Global Warming Models Called Into Question By New Study

From Investors.com (Nov. 25):

Climate: The left's proposed solutions for the world's ills are based on the idea that carbon dioxide is a climate-heating poison that must be scrubbed from the global economy at all cost. Yet another study shows this is foolish.

The study in the journal Science found that global temperatures appear to be far less sensitive to the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere than originally estimated.

The study's findings are simple and devastating. "This implies that the effect of CO₂ on climate is less than previously thought," said Oregon State University's Andreas Schmittner, the study's main author. [read more]

That scientist of the study sounds like one of those “global warming deniers.” At least that’s what the environmental extremists would call him.  The study in the journal Science  is an abstract. You have to pay for the rest of the study or go to the author’s website and read the pdf version. A word of warning: The study is very technical. You would have to have a masters in meteorology to understand most of it. Even the title of the study (as usual) is wordy: “Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum.” Really? Could the authors shortened it up a little?

Let’s face it the only global warming we get is caused by the sun. It’s called summer.

The Agendas of the 1930s Fascists

According to Thomas Sowell’s 2009 book Intellectuals and Society here was the agenda of the Nazis and Mussolini’s Italy:

1. Government control of wages and hours of work.
2. Higher taxes on the wealthy.
3. Government-set limits on profits.
4. Government care for the elderly.
5. A decreased emphasis on the role of religion and the family in personal or social decisions.
6. Government taking on the role of changing the nature of people, usually beginning in early childhood.

And the Left and the Nazis have nothing in common? Really? Did you know that the evil German guy with the mustache back in the 1930’s once belonged to the Communist party for a short time? He considered Communism not as an adversary but as a competitor. You know like two countries are economic competitors. Or two sports teams as competitors.

There was a pact between Germany and the Soviet Union when WWII first started. The German gov’t  broke the pact because it’s evil ruler wanted to have all the power to himself. The selfish bastard! Didn’t he know that the nice Soviet Union wanted to dominate the world too? Geez. This pact is something Russia would like to forget. The war might have ended differently if Germany hadn’t broken the pact.

All the bullet points in the agenda were part of the old Soviet Union and are still espoused by the Left today. Point 4 is social security and Medicare. Point 6 is right out of Marxism when Marx talked about creating a “New Man.”

When you come down to it, the common denominator among  fascism, socialism, and communism is less individual freedom until eventually you have tyranny.

The State as Organ Harvester

From WND.com (Nov. 15):

Officials running a federal program that is considering redefining death are going to be seeking further public comment after members of the Christian Medical Association raised alarms about several problems, including what they believe would be an open door to pressure families to donate organs before their loved one has died.

The proposal could move the federal government closer into alignment with what has been proposed by longtime Barack Obama adviser Cass Sunstein.

Obama's "regulatory czar" was revealed in 2009 to have pushed strongly for the removal of organs from those who did not give their consent to becoming an organ donor.

In his book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler presented the possibility of the "routine removal" of organs because "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission." [read more]

Under Obamacare this is perfectly logical in a twisted way. When the State owns your body it owns your organs. Therefore it doesn’t need permission from anybody to harvest them even if it has good intentions.  Your “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” not mention your rights are now controlled by the State.

Here is something else to think about. If the State owns your body what happens to any “do not resuscitate” orders? Are they now mandatory? Especially if the State doesn’t want to cover your medical bills anymore and wants your organs. It might allow DNRs for the “important” people or the elites though.

The Judeo-Christian Philosophy and The Free-Market

Here’s how the Judeo-Christian philosophy influenced the free-market:

1. The Judeo-Christian respect for manual labor, summed up in a number of biblical injunctions. One example: When God warns Noah of the coming flood and tells him he will be saved, it is not God who saves him. “Build thee an ark of gopher wood,” he says, and Noah builds an ark to divine specifications.   
2. The Judeo-Christian subordination of nature to man. This is a sharp departure from widespread animistic belief and practices that saw something of the divine in every tree and stream (hence naiads and dryads). Ecologists today might think these animistic beliefs preferable to what replaced them, but no one was listening to pagan nature wor­shippers in Christian Europe. 
3. The Judeo-Christian sense of linear time. Other societies thought of time as cyclical, returning to earlier stages and starting over again. Linear time is progressive or regressive, moving on to better things or declining from some earlier, happier state. For Europeans in our period  the progressive view prevailed. 
4. In the last analysis, however, I would stress the market. Enterprise was free in  Europe [of the past]. Innovation worked and paid, and rulers and vested interests were limited in their ability to prevent or discourage innova­tion. Success bred imitation and emulation; also a sense of power that would in the long run raise men almost to the level of gods. The old legends remained—the expulsion from the Garden, Icarus who flew too high, Prometheus in chains—to warn against hubris. (The very no­tion of hubris—cosmic insolence—is testimony to some men’s preten­sions and the efforts of others to curb them.)

Source: The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor. (1998) by David S. Landes.

As for the first point, if the gov’t gave Noah specs to build the arc, the arc would have sunk or worse fell apart. The gov’t would have given Noah the materials for the ark at a cost of $100,000,000,000 or more. Heck, if big gov’t would have warned Noah of the flood it probably would not have come.

Referring to the 2nd point, the enviro-fascists are lot more like the pagans back then—worshiping mother nature than God.

Ancient China and the Free-Market

David S. Landes talks in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (1998) why sinologists say ancient China did not reach its economic potential:

• The absence of a free market and institutionalized property rights.  The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise—taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulating prices, exacting bribes curtailing private enrichment. Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commerce and industry.
• The quasi-confinement of women to the home made it impossible, for example, to exploit textile machinery profitably in a factory setting.
• Sinologist Etienne Balazs would stress the larger context. He sees China’s abortive technology as part of a larger pattern of totalitarian control. The author quotes Mr. Balazs saying: “The ingenuity and inventiveness of the Chinese, which have
  given so much to mankind—silk, tea, porcelain, paper, printing, and more—would no doubt have enriched China further and probably brought it to the threshold of modern industry, had it not been for this stifling state control…. It is a regime of paper work and harassment….. It is the State [my emphasis] that kills technological progress in China.”

In my humble opinion, is the State in any country that can kill technological progress. The State doesn’t understand technology and/or business when it tries to control the economy. Since the State will probably never understand technology and economics it would be better off to leave hands off. But since the State contains people who are usually controlling  and arrogant (a nasty combination) this probably will never happen unless you get legislatures who are not power hungry and who are humble. Good luck with that.
The Chinese gov’t now is not much better. They have now what they call “state capitalism.” This is just another name for national socialism. If this sounds familiar think back to Germany in the 1930’s. You know the evil guy with the mustache who we’re not supposed to mention in polite company anymore. Yea, that guy. He created national socialism. It’s not a new idea.

The Four Roles of Leadership

In his book The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004), Stephen R. Covey describes the four roles of leadership which are:

1. Modeling. Inspires trust without expecting it. (Personal moral authority)
2. Pathfinding. Creates order without demanding it. (Visionary moral authority)
3. Aligning. Nourishes both vision and empowerment without proclaiming them. (Institutional moral authority)
4. Empowering. Unleashes human potential without externally motivating it. (Cultural moral authority)

What’s interesting is President Ronald Reagan had everyone of those roles. Why? Because he believed that man can rule himself. Which is what the four roles are about. People choose to follow the vision and therefore order is created (role # 2).  If the vision is morally good for the country they will believe and follow it.

The progressives like Obama will never have those roles because they believe that man cannot rule himself and therefore cannot be trusted to make choices for themselves. Because of that belief people have to be treated like a children or worse like sheep. The Ruling Class will expect trust (after all they are the elite), demand order, proclaim a vision, and try to motivate people. But if the vision is false all that will be to no avail.

The Downward Spiral of Codependency

What happens when you manage people like things? They stop believing that leadership can become a choice. Most people think of leadership as a position and therefore, don’t see themselves as leaders. Making personal leadership (influence) a choice is like the freedom to play the piano. It is a freedom that has to be earned-only then can leadership become a choice.

Until then, people think that only those in positions of authority should decide what must be done. They have consented perhaps unconsciously, to being controlled like a thing. Even if they perceive a need, they don't take the initiative to act. They wait to be told what to do by the person with the formal title, and then they respond as directed. Consequently, they blame the formal leader when things go wrong and give him or her the credit when things go well. And they are thanked for their 'cooperation and support."

This widespread reluctance to take initiative, to act independently, only fuels formal leader' imperative to direct or manage their subordinates. This, they believe, is what they must do in order to get followers to act. And this cycle quickly escalates into codependency. Each party's weakness reinforces and ultimately justifies the other's behavior. The more a manager (bishop, church leader) controls, the more he/she evokes behaviors that necessitate greater control or managing. The codependent culture that develops is eventually institutionalized to the point that no one takes responsibility. Over time, both leaders and followers confirm their roles in an unconscious pact. They disempower themselves by believing that others must change before their own circumstances can improve. The same cycle reappears in families between parents and children (neighborhoods, church congregations, school clubs, etc.).

Source: The 8th Habit. From Effectiveness to Greatness. (2004) by Stephen R. Covey.

I agree with what Mr. Covey said. Not only does this happen in neighborhoods and churches, but can happen with gov’t too. The Ruling Class (RC) creates social security which tells people they don’t have to save for their old age. The RC creates welfare so people don’t have to look after their families. And when gov’t can’t afford programs like these (like in Greece) people riot because there is very little personal responsibility left.

When a leader treats his subordinates or constituents like children that’s what they will become in the end. And maybe that’s what the leader wants too. That’s the whole point of Mr. Covey’s essay.

Government as Venture Capitalist

Since the Obama administration wants to act like venture capitalist I wanted to learn more about these venture capitalists. So, I did a little research on the subject.

First, what is a venture capitalist? Investopedia.com defines a venture capitalist (VC) as “an investor who either provides capital to startup ventures or supports small companies that wish to expand but do not have access to public funding.” The entry continues by saying “venture capitalists usually expect higher [my emphasis] returns for the additional risks [my emphasis] taken.” In other words a VC is not investing in the company so much to help the company but to make money themselves. Otherwise they wouldn’t be risking their own money. When gov’t invests in a company it’s different. Gov’t isn’t in the business to make a profit. They invest in a company to create jobs. And since Washington can print money there is not much risk for them to invest in a company like Solyndra. Whatever they lose they can make up by raising taxes.

When you are investing in a startup or small company who wishes to expand there’s a risk involved. With a established small company there is fewer risks than with a startup. That’s just basic reasoning. A smart VC looks at the management of the company. He or she wants to know if the management can run a business that generates high return for its investors. The VC also wants a list of experienced, qualified people who will play central roles in the company's development. As the article where I got this info says: “they [the VCs] prefer to invest in a bad idea led by accomplished management than a great business plan supported by a team of inexperienced managers.”

Also, a VC wants a market size that is $1 billion or more in revenues. Because of this VCs want a detailed market size analysis as part of the company’s business plan.

Thirdly, VCs want a company that produces a great product and can compete with other businesses similar to themselves. They look for a company that solves a problem that no-one else has solved in the market place. They look for a company that can make product or do a service that no-one can do without. And if they find a business that is a near monopoly all the better.

Finally, the VC has to be aware of any risks the company has. Like for example:

• Could regulatory or legal issues pop up?
• Is this the right product for today or 10 years from today? 
• Is there enough money in the fund to fully meet the opportunity?
• Is there an eventual exit from the investment and a chance to see a return?

Keep in mind it is the VC’s money he is investing. He doesn’t want to make reckless investment and lose it all.

If you ever watch the reality show Shark Tank all five of those “sharks” on the show are VCs. Just about everything I described above, the sharks ask about people coming to them for money they want for their business. What’s funny is that most entrepreneurs on the show ask for a lot of money from the sharks but at a low rate of return. The sharks almost always tell these people you are not giving me enough return for the risk involved. What’s the moral of the story? The sharks just want to make money. Period. It’s that simple.

The reason the Obama administration make lousy VCs is because they have no business experience. They don’t even have a business mind-set and never will get one. Everything I described above they probably think is mean, cruel, and exploitive. Making money just for the sake of making money. That’s just plain greed to them. And the VCs are taking advantage of the small business owner.

Like I said, since the money the gov’t is risking  isn’t really their own and they can always get more from taxes do you think they are going to research a company and ask the right questions? Why should they when there is no incentive for them to do that. And if they think investing in a business so it can create jobs is a noble deed whether or not the business is prosperous or not just compounds the problems. Yes, a business hiring people is great. But if it goes out of business (and fires everyone) because of bad management or just not enough customers then that is worse. So much about being noble. 

One last note. In his blog The Venture Capitalist Aptitude Test, Guy Kawasaki describes a test that a wannabe VC can take to see if he can succeed as a VC. First, if you have work background in engineering and/or sales that’s a plus. Obama doesn’t. If you are in managing consulting, or are a investment banker, an account or have an MBA that counts against you. Well, Obama thinks he is an investment banker. Or is at least acting like one. The author explains more in his blog about why having a background in engineering and sales is a good thing to have. Basically, you have to know about what you are investing in. Also, remember this: The two occupations most important to any business is engineering and marketing. That is, for a business to succeed it has to make a product (or a service) and sell it. Otherwise, the business fails. 

Then the author goes into first-hand experiences like “worked at a failed startup, so that you understand three things: first, how hard it is to achieve success; second, that the world doesn’t owe you a thing; and third, what it’s like to be fired or laid off.”

Finally, he talks about having necessary knowledge about a business to be a successful VC.

If you could sum up this interesting article it would be this: Know your product or service you want to invest in and know how a successful business works. If you don’t have either knowledge then you better think twice about being a venture capitalist.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

These rights are overall pretty good like for example Article 17. Some of the rights mirror what’s in the Constitution: Articles 11, 18 through 20. These rights come from the United Nations. But there are some articles I question like:

Article 23: The right to work and form unions.

Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25: Right to a standard of living.

Article 26: Right to free education.

Article 27:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 29: Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

Articles 23 through 26 looked it was influenced by communists and/or socialists.

Is Article 27 needed (especially the first part)? I mean Article 20 should take care of that. Part 2 is talking about intellectual property rights. I am currently reading an e-book (The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind (2008) by James Boyle) on that topic. It is really a complex subject to grasp.

What is Article 29 about? “Duties to the community”? That would make Ayn Rand spin in her grave. Sounds like the “it takes a village” nonsense. That smacks of socialism.

Jon Huntsman’s American Jobs Plan

1. Tax Reform.
   • Individual Taxes.
     • “Zero Plan”. Rates of 8%, 14% and 23%.
     • Eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
   • Corporate Taxes.
     • Reduce the Corporate Rate from 35% to 25%.
     • Shift from a Worldwide System of Taxation to a Territorial System.
     • Implement a Tax Holiday for Repatriation of Corporate Profits.
   • Eliminate the Taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends.
2. Regulatory Reform.
   • Repeal President Obama's Unconstitutional and Unaffordable Health Care Plan.
   • Repeal Dodd-Frank.
   • Streamline the Food and Drug Administration's Approval Process.
   • Enact Comprehensive Patent Reform.
   • Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley.
   • End the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Gross Regulatory Overreach.
     • Roll-back Ozone Standard Revision.
     • Roll-back Joint Fuel-Efficiency Rules.
   • Expedite the Environmental Permitting Process.
   • Gov. Huntsman will immediately instruct the NLRB to stop pursuing this politically-motivated attack on free enterprise, and if they fail to do so, he will replace them.
   • As President, Gov. Huntsman will demand the Commodities Future Trading Commission undertake serious cost-benefit analysis before implementing any regulations.
   • Privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
   • Mandate Cost-Benefit Fundamentals at Agencies.
3. Energy Independence.
   • We must expedite the review and approval of safe and environmentally-sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.
   • We must eliminate subsidies and regulations that support foreign oil and inhibit clean, domestic alternatives such as natural gas, biofuels and coal-to-liquid fuel.
4. Trade.
   • The United States should take the lead in initiating free trade agreements with Japan, India and Taiwan, among others. We must begin to send a message to the world that we will once again lead on trade liberalization.
   • Support the Doha Development Round of World Trade Organization Negotiations.
   • Lead in Reaching a Successful Conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Not too bad a plan. The three-tier zero plan sounds progressive too me. Although, less progressive than what we have now. Since it is three-tier I suppose the rates correspond to the lower-class, middle-class and upper-class. Getting rid of the AMT is a good idea. I like reducing the corporate tax and getting rid of capital gain taxes and dividend taxes, although the corporate tax could be lower like 15%.

Interesting idea to reform patent regulations. First candidate to suggest that.

He does have a foreign policy. Huntsman supports Israel and considers Iran a threat.

The Myth of Crime Prevention

In trying to scare the public about the Republicans not supporting Obama’s “jobs” bill, this what the VP said:

“It’s not temporary [the administration’s stimulus] when that 911 call comes in and a woman’s being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It’s not temporary to that woman.”

So, the basic formula is this: Any policeman can stop any crime from happening to any victim. Like that CBS drama series “Person of Interest.” Except in that show the two men preventing crime are not policemen. One is a genius computer programmer that wrote a program that monitors everyone and the other is an ex-Green Beret and CIA agent.  Or like the movie “Minority Report”.  Then again the show and the movie are fictional.

It’s a myth that Biden is trying to create. Then again he may believe it. Very rarely can police force can stop a first crime. Or else there would be no crime at all right? This is not a knock against law enforcement. It’s just a matter of logistics.  Especially, if the crime is a crime of passion, a crime of opportunity or even a serial crime like in Biden’s example a serial rapist the police probably won’t catch the criminal the first time. Even a premeditated crime is hard to stop unless the perpetrator tries to hire someone to do his dirty work and ends up talking to a policeman. Or if there are more than one criminal (like in a planned bank robbery) and one of the criminals tells on another.

Even if the police department was next door to the woman being raped there would be a delay before the police would show up. The truth of the matter is you really have to defend yourself because the police cannot be everywhere. Nor can they read minds. If the woman is being raped in Biden’s example by the time she calls 911 then the crime has already been done. The police couldn’t stop the crime when they get there. All they can do is arrest the rapist if he is still around. Or arrest him later on if and when they find him.

Oh, by the way, what Biden meant by “temporary” was police departments only get subsided one time for a year.

Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth

1. FIVE BILLS FOR DAY ONE
   • The American Competitiveness Act- Reduces the corporate income tax rate to 25 percent.
   • The Open Markets Act- Implements the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea Free Trade Agreements
   • The Domestic Energy Act- Directs the Department of the Interior to undertake a comprehensive survey of American energy reserves in partnership with exploration companies and initiates leasing in all areas currently approved for exploration
   • The Retraining Reform Act- Consolidates the sprawl of federal retraining programs and returns funding and  responsibility for these programs to the states
   • The Down Payment on Fiscal Sanity Act- Immediately cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent, reducing the annual federal budget by $20 billion
2. FIVE EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR DAY ONE
   • An Order to Pave the Way to End Obamacare- directs the Secretary of HHS & all relevant federal officials to let states to design their own health care solutions.
   • An Order to Cut Red Tape- directs all agencies to immediately initiate  the elimination of Obama-era regulations, and then caps annual increases in regulatory costs at zero dollars.  
   • An Order to Boost Domestic Energy Production- directs the Dept. of Interior to implement a process of for rapid issuance of drilling permits.
   • An Order to Sanction China for Unfair Trade Practices- directs the Dept. of the Treasury to list China as a currency manipulator in its biannual report and directs the Department of Commerce to assess countervailing duties on Chinese imports if China doesn’t move to float its currency.
   • An Order to Empower American Businesses and Workers- reverses the executive orders issued by Obama that tilt the playing field in favor of organized labor.
3. TAX POLICY.
   • Individual taxes.
     • Maintain marginal rates at current levels.
     • Further reduce taxes on savings and investments.
     • Eliminate the death tax.
     • Long-term goal: pursue a flatter, fairer, simpler structure.
   • Corporate taxes.
     • Lower the corporate tax rate to 25%.
     • Transition to a “territorial” tax system in which income is taxed only in the country where it is earned.
4. REGULATORY POLICY.
   • Repeal and replace Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
   • Review and eliminate Obama-era regulations.
   • Cap new regulatory costs at zero dollars.
   • Require Congress to approve all major regulations.
   • Reform legal liability system.
5. TRADE POLICY.
   • Expanded markets.
     • Implement pending Free Trade agreements.
     • Conclude Trans-Pacific Partnership and pursue additional agreements.
     • Create Reagan Economic Zones.
   • Confronting China.
     • Improve enforcement at the border.
     • Pursue and protect legal rights.
     • Impose targeted tariffs or economic sanctions.
     • Designate China a currency manipulator & impose countervailing duties.
     • Insist on reciprocal government procurement.
6. ENERGY POLICY.
   • Significant regulatory reform.
     • Streamline and fast-track permitting processes.
     • Overhaul outdated legislation.
     • Reform nuclear regulation.
   • Increase production.
     • Inventory our nation’s resources.
     • Explore & develop our oil reserves.
     • Partner with our neighbors.
     • Extract shale gas.
   • Research and development.
     • Focus on basic research.
     • Design long-term funding sources free from politics.
7. LABOR POLICY.
   • Defend the free-enterprise system. Romney will appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with a respect for the law and an even-handed approach to labor relations.
   • Guarantee workers free choice. He opposes “Card Check.” Romney will submit to Congress legislation, similar to the Secret Ballot Protection Act, that would require the use of the secret ballot in all union elections regardless of the preference of the union, employees, or employer.
   • Protect free speech. Mitt Romney will send Congress a bill prohibiting the use of mandatory union dues for political purposes.
   • Respect the rule of law.
8. HUMAN CAPITAL POLICY.
• Retraining workers.
  • Consolidate redundant programs.
  • Give authority to the states.
  • Create Personal Reemployment Accounts. Each eligible participant would have control over an account that contained funds to be put toward retraining.
  • Encourage private-sector participation.
• Attracting the best and the brightest.
• Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers.
• Retain graduates of our universities. Romney will also work to establish a policy that staples a green card to the diploma of every eligible student visa holder who graduates from one of our universities with an advanced degree in math, science, or engineering.
9. FISCAL POLICY.
• Cut, cap and balance. Romney will immediately move to cut spending and cap
  it at 20 percent of GDP. As spending comes under control, he will pursue further cuts that would allow caps to be set even lower so as to guarantee future fiscal stability.
• Enact entitlement reform. One option that should not be on the table is raising the payroll tax or expanding the base of income to which the tax is applied. Romney will push for the conversion of Medicaid to a block grant administered by the states.
• Reduce the federal workforce. Romney will not only halt this growth, but work to cut the current size of the federal workforce by 10 percent through attrition.
• Undertake fundamental restructuring.
• Pursue a balanced budget amendment.

Got to say this about Romney’s plan—it sure is comprehensive. Don’t think he left anything out. As for his executive orders all he needed to do is issue an executive order to exempt everyone from Obamacare (before Obamacare is reversed—as a backup plan) and to reverse all of Obama’s executive orders. I don’t believe any of them were good. You have to be careful about issuing executive orders. If you do too many it makes you look like a dictator and not a president. Especially if you are not letting Congress do their job. Then again some presidents may not care what they look like to the American people.

Not a bad plan. Not sure about the Human Capital policy. The Personal Reemployment Accounts sound like Bush’s Health Savings Account. Being educated is good if there are good jobs out there where you can use your education. Otherwise you are just educated and unemployed. Additionally, if you help out the highly educated foreigners that will just increase competition for Americans already looking for work. Nice for the employers, but not so nice for the job seekers. Don’t get me wrong. I am not against immigrants coming to America legally, but it seems to me they are already being hired and don’t really need much help. Presidential candidates should focus on growing the economy first. Everything else will follow.

The Marxist-Leninist Assault on Identity

In his book Defending identity.  Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy (2008), Natan Sharansky talks how Marx and Lenin destroyed identity of the people of Russia. What they wanted was a new identity. A cultural in nationalism in form and socialistic in substance until the communist unity was going happen.

First Marx had to eliminate the classes of exploiters. Early Soviet identity cards listed people as proletariat, peasant, or bourgeois. Or if you prefer in modern terms: Working and middle class, poor, and the upper class. The last two classes were marked for destruction. All the property of the bourgeois, the rich peasantry, and the clergy had to be confiscated. In other words, they were to be destroyed not because of what they did but because of who they are. Does that sound familiar? It’s what the far-Left radicals do all the time.

Marx thought the peasants are reactionary because they are connected to the earth. Because he believed they are reactionary he thought they slowed down the development of a classless society. First Marx starved the peasants, then he had their lands and farms taken from them, and finally they were murdered. So, much for the idea of the Communists caring about the poor. Also, (not in his book though) people who were addicted on drugs and liquor weren’t helped either. Marx had no use for them either. This is an educated guess but I think Marx had no use for the elderly either. They would be retired thus would not be part of the proletariat. Also, they more than likely would be supporters of the old regime and less likely to be for the new identity Marx wanted.

Stalin’s project of mass collectivization killed millions of people and turned scores of millions more into slaves of the state.

A Set of Legislative Proposals

The following proposals are from Newt Gingrich:

1. Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.
2. Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve and creating a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits to encourage work and improve the quality of our workforce.
• Lowering taxes.
• Reduce the Corporate Tax to 12.5%.
• Abolish the Capital Gains Tax.
• Abolish the Death Tax.
• 100% Expensing. Allowing companies to write off all their new equipment in one year.
• Optional flat tax.
• Fewer and smarter regulations.
• Repeal the Dodd-Frank legislation.
• Repeal the Sarbanes-Oxley law.
• Replace the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a new common sense organization for labor-management relations.
• Reforming the Federal Reserve.
• Reforming the unemployment compensation system. Newt Gingrich will introduce a training requirement for extended federal unemployment benefits.
3. Unleash America’s full energy production potential in oil, natural gas, coal, biofuels, wind, nuclear oil shale and more, creating jobs,  stimulating a sustainable manufacturing boom, lowering gasoline and other energy prices, increasing government revenues, and bolstering national security.
4. Save Medicare and Social Security by giving Americans more choices and tools to live longer, healthier lives with greater financial independence.
• Medicare.
• Stop paying the crooks.
• Option for seniors to remain on the program or to transition to a more personalized system in the private sector with greater options for better care.
• Social security.
• His administration will never hold Social Security payments hostage as a bargaining chip against political opponents, as President Obama did in the summer of 2011. 
• We must therefore consider a voluntary option for younger Americans to put a portion of their Social Security contributions into personal Social Security savings accounts.
5. Balance the federal budget by freeing job-creators to grow the economy, reforming entitlements, and implementing productivity improvement systems, such as Lean Six Sigma, to eliminate waste and fraud. Pass a balanced budget amendment to keep it balanced.
6. Control the border by January 1, 2014 and establish English as the official language of government; reform the legal visa system, and make it much easier to deport criminals and gang members while making it easier for law abiding visitors to come to the US.
7. Revitalize our national security system to meet 21st century threats by restructuring and adequately funding our security agencies to function within a grand strategy for victory over those who seek to kill us or to limit American freedom.
8. Maximize the speed and impact of medical breakthroughs by removing unnecessary obstacles that block new treatments from reaching patients and emphasizing research spending toward urgent national priorities, like brain science with its impact on Alzheimer’s, autism, Parkinson’s, mental health and other conditions that knowledge of the brain will help solve.
9. Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.
10. Enforce the Tenth Amendment by starting an orderly transfer of power and responsibility from the federal government back “to the states, respectively, or to the people,” as the Constitution requires. Over the next year, state and local officials and citizens will be asked to identify the areas which can be transferred back home.

Another good plan. Not sure about replacing the NRLB. I would just scrap it. Then again that’s just me. Proposal 8 is interesting. He’s the only candidate to bring up brain science. He talks about emphasizing brain research. Does that mean a subsidy?

These proposals are just part one of his 21st Century Contract with America. Part 2 are his executive orders. He wants people who visit his website Newt.org to give him suggestions. If that’s all he wanted then he didn’t need your name, email address, and zip code too. Or at least make them optional. If someone wanted credit for an idea he used then that person could put their name or whatever info (s)he wanted to give. Here’s an idea. Exempt everyone from Obamacare before repealing it. Actually, that’s what Romney was going to do.

Part 3 is a training pgm for the transition teams and appointees. No more additional info on that.

Part 4 is a system of citizen involvement to help us sustain grassroots support for change and help implement the change through 2021. Again no further info.

He could have actually stop with part one. He didn’t really need the other parts.

Windmills to shut at night following demise of rare bat

From the Tribune-Democrat.com (Oct. 17):

LILLY — Night operation of the windmills in the North Allegheny Windpower Project has been halted following discovery of a dead Indiana bat under one of the turbines, an official with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Monday.

The finding marks only the second location where an Indiana bat has been found dead under a wind turbine. Two Indiana bats were found under turbines in the Mid-west, said Clint Riley, supervisor for Fish and Wildlife’s Pennsylvania field office.

The find is significant because the Indiana bat is an endangered species and is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

The 35-windmill farm was built by Gamesa Energy USA in Portage, Washington and Cresson townships in Cambria County and extends across the line into Blair County. [read more]

I thought something like this was going to happen, but not with bats though. So, the gov’t officials have decided to turn off the windmills at night. That’s nice for the bats (well, the endangered ones anyway), but what about the citizens that rely on the windmill energy? It can get very cold at night especially during the winter time. It sucks to be them I guess.  And if an endangered bird gets killed during the day then what happens? No electricity at all?

You know no bats would have been killed if they had been using a coal-burning plant or even a nuclear plant. But that would have ticked off the environmental nuts. 

Ron Paul’s “Plan to Restore America”

1. SPENDING. Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.
2. ENTITLEMENTS. Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.
3. CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE. Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.
4. TAXES. Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings.
5. REGULATION. Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.
6. MONETARY POLICY. Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to  strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

Another good plan. If he would stick to economic and gov’t reform issues he would be better off. He is weak on foreign policy. I think some of this support is from the ant-war Left and if stopped talking about they would drop their support (it’s not like they would vote for him anyway.) Ending foreign wars? Nice pipe dream but don’t think it’s going to happen soon. You still have nut cases like the leader of Iran who wants to blow Israel off the face of the world.  Stopping foreign aid? Even to our allies like Israel? I know America is in debt but you just cannot stop it altogether.
He needs an age range on allowing young workers to opt out of the entitlements. Like say 47 and younger.
Monitoring the Fed is a good idea, but if Ron Paul is going to end the Fed and go back to the gold standard he better find out how much gold is left at Fort Knox first.
Finally, taking a salary of $39,336 is good idea, but the next president might raise it. Bill Clinton did. Although, that is not really his problem.

Leadership Styles

Kurt Lewin and colleagues did leadership decision experiments in 1939 and identified three different styles of leadership, in particular around decision-making.

This experiment was done with small groups of children, but the principle still holds water.

Autocratic

In the autocratic style, the leader makes decisions without consulting with others. The decision is made without any form of consultation. In Lewin's experiments, he found that this caused the most level of discontent.

An autocratic style works when there is no need for input on the decision, where the decision would not change as a result of input, and where the motivation of people to carry out subsequent actions would not be affected whether they were or were not involved in the decision-making.

Democratic

In the democratic style, the leader involves the people in the decision-making, although the process for the final decision may vary from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in the group.

Democratic decision-making is usually appreciated by the people, especially if they have been used to autocratic decisions with which they disagreed. It can be problematic when there are a wide range of opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable final decision.

Laissez-Faire

The laissez-faire style is to minimize the leader's involvement in decision-making, and hence allowing people to make their own decisions, although they may still be responsible for the outcome.

Laissez-faire works best when people are capable and motivated in making their own decisions, and where there is no requirement for a central coordination, for example in sharing resources across a range of different people and groups.

What Lewin found out was that the democratic style was the best style of leadership. The quality of work was somewhat higher than the laissez-faire. Work motivation and interest were stronger in this style. Also, originality was greater. Duh. I think it is because it treats people on an individual level. It doesn’t dehumanize them like you would in the autocratic style.

Now, the laissez-faire the work was poorer and there was less work. Now, some on the Left would say “see, this means the laissez-faire free-market doesn’t work. Adam Smith was wrong.” Not really. In a country that has millions of people, there will be quite a few that are capable and motivated in making their own decisions. Actually, the definition of the laissez-faire style fits perfectly with what the free-market is.

Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group. The cost was the children were angry, frustrated and even destroyed their own property. They were also very dependent on the leader. Most political elites think they are the most knowledgeable members of society whether they are or not. That’s where you get socialism,  communism and other dictatorships from.

Blueprint for Economic Prosperity and Job Creation

This blueprint comes from Representative Michelle Bachmann’s website:

1. REPATRIATION. More than 1.2 trillion United States dollars could be brought back to America in days as an immediate "stimulus" if the government would zero out [my emphasis] the tax rate on that money until December 31, and then permanently keep it here in the U.S. if taxed at a rate of 5 percent.
2. CUT SPENDING AND GOVERNMENT. I would phase out quasi-governmental enterprises, such as Fannie and Freddie, and eliminate duplicative government programs and costs. We must decrease government salaries to bring them in line with their private sector counterparts, and we must decrease the number of government employees.
3. REPEAL OBAMACARE.
4. CUT TAXES. We need to reduce the number of tax brackets, repeal taxes outlined in Obamacare, fix the Alternative Minimum Tax, and eliminate the Death Tax. In addition, we must make the corporate tax code simpler and fairer, and allow U.S. companies that generate earnings overseas to bring back those profits and invest them in American jobs and growth.
5. REPEAL THE JOBS AND HOUSING DESTRUCTION ACT, ALSO KNOWN AS DODD-FRANK.
6. LEGALIZE AMERICAN ENERGY PRODUCTION AND AMERICA'S NATURAL RESOURCES.
7. REPEAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS.
8. INCREASE EXPORTS.
9. UNLEASH AMERICAN INVESTMENT. We must do whatever it takes to restore our ability to manufacture here in the U.S. We can do this by reforming the tax code, providing incentive for growth, and allowing the private sector to control the market with little government involvement.
10. PAVE A PATHWAY FOR INNOVATION.
11. ENFORCE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWS.

A great plan. Step #10 is kind of vague though. Not much details on that. Doing that maybe kind of tricky since innovation comes from creative entrepreneurs (like Thomas Edison,   Nicholas Telsa, or even Steve Jobs)—and you can’t just teach that (you can try but creativity is I believe innate). All you can do is create an atmosphere that encourages the creative people to start businesses. Maybe that is what she means. Good luck in that.
One small gripe about the website. I don’t like the homepage. The first time you go there, you either have to click on the “Donate” button or the “Email” button to enter the website. If you click the “Email” button then you get to the page about her stance on the issues and other stuff. If you don’t delete the website’s cookie then don’t see that initial “donate-email” page when you type in the website. You see the page that I think should be initial homepage. Just a design suggestion.

Critical Elements of a Balanced Budget Amendment

The following elements are from Senator Mike Lee’s book The Freedom Agenda. Why a Balanced Budget Amendment Is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government (2011).

1. The first element would prohibit Congress from spending more during any fiscal year than the federal gov’t “earns” during that year by collecting tax and other revenue.
2. The second element would prohibit Congress from spending during any fiscal year more than a fixed percentage (say 18%) of the GDP of the previous calendar year.
3. The third element would provide that Congress could circumvent either of the two limitations discussed above only by a two-thirds supermajority vote.
4. The fourth element would require Congress to approve any debt-ceiling increase by a supermajority vote.
5. A balanced budget amendment should require a supermajority vote in Congress to approve any tax increases.

All in all a good plan. Pretty commonsensical. Although I think if you have to raise the debt-ceiling it would be only to pay our soldiers and social security—ie necessary bills. Also,  I think a super-supermajority vote say 90% vote in Congress to approve any tax increases. He goes in more detail in his book about the plan.

Government Aims to Build a ‘Data Eye in the Sky’

From The New York Times.com (Oct. 10):

More than 60 years ago, in his “Foundation” series, the science fiction novelist Isaac Asimov invented a new science — psychohistory — that combined mathematics and psychology to predict the future.

Now social scientists are trying to mine the vast resources of the Internet — Web searches and Twitter messages, Facebook and blog posts, the digital location trails generated by billions of cell phones — to do the same thing.

The most optimistic researchers believe that these storehouses of “big data” will for the first time reveal sociological laws of human behavior — enabling them to predict political crises, revolutions and other forms of social and economic instability, just as physicists and chemists can predict natural phenomena. [read more]

Is this shades of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program that was in the Bush administration (also part of the “Person of Interest” TV show)? It seems this ‘Data Eye in the Sky’ is doing much much more.  The TIA program only scanned for potential terrorist attacks. This program looks for not just political upheaval but for pandemics too (which isn’t a bad thing to track). I don’t know if it will uncover sociological laws of human behavior or not.  But whatever it finds will probably be part of some gov’t policy even if the laws are correct or not. Washington will use the “laws” this program will find to justify any legislation they create.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 23

• Raising taxes is the last refuge of the unimaginative and lazy.
• If the gov’t assigns you a job then you cannot quit it unless you get permission from the state (not going to happen--they are not going to admit they messed up) because you did not select it in the first place.
• If the gov’t assigns you a mate (arranged marriage) then you cannot get a divorce unless you get permission from the state.
• During a crises the worst thing you can do is overreact and under think.
• The Left is against the death penalty if the person being executed is a woman or a minority, or possible a Left elite.
• There’s a saying that like this: Lead, follow or get out the way. The Left elite think they can lead but can’t, they don’t want to follow (beneath their dignity), and they are always in the way causing trouble.
• Progressivism: Scary bad. Real scary bad.
• Sometimes I think republican candidates for POTUS should wear a wrist bracelet that has these initials on it: WWRD. WWRD stands for What Would Reagan (or Ronnie) Do.
• If Fort Knox has very little gold in it that maybe enough of a tipping point to create the “inside-out” part of Van Jones sinister triad.
• Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan is not bad, but I would make two changes. The national sales tax should be 1% and food and drinks should be exempted from the national sales tax. My only concern is that the rates would be hiked up by Congress especially by the Left.

Smart cities get their own operating system

From BBC.news.co.uk (Sept. 30):

Cities could soon be looking after their citizens all by themselves thanks to an operating system designed for the metropolis.

The Urban OS works just like a PC operating system but keeps buildings, traffic and services running smoothly.

The software takes in data from sensors dotted around the city to keep an eye on what is happening.

In the event of a fire the Urban OS might manage traffic lights so fire engines can reach the blaze swiftly.

The idea is for the Urban OS to gather data from sensors buried in buildings and many other places to keep an eye on what is happening in an urban area.

The sensors monitor everything from large scale events such as traffic flows across the entire city down to more local phenomena such as temperature sensors inside individual rooms.

The OS completely bypasses humans to manage communication between sensors and devices such as traffic lights, air conditioning or water pumps that influence the quality of city life.

A test bed for the Urban OS is currently being built in Portugal. For its work in developing smart cities, Living PlanIT was selected as one of the World Economic Forum's Technology Pioneers of 2012. [read more]

Nice idea, but I hope they have anti-virus software installed and firewalls to prevent hackers. If the system monitors air conditioning that’s a lot of power for city officials to have. So, if they think you are using to much air conditioning and increasing global warming, will the officials adjust your thermostat accordingly? Right now it looks like the OS is just monitoring everything and no-one is controlling the inputs of the sensors. Still it sounds like Big Computer is monitoring you.

If there are sensors on buildings will they alert the police if someone is breaking into your house? I hope the OS doesn’t have false alarms like home security systems have.

The article says that McLaren Electronic Systems is making the OS. They make computer sensors for Formula 1 and other various motorsports. I guess that is a good OS. I haven’t heard of any glitches with their OS in the news.

The Left, The Free-Market and Complexity

In their book Turbulent Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the Science of Wholeness (1989) the authors John Briggs and F. David Peat talk about the main surprise-generating mechanism of Chaos Theory or Complexity Theory. I think why the Left (especially the elite) think man cannot rule himself is because of these mechanisms in the human mind. And since the elite cannot manage or control any of these mechanisms and that makes them nervous. These mechanisms are what show up not only in the mind but also in the free-market system—which a reflection of the mind in a way. What are the main surprise-mechanisms?

1. Paradoxes. A paradox is just a bunch of statements that lead to a contradiction. Or it could be just one like: “This statement is false.” If the statement is really true then it cannot be true because it says it is false. Paradoxes mean people can be irrational. The elite think everyone except for themselves are irrational. Like they are special or something. But they are deluding themselves. Here are some paradoxes in economics and other social systems: Abilene paradox (a form of groupthink), Inventor's paradox, Paradox of hedonism, and the Icarus paradox (this gov’t cannot do anything about).  Paradoxes make you think about situations in different unexpected ways.
2. Instability- large effects from small changes. This is also called The Butterfly Effect. If you raise taxes, or implement a regulatory law even no matter how small could lead to bigger changes down the road. The free-market system is a dynamic system. The Left doesn’t seem to get that. And there is no way to make the free-market system completely stable. It is perfectly normal for it to have instability once in a while. It will readjust itself eventually. If there isn’t stupid regulations blocking its normal “free” behavior it will readjust itself quicker.
3. Uncomputability- behavior transcends rules. This is maybe why the Left elites think man cannot rule himself. Human behavior cannot be completely predicted. If you cannot predict something you cannot control it. You cannot completely regulate it. Thus you can’t trust it. And that bugs the progressives to no-end. Here’s the thing though. Even if you did know most of the rules you still might not be able to predict or control the dynamic system. Case in point. The old Soviet Union (and most of the radical Left) believed the Soviet Union was a “utopia.” No violence and everyone living peacefully. Wrong! Come to find out they had a serial killer there. They couldn’t predict him and couldn’t stop him either. So, much for a perfect society. Computer scientists know this mechanism pretty well.
4. Connectivity- behavior cannot be decomposed into parts. If you cannot break something down, you cannot analyze it real well. If you cannot analyze it so much for trying to control it. Another bugaboo for The Left. Although that doesn’t stop them from trying to regulate life.
5. Emergence- self-organizing patterns. This is the essence of creativity and innovation. In this instance, the self-organizing patterns are inventions. Gov’t couldn’t predict Thomas Edison’s light bulb, or Ford’s model T, or the personal computer, or even the paper clip for that matter. Who knows what inventions will come up in the future. That’s why it is called “self”-organizing not gov’t organizing systems. Obama wants America to have green-technology. But the gov’t cannot force it to happen like magic. Any technology will happen in its own time when the conditions are right. The problem is no-one knows what the conditions are. That’s the nature of dynamic systems especially economic systems. Well, low taxes and less regulations would help but even that might not be enough.

In the brain there isn’t any neurons controlling or planning what the other neurons are doing. Just like the brain the free-market system should not be planned by some central authority. If the free-market system is centrally managed then you will not have a functional dynamic system that produces these “surprises.” You will have a flat-lined system that produces no surprises, no spontaneity, and no innovation. It’s that simple.

Mass. cat with 2 faces lives 12 years, sets record

From apnews.excite.com:

Worchester, Mass.   Frank and Louie the cat was born with two faces, two mouths, two noses, three eyes - and lots of doubts about his future.

Now, 12 years after Marty Stevens rescued him from being euthanized because of his condition, the exotic blue-eyed rag doll cat is not only thriving, but has also made it into the 2012 edition of Guinness World Records as the longest-surviving member of a group known as Janus cats, named for a Roman god with two faces. [read more]

That’s one freakin’ looking cat. Looks like some sort of Cubist painting that Pablo Picasso would have done. I didn’t even know there was record for that type of cat. I guess there’s almost a Guinness World record for just about everything.

In case you are wondering, Guinness World Records did not have any other “Janus” animals. Just that cat. I looked for Janus dogs on the web and did not find any photos of those.

How to Create a Mob

Or if you prefer how to create the “bottom-up” part of  the “top-down, bottom-up, inside-out” structure of a revolution. This is how radicals I believe would create a mob:

1. Find some angry, disillusioned, frustrated, confused, naive young people. If you can’t find any then encourage them to have these emotions through colleges. Even far-Left parents can do this. The recruits have to be naive (most young are) so they don’t know what is happening.
2. Tell them what they are feeling is caused by the System oppressing them. That’s is not their fault. The System can be the economic system, political system, etc. It doesn’t matter what the System is or even if it is oppressing them or not.
3. Tell the young recruits they are special. That they are the future of the world. Again the recruiter doesn’t have to believe this. As long as the recruits believes it.
4. Tell the recruits that since they are oppressed it is okay even justified to act violently against society because society has been oppressing you. It is okay to steal from the rich since they did not earn their wealth anyway and kept you from getting what you rightly deserve.  You make the recruits feel victimized.
5. If a recruit says he is not being oppressed, then you tell him that it is because he has not “seen the truth” or that he is being tricked or brainwashed by the system to believe everything is okay. Karl Marx called religion  “opiate of the masses” for example. Basically the same thing.

Of course, it could be possible that the radical elite can create an atmosphere (high unemployment, hyperinflation, etc.) to increase the emotions or even to try to create them in the potential mob.  This could be the “top-down” part. 

These probably are not all the steps but I think are the main ones.

Americans Win Most Deadly Warrior Matches

If you never watched “Deadly Warrior” on Spike TV, a team of experts simulate on a computer different hypothetical combat matches between two teams or two people. They take into account weapons, tactics, armor and even “X” factors. It’s a fascinating show.

According to that show Americans won all but one match as you can see from the chart below:  Winner

                                       Match                                                                   Total kills

Green Beret	Spetsnaz (Russian army special forces)	481	519
SWAT	GSG9 (German federal counter-terrorism force)	578	422
KGB	CIA	450	550
Navy SEAL	Israeli Commando	518	482
George Washington	Napoleon Bonaparte	50.6%	49.4%
U.S. Army Rangers	North Korean Special Operation Forces	50.08%	49.92%
Teddy Roosevelt	Lawrence of Arabia	51.64%	48.36%

 

You can see the statistics of the matches at the Wikipedia webpage.

It’s too bad the Green Berets lost, but the Navy SEALs and Army Rangers made up for it. Although the Army Ranger match was a close one. Glad to see that George Washington can kick Napoleon Bonaparte’s rear-end.

Negative Rights

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution are what are called negative rights by people who study the Constitution. What this means is the government cannot take these rights away from you. They are God-given. But they are also don’t cost you anything—or shouldn’t anyway (one might, I’ll explain later). As philosopher Ayn Rand I believe said one time about rights if you ask “At what cost?” to a right and if the answer is nothing then it is probably a right.

For instance, freedom of speech, association, and religion doesn’t cost anyone (ie the government) anything. Well, it doesn’t cost the average citizen anything. If you tell the truth against the gov’t, or if join a religion that teaches to be skeptical of the gov’t then the gov’t might not like it---they they interpret that as a cost to them.

What about a right to work?  That’s a cost. And they are not God-given. The right to work was a right in the old Soviet Union. Since you had a right to work you were assigned a job the state calculated was the best fit for you. You did not have a choice which job you wanted. The state made that choice for you. It controlled your wages and benefits. Your working hours too. After all it had your best interests in mind. Isn’t that nice? Oh, yea you wouldn’t be allowed to be unemployed.

What about a right to a house? Again a cost. Labor, materials, and finding a place to build the house are all costs. And if it was a right, you would have no right to decide what the house would look like, what it would be made of, or how big it would be if the state had to build it. Also the state would put you in a house it deemed would fulfill your needs. Even though you might (probably would) disagree with them. Again the state is just looking out for you. You probably wouldn’t be allowed to be homeless either.

The same with healthcare. If it is a right, then the state basically owns your body. Think about that. It can tell you what to eat, drink, how much exercise to do, what drugs you can and cannot take, and any surgeries you would get. Also, it would decide if you should live or die if you have a incurable disease. If that doesn’t scare you, it should.

I could go on but you get the point. Earlier I said there might be a right that could be a cost and that is the right to bear arms. The state could go and give you gun (like that would happen). Although, I heard about an American town that required it citizens to own a gun. Their crime rate was near zero.  Anyway, if the state was that generous the gun would be cheap and not work half the time. And they would probably have you buy the ammunition. That’s why in the US Constitution it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  In other words it is not going to give you a gun.

The UN’s Agenda 21

How’s that for a name? What is Agenda 21? This is what the UN says it is:

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

Does that clear it up? No? The Agenda basically revolves around climate change. If you really want to know what it is you have to read it’s principles.

For example Principle 2 says: States (that is countries that sign on to the Agenda) can exploit (that’s the word the UN uses—gotta like the Left—always predictable) their own environmental resources as long as the other member States says it okay. Well, it did not say that exactly but that is how I interpreted the principle.  The actually principle said: “… the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” How do you define “damage to the environment”? Environmental extremists think CO₂ is causing damage to the environment.

Principle 5 says:

All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of
eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable
development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and
better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Sounds like world wide wealth distribution to me. Eradicating poverty? Lyndon Johnson’s “war on poverty” tried to do that. Guess what there is still poor people. How about if every country would allow a free market system. That would help.

Here are some of the other principles with my interpretation:

Principle 6: Developing countries especially those who are “environmentally vulnerable” (what the heck does that mean?) shall be given priority help.

Principle 8: The free-market system is bad. It should be reduced by the States.

Principle 10: A person in a State can sue (or be allowed to sue) if they think Mother Earth is being wronged.

Principle 12: A State has to get permission from other States to run their countries economically and environmentally.

Principle 13: A person can sue if has to breathe smog or other pollution.

Principle 23: The environment and natural resources of people under oppression,
domination and occupation shall be protected. That is an exact quote. So, who cares about the people being oppressed as long as the environment is protected? Is that the idea? The whole Agenda is oppressive, so I guess that would make it contradict itself.

Principle 24: You can fight wars as long as Mother Earth is not hurt. Again, who cares about the people who get killed or maimed in them.

Principle 25: Another exact quote: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible. Says it all don’t you think? Earth worshiping anyone?

According to the Patriot Update article where I got this info from, President Clinton, Obama, and George HW Bush signed on to Agenda 21 via executive orders.

A lot of countries have become members except for N. Korea and Iran. Actually, I did not see one middle eastern country sign on. One city in China signed on. And one city in Russia signed on.

Some states that have 10 or more cities supporting the Agenda in America are: Virginia, Massachusetts, Florida, New York, Illinois, Texas, California, Colorado.

I would check to see if the city you are living in supports the Agenda. And think about seriously moving if you can. You can sure tell which city is on the Left especially the far-Left by looking at the list.

Does The Left Have Groupthink?

According to the PsySR.org website this is the definition of groupthink:

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

Can’t comment of the “mental efficiency” of the Left but they seem to have deterioration of “reality testing” and sometimes even “moral judgment.”

Specifically these are the symptoms of groupthink with my comments in brackets:

1. Illusion of invulnerability –Creates excessive optimism that encourages taking extreme risks.
2. Collective rationalization – Members discount warnings and do not reconsider their assumptions. [Warnings about overspending getting America in more debt because they believe Keynesian economics. Warnings about over-regulation hurting the economy.]
3. Belief in inherent morality – Members believe in the rightness of their cause and therefore ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions. [The Left believe that big gov’t can save society even though it does the exact opposite.]
4. Stereotyped views of out-groups – Negative views of “enemy” make effective responses to conflict seem unnecessary. [The Left’s “enemies” are: Christians, conservatives, big business that does not take money from the gov’t, the Tea Parties, non-unionized people (that’s Jim Hoffa Jr.’s SOBs he was talking about), women and minorities who don’t go along with the party line, global warming “deniers”, etc.]
5. Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to express arguments against any of the group’s views. [Actually, the Left tries to suppress any view from anyone they don’t like.  But within their own group how about Juan Williams? Or even Senator Joseph Lieberman who had to switch to Independent.]
6. Self-censorship – Doubts and deviations from the perceived group consensus are not expressed. [If the Left allows this to happen then that means their ideology might just be false or empty.]
7. Illusion of unanimity – The majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous. [And if they are not, a member cannot be trusted.]
8. Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – Members protect the group and the leader from information that is problematic or contradictory to the group’s cohesiveness, view, and/or decisions. [This the responsibility of the lame stream media.]

All cults and totalitarian regimes have these eight symptoms. Actually, cults and totalitarian regimes love these symptoms. Because members are easier to control. 

So, does the Left have these symptoms? Except for maybe #1 I would say yes—although I would not call the Left a cult per se but they are close to one.

What about the Right you might ask. Sure, the Right can have these symptoms (as the webpage made a point about President Bush and the Iraq War) but the Left main foundation revolves around groups and classes. Remember it was Hillary Clinton that said “it takes a village.” Village is just code word for group.

The way you counter groupthink if you read the webpage is to have most of the members be individuals ie have individual opinions. Otherwise if everyone thinks the same way then you will definitely have groupthink.

The Left in a Nutshell

The political Left is focused (obsessed?) around groups. Specifically here’s the rules/concepts:

1. A group has more rights than individuals. The individual doesn’t count.
2. If you insult a group then you insult all members of that group.
3. Members of a group don’t have personal responsibility.
4. Members of a group should act similarly otherwise they cannot be trusted.
5. Individuals can’t rule themselves. They must be a member of a group and ruled by an Elite who can guide them. See my “The Progressive Manual for the Masses” blog entry for more details.
6. Only Elites can rule themselves. Cause they are enlightened.

That’s basically it.

Why Herman Cain Would Be a Good Pick

Here are my thoughts why Herman Cain would be a good pick to run against Obama:

1. Obama couldn’t play the race card. He would have to defend his record which he doesn’t want to do. He might still play the race card but it would look lame. Obama would have to pick another personal attack.
2. Herman Cain could, being black, go on the offensive without being called a racist. I am not so sure any of the other Republican candidates would go on the offensive as hard. John McCain sure didn’t.
3. Mr. Cain is highly intelligent. He has a masters in computer science. That should be enough. Ha! Also, having a computer science degree means you are a logical thinker and can solve problems. Don’t have enough that in gov’t.
4. A friend to businesses. So are the other candidates, but they did not save any business from bankruptcy. He saved Godfather’s Pizza. Obama and FDR by the way did not have any businessmen for advisors.
5. Not a politician. Yea, he was on the Federal Reserve Bank of KC. But I am talking about being a Congressmen.
6. Newsweek said he sabotaged Hillarycare. So, what do you think he will do to Obamacare?
7. He doesn’t have a bad singing voice. (Okay, I just threw that one in.)

Does he have a chance to get the nomination? Sure, why not. A lot of pundits think he doesn’t have a chance though. Mainly that’s because of name recognition. Interestingly enough, Dick Morris isn’t counting him out yet. 

Herman Cain supports the FairTax—that I am not so sure about. First, you have to repeal the current income tax. And that isn’t going to happen so soon.

So you know, I wasn’t paid or compensated in any way by Herman Cain or anyone associated with him for this blog entry. 

The “Do-Nothing” Congress

In 1946 President Harry Truman called the Republican Congress back then the “do-nothing” Congress. This is what they did and you can decide for yourself if they deserved the nickname or not.

• The 18th Congress passed the first balanced budget since the Great Crash. [Great! Too bad this Congress can’t do the same thing. Maybe voters can make the Senate a majority Republican too?]
• They chopped taxes by nearly $5 billion (while at the same time exempting millions of low-income working-class Americans from taxation). [Yes! Always like tax cuts.]
• The Congress quashed a socialist national health-care scheme. [Now, you are talking! It looks like the Left has to always bring up socialized medicine. Then again they tend to be composed of socialists or wannabe-socialists anyway.]
• Passed the Taft-Hartley freedom-to-work act over the president’s veto. [Truman hated this act—and I bet most unions did too.]
• The Office of Price Administration was demolished. [You can kind of guess what the agency did. Sounds like a gov’t agency Obama would like. Glad the Congress scrapped this FDR program.]

“Do-nothing” really? I think they did quite a lot. The authors of A Patriot’s History of the United States said the Congress did nothing that Truman liked. Probably so. But good for them. They did some other things like creating the CIA and the Dept. of Defense but these five I particularly liked.

Declaration of Rights & Responsibilities

This snippet is from radio show host Glenn Beck’s website:
Thus, we the people do hereby declare not only our rights, but do now establish this bill of responsibilities.
1. Because I have the right to choose, I recognize that I am accountable to God and have the responsibility to keep the 10 commandments in my own life.
2. Because I have the right to worship as I choose, I have the responsibility to honor the right of others to worship as they see fit.
3. Because I have freedom of speech, I have the responsibility to defend the speech of others, even if I strongly disagree with what they’re saying.
4. Because I have the right to pursue happiness, I have the responsibility to show humility and express gratitude for all the blessings I enjoy and the rights I’ve been given.
5. Because I have the right to honest and good government I will seek out honest and just representatives when possible. If I cannot find one then I accept the responsibility to take that place.
6. Because I have the God given right to liberty, I have the personal responsibility to have the courage to defend others to be secure in their persons, lives and property.
7. Because I have the right to equal justice, I will stand for those who are wrongly accused or unjustly blamed.
8. Because I have the right to knowledge, I will be accountable for myself and my children’s education…to live our lives in such a way that insures the continuation of truth.
9. Because I have the right to pursue my dreams and keep the fruits of my labor, I have the responsibility to feed, protect and shelter my family, the less fortunate, the fatherless, the old and infirm.
10. Because I have a right to the truth, I will not bear false witness nor will not stand idly by as others do.
Unconditionally, while maintaining my responsibility to compassionately yet fiercely stand against those things that decay the natural rights of all men. And for the support of this declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence we mutually pledge to each other our lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
There is more to the Declaration. You can read it at his website. Good stuff.

The Causes of the Great Crash of 1929

What caused the Great Crash of 1929?

1. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had important disruptive effects. (Tariffs in general are a bad idea.)
2. Few people knew exactly what form those disruptive effects would take. (Sounds like most bills Congress passes especially if they are real complex.)
3. Unknown to anyone at the time, the Federal Reserve made the harmful effects even worse though its policy of deflation. (Has the Fed done anything right, really?)
4. President Herbert Hoover tried to prop up farm prices, creating another new federal agency with the Agriculture Marketing Act of 1929. (Yes, this Republican was a Progressive. He followed the Keynesian knee-jerk response of using big gov’t to try to solve problems.)
5. Hoover taxed [my emphasis] bank checks. (WTF?!) This accelerated the decline in the availability of money by penalizing people for writing checks.
6. The Hoover admin. created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC). It provided $2 billion in funds for financial institutions that were teetering on the brink. Federal regulations required publications of the names of businesses and banks receiving RFC loans. This sent depositors scrambling to remove their money, weakening the banks even further.
7. Hoover then signed the largest peacetime tax increase in history. A sales tax at that. (That was basically the last nail in the coffin.)

Source: A Patriot's History of The United States.

Small Businesses and Employment

If politicians want the more people to be employed by the private-sector then they have to stop punishing (over-regulating and over-taxing) small businesses for wanting to grow bigger. It’s only natural for them to want to grow bigger (although if they don’t want to it’s not a sin.  A business owner has to know their capabilities and ambition to grow the business.). The bigger they get the more profit they will make. And if they grow naturally they will hire more people to help with the growing customer base. But once they stop becoming a small business and start becoming a medium or even big business then government pushes them for trying to be successful. I think that is twisted logic.

There is only two way to increase employment: One, let any small business grow so it can hire more employees or two, increase the number of small businesses. In other words say a politician wants a town to increase its employment to 1,000 more employees. The leaders can either let the existing businesses grow so they can hire 1,000 more people or find a way to increase the number of small businesses so they can hire 1,000 more people. Or the leaders could do both. Good luck with increasing the number of small businesses. I think it would be easier to make it so the existing businesses to grow. I am not talking about subsidizing them. To be fair you would have to subsidize every small business or you’ll be playing favorites. Also, giving them money may or may not help the business to grow anyway. It depends on the owner’s business sense and ambition and only the free market can determine that.

According to the SBA.gov website 51% of small businesses survived five or more years. The rest fail for various reasons. And government wants to make matters worse by over-regulating and taxing? Not everyone is cut out to be a business owner. It’s hard work and you have to know what you are doing.  I applaud anyone who has the drive and know-how to make a business succeed. So, increasing the number of small businesses is fine in theory but in reality I think it will be a lot harder. Besides if a politician has never ran a business how would he ever know how to increase the number of businesses? An economist doesn’t even really know. Who could predict a Thomas Edison or Graham Bell or even a Benjamin Franklin? Even if you increased the number of business courses in high school that may or may not produce a Thomas Edison if it is not within them. In the end government can only create an environment to let businesses grow and not discourage anyone from starting a business. Government can’t make a small business appear like magic like it can with gov’t agencies. You will hardly ever hear that from a politician.

One last thought. If a society wants prosperity then it has to keep the free-market alive and well.  You can do this by not denigrating businesses and the free-market to children and have them respect private property. Or else you could wind up with riots like in England. God help this country if that happens here.

Advice for Politicians

An older priest told a newer priest when living in a community to remember three things:

1. You’re not God.
2. This isn’t heaven.
3. Don’t be an ass.

Yea, that pretty much says it all. Even though this advice was meant for clergy I think it applies really well to any politician especially those who believes in big gov’t. I could not have said it better.

Source: The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life (2010) by James Martin, SJ

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 22

• It would be refreshing to hear one Congressman say (s)he would take a pay freeze until America is out of debt.  Actually I would love to hear all members of Congress say that. I can dream can’t  I?
• I don’t remember a Democrat in Congress (or anywhere else) complain about President George W. Bush’s over-spending when he was president. Now, they bring up Bush’s spending when people talk about Obama’s over-spending. That’s funny.
• In Star Trek they had a Prime Directive. But would have been so bad if Captain Kirk or anyone in his crew left the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights on a developing planet?
• Lotfi Zadehs Law of Incompatibility: As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning & meaningful statements lose precision. Yea, that pretty much describes God.
• If the executive branch and Congress are both progressive politically then the country is in trouble. Then you want some fiscally responsible politicians to counter them. But if the executive branch and Congress are all fiscally responsible then no harm can be done.
• Maybe we need a right-to-work country. Just thinking out loud. (Big Labor would absolutely go nuts if anyone actually proposed that.)
• Time waits for no man. But it waits any woman, especially if they are shopping or in the bathroom.
• The love of power is also the root of all evil. Probably more evil than the love of money. Because power involves relationships with people.
• What you might never see: Flash robs ransacking book stores.
• A religion that has no doubts about anything is in my mind a cult.

Top 10 Reasons to Support Rep. Connie Mack's Penny Plan

1. It Would Cut Federal Spending By One Percent for Six Consecutive Fiscal Years.

The Penny Plan would require Congress to cut just one penny out of each dollar it spends every year for six years. These gradual cuts over the next six years will balance the federal budget.

2. It Would Cap Overall Spending at 18 Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Starting in
Fiscal Year 2018.

Congressional spending consumes approximately 25 percent of GDP. Federal revenue from taxes over the past 40 years has averaged about 18 percent of GDP, making 18 percent a reasonable limit for spending if Congress is in fact interested in balancing the budget for the long haul.

3. It is a Very Simple Plan.

The Penny Plan is simple and straight to the point. Cutting federal spending by one percent every year for six years is clear enough for everyone to understand. Unlike many Washington schemes, it's not a complicated proposal.

4. It Would Reduce Overall Federal Spending by $7.5 trillion over the Next Ten Years.

Federal spending has risen to unprecedented levels which threatens our economic freedom. The Penny Plan would significantly cut government spending overtime and set us on the path towards fiscal responsibility.

5. It Would Balance the Federal Budget by 2019.

The current U.S. budget deficit is an unprecedented $1.6 trillion. The Penny Plan would bring the federal budget into balance this decade. 

6. It is a Modest Plan.

The Penny Plan is far from radical. These gradual cuts are more likely to gain bipartisan support rather than a big dramatic cut. With our national debt at $14.4 trillion, everyone should agree that we can cut just one percent of federal spending over the next six years.

7. The Plan Contains No Gimmicks or Budget Tricks.

The Penny Plan would cut real spending. Many other proposals only ìcutî spending from a bloated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline. The CBO baseline predicts what would happen over the  next decade given current projections of taxation and spending. These plans don't actually reduce spending since these “cuts” are just reduction in the amount they had hoped to increase spending. The Penny Plan would cut from current amounts being spent and not anticipated spending off a phony baseline.

8. It Gives Congress Some Discretion on What to Cut.

The one percent spending cuts will be achieved one of two ways. The first way is that Congress and the President could work together to cut federal spending by one percent each year. This will allow them to prioritize what cuts are the most important.

9. It Will Trigger Automatic, Across-the-Board Spending Cuts If No Deal Can Be Reached.

The second way that the Penny Plan reduces spending is through an automatic, across-the-board cut. If Congress and the President are unable to reach a compromise, the bill triggers automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to guarantee that the one percent reduction is met. This plan would then force lawmakers to cut any of their sacred cows.

10. It Will End Washington's Unprecedented Spending Spree.

The Penny Plan will ensure that Washington cuts spending and balances the federal budget. We cannot afford to continue Washington's reckless spending spree. It's a good step in the right direction to get our fiscal house in order.

All talking points are from FreedomWorks.com