward him on a sidewalk he walks away from the person. What do you think of Bob? Is he just shy? Or is there another reason? Maybe he thinks he is superior than other people. Who knows. What if Bob is X, and those people he is avoiding is Y. What about now? Is he being prejudice against people different from him? Or would there be another reason? Maybe in his past when Bob was young he had bad experience with a person who had an attributes of Y. For example, let's say Bob is white (attribute X) and he was badly beaten and mugged by a black (attribute Y) man when he was younger. That incident left a strong negative impression of black men. So, after that incident Bob is now scared of black men and now avoids them. He may even avoid any black person--the fear may have been even more generalized. To anyone who does not know Bob he looks like a racist, but in fact he isn't.

Second scenario. Mary is a white employer interviewing Tom a short black man for a job. After several interviews she hires a white woman. Is Mary a racist? Before you say yes, remember I said Tom is a short black man. Maybe Mary did not hire Tom because he is short. Mary could be a tall woman. Or maybe she did not hire him because he is a man--Mary just likes to hire women for some reason. Or it could be Tom had a smug attitude during the interview that Mary detected. Or maybe the reason is that Mary saw Tom wear a small Christian cross around his neck. It could even be she thought Tom would not fit into the "business culture." of her business. Then again maybe Tom was just not right or qualified for the job. Anyway, I could list other numerous reasons. Again, no-one knows for sure why (except Mary and God) why she picked a white woman for the job.

The above scenario reminds of an incident that actually happened to my parents when they were landlords of an apartment house. A single black man wanted to rent an apartment. My parents told him no. He notified the EEOC because he thought he was being discriminated against. My parents told the EEOC that the reason they did not rent to him was because they only rented to families and he was a single person--it actually stated that in their newspaper advertisement. The apartment the man wanted was a bigger than the other apartments in the building and my parents wanted to save that for families.

What does the above scenarios teach us? Well, for one, reading someone's mind is a tricky proposition. Unless someone says or writes his prejudices down (like Hitler did) you have no idea if the person is a "ist" for sure. Two, there maybe a lot of factors involved why someone acts like (s)he does.

If a person has a fear of another group of people different from him it's usually because he does not know any positive people who are different from him/her. The positive examples would diminish the fear of the group. For example, if Bob fears black people and gets to meet and know a good black person then his fear would diminish. If he keeps meeting good black people eventually his fear would vanish.

Now, if a person thinks (s)he is superior to another group different from him/her that's a different situation. Usually, that is something that is taught to you from people you respect and is harder to counteract. Those are the people that can be dangerous. The phobic people like Bob won't harm the people who scare him--he will try to avoid them. But people with a superiority complex who also thinks a group of people are not human you might end up with genocide.

Racism or any kind of "ism" is bad only if the "ist" acts on his beliefs. For instance, if a Muslim goes into a building and kills one Jewish person and injures some other people. But if these Muslims hang out and don't commit any crimes that is okay. In the USA it's called Freedom of Association.

I can think of individual reasons for not liking someone without resorting to an "ism."

The Side Effect of College Loans and Grants

Sometimes good intentions can lead to unintended bad consequences. In economics terms this is called a side effect. For example, letting college students apply for student loans and pell grants. The good intention here is to help college students pay (especially ones who can't afford it at the time) for tuition and books. The side effect is the value of a college education is lowered especially to potential employers. Why? Because employers know that students can get loans to pay for their college expenses. The bigger the loan the lower the economic value of the education. It's all about scarcity. If a resource people want is plentiful (ie not scarce) then its value goes down. Before student loans people who wanted to go to college had to pay for college expenses out of their own pocket, hence a college education was scarce. Anyone with a college degree was in high demand. Now the inverse is true. It is almost expected by job seekers to have a college degree for good paying jobs that are scarce. Since hiring market is flooded with people with college degrees (because of student loans) employers have their pick of applicants. Those who don't have a degree are really left out.

Unless the potential employer knows you, all (s)he knows about you is from your resume and your cover letter. If (s)he sees you have a college degree (s)he might automatically assume you got a student loan to pay for your expenses. Even if you paid for your expenses out of your own pocket--that employer does not know it. All (s)he knows is that student loans exists and most people will apply for them. I suppose you could say you paid your own way in your cover letter and somehow prove that in your job interview by showing receipts, but you still have to get the interview to do that.

Getting a grant or loan is not good or bad in of itself. It helps pay for the college expenses so you can better your career. But we forget or don't know what the side effects are if we don't understand the basic economic principle of scarcity.

Nepotism Logic

Why does an employer hire family or close friends? There could many reasons why, but I think one main reason is it's easier to hire someone you know than you don't know. If you hire a complete stranger you don't know if (s)he will show up on time (or at all), or if you (s)he is competent or not, or even if (s)he will come to work with a gun shoot you and or other workers if you fire him/her. But a close friend or a family member you know more about. You know the personality and possible work habits of the friend or family member better. Of course, that won't guarantee you picking a perfect worker--but there are no guarantees in picking a worker.

Of course, you can do background checks on the potential employee and even call his references, but even that may or may not give you helpful info. If the person has no criminal record, doing a background check may not yield any useful results. If you call references all former employers can say is basically if the person has worked for them or not. They would not say anything about job performance especially if its bad because of the fear of being sued by the former employee. Doing in depth investigations of potential employees cost time and money, and employers usually don't want to invest in either when choosing an employee.

Let's face it, it's who you know than what you know when comes to getting a job. In other words connections. What you know does count especially when you get the job, but if you have connections it makes it easier. Is having connections wrong? No, not really. As long as the new hire can do the job is what is important. I think nepotism gets a bad rap is where the new hire is slacking on the job or if (s)he gets better treatment than the other employees. The new employee should be treated the same as all the rest of the employees. (S)he should not be treated worse off. Some employers treat the friend or relative on the job worse just to show no favorable treatment. That is not fair to the employee.

I am not saying nepotism is good or bad. I am just trying to understand the psychology of it. If nepotism is bad then JFK hiring his brother Bobby for US Attorney General was a bad decision. I don't recall anyone back then saying that was a bad decision. The only thing nepotism could hurt is the relationship between the boss and his/her friend or relative, especially if they interact a lot of each other outside of work (like best friends or a husband and wife, for example). That could put a strain on the relationship.

The New York Times and National Security

When I heard about The New York Times (NYT) leaking in detail President Bush's policy to monitor terrorists' financial transactions I was furious. You do not leak details during a war. It only helps the enemy. The terrorists monitor the news. But this is business as usual for the NYT. They leaked that the US were monitoring the terrorists' cell phone activities and the NYT named countries that were/are part of the rendition program. Thank you NYT. What's next? I don't who is worse, the person who leaked the Bush's policy to monitor terrorists' financial transactions or the NYT itself. The gov't employee who leaked the story did not have to leak it, but the NYT certainly did not have to print the story. The chain of control it seems ends with the NYT.

You might ask yourself well, doesn't the terrorists already suspect we are monitoring them? Probably, but the press does not have to confirm the terrorists' suspicions. Like I said before you don't help the enemy.

The press would have never have thought of divulging secrets during World War II. Can you imagine if someone leaked the D-day operation to the NYT and they printed it? FDR would have not only prosecuted the leaker but the editor of the NYT too for treason. Or how about this NYT headline: "Truman making an atomic bomb to drop on Japan." Again it would be an treasonist action.

I should say that the press and even the people should be skeptical of their gov't. But during war time the press doesn't have to help the enemy either by giving them info or encouraging them by always reporting the deaths the US solders in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deaths of US solders during WW II were never reported. The press now days hardly ever reports deaths of the enemy unless it is a major news story. On my War on Terror/9ll web page I have articles of the US arm forces successes + some other info about the War on Terror. It would be nice if the NYT and the other major news media once in a while would report successes of the US military. It's called balance reporting.

Kansas Seat Belt Law

      I concur with what Dr. Walter E. Williams said in his Click It Or Ticket column. Wearing seat belts in a motor vehicle should be optional. The state should not be requiring an adult to wear his seat belt. Is the state going to require a person look both ways before crossing the street? The driver or passenger does not interfere or harm other drivers when he is not wearing his seat belt. He just harms himself. It's a different situation when a driver does not signal for instance when turning. Signaling informs other drivers of your intentions and could potentially cause an accident when the driver in back of you is surprised when you turn a corner.
       If you noticed I italicized the word "adult." Requiring babies and kids to be restrained in a car is a different matter. They really do not understand the consequences of not wearing a seat belt. So, requiring kids to wear seat belts is fine.  
        It appears that this statue was enacted because Kansas could lose a safety grant of $11 million from the gov't according to a Topeka Capital Journal article. Evidently, Kansas was ranked 43rd in the country in 2004.
         I should mention that I wear a seat belt when I drive and even when I am a passenger. I've been doing it even before the seat belt statue was enacted. I don't feel comfortable without it on. I understand fully well the physics when you don't wear a seat belt when you are in a collision. Basically the car stops moving but you don't until you collide with an object. It's called Newton's First Law of Motion or the Law of Inertia.  Here is something you might not know, your brain also has inertia when the car is moving. When the head hits let's say the windshield, the brain is still moving until it hits the inside of the skull. Hence, possible brain damage. This is what is known as the third collision. The first collision is when the car strikes an object. The second collision is when the body strikes an object. You can't argue with laws of physics.
         I think more education on seat belts would be helpful especially during drivers education. Teachers can explain the three collisions to students and give examples of people who survived car crashes with their seat belts and those who did not survive without them on. A good example of this is the Princess Diana accident. Everyone in that car crash died except for the guy who put on a seat belt. Yes, he was in the hospital for a while, but he did live. That would be a very good example to use in a drivers ed class. This is not exploiting an incident, this is just teaching by example. Every action has a consequence. Not wearing a seat belt (action) leads to possible death or being seriously hurt during an accident (consequence). It's that simple. The state gov't should not have to require you to be responsible--you should be responsible on your own. It's your life after all. One other thing, parents can also set good example for their children by wearing seat belts. Movies and TV shows also could show actors putting on seat belts when getting into cars. The main character in the preview of the "Transporter 2" movie asks his son "What's the first rule when entering a man's car?." Then the son buckles up. I thought that was a nice seen. In summary, education instead of regulation.  

Tax Reform

Here is my idea of reforming the US tax code.
1) Replace the current progressive tax code with a flat tax of 10% to
     15%.
2) Remove all the deductions.
3) Eliminate the capital gains tax. Most other countries don't have a
     capital gains tax.
4) Eliminate the death tax.
5) Eliminate taxes on dividends.
6) Eliminate taxes on interest on savings account, money markets,
     etc.
7) Reduce the payroll tax so working people save more of their
     paycheck and/or able to buy more health insurance.
8) Make the social security tax optional. If the program is good
     workers will automatically join it. This idea can actually apply to
     any gov't program.