The Entrepreneurial Mindset

One way to get America back to great economic productivity is produce more tinkerers, more entrepreneurials, more people who can look at a problem and say “I can improve on that” or “I can fix that.” Government cannot do this. Only parents can encourage their children to be little capitalists. Or if you wish little entrepreneurials.

What is an entrepreneurial mindset? Well, according to a Success.com article some the characteristics of an entrepreneurial are:

• a self-promoter- this sounds egotistical but in a way when you run a business you are the business so you have to get the word out about your business.
• self-confident
• a self-starter
• a good planner and organizer
• competitive
• optimistic because your business will have setbacks once in a while.
• passionate about your product or service- if you are not why should your customers be passionate about your product?
• patient
• decisive

These are the type of characteristics parents can encourage in their children. Some other entrepreneurial traits that are mostly inborn are:

• handling pressure
• being comfortable with risk
• a strong drive to succeed
• encouraged by setbacks/challenges
• handling criticism well
• desire to work hard

One other thing. If you agree to any these statements:

• Your workday must include a chunk of "me" time.
• You spend time personalizing your office.
• You don't empty your own trash, even when you're headed that way.
• You feel you could be a lot more productive if you just had that new...
• You're still mad your department got shorted during the last budget cycle.
• You discuss work-life balance issues with passion and intelligence.
• You've ever said, even once, "I've paid my dues."

Then you’re probably not entrepreneurial material. Possibly a politician or a bureaucrat. Notice all the statements is about you sacrificing yourself to the business. It’s not about you so much but about the job. Making it a success.

One other thing parents can teach a little entrepreneurial is that making a profit is not a sin. Another word for profit is incentive.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 31

• You'll never see a midget (sorry, I mean a little person) play the tuba. Think about it. This is probably why you will never see a little people polka band.
• Humor: In order to get the best video of a tornado approaching your home stand in front of an open window. Pull back any curtains so they won't block the view of the camcorder.
• To NDErs real life is virtual life. The afterlife is more vibrant more real.
• Sometimes the monkey throws poo at you and sometimes at your nemesis.
• I think Michelle Malkin should run against Hillary Clinton (if she is the nominee) for POTUS. Mrs. Malkin would not pull any punches. Not sure about the VP candidate for Michelle. Possibly, Glenn Beck?
• I believe that the Mothman is some kind of daemon because it has red eyes and supernatural abilities (it’s been reported around the world). Colin Wilson in his book Mysteries believed Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster are daemons too.
• Obama’s new slogan: No pain for the country, no gain for me.
• Obamacare: Welcome to the New Slavery.
• I wonder if you can be a conscious objector to Obamacare?
• What Obama was thinking: If you like the Constitution, you can keep the Constitution. Or was that your freedom? I get confused.

Four Problem Categories for Conservatives

These four problems are taken from Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind (1953):

1. The problem of spiritual and moral regeneration; the restoration of the ethical system and the religious sanction upon which any life worth living is founded. Spiritual restoration cannot be a means to social restoration; it must be its own end.
2. The problem of leadership, which has two aspects: the preservation of some measure of veneration, discipline, order, and class; and the purgation of our system of education, so that learning once again may become truly liberal.*
3. The problem of the proletariat. The mass of men must find status and hope within society; true family, respect for the past, responsibility for the future, private property, duty as well as right, inner resources that matter more than the mass-amusements and mass-vices with the which the modern proletarian seeks to forget his lack of an object.
4. The problem of economic stability. This does not mean the security of plenty for everyone: no social program, least of all the planned economy of the welfare state, is likely to succeed in gratifying the material appetites of all humanity. But it does mean the establishment of a rational relationship between endeavor and reward. It means the adjustment of the American economy to the real capacities of American production, which cannot permanently supply the demands of half the world with a flow of manufactures and agricultural commodities.

Even though these problems were written in the 1950s they are still valid today because they transcend time. People at the core level are the same throughout history. Kirk was saying these are problems with the human condition that conservatives have to face and try to solve or moderate as he put it.

 

*He means classical liberal as in libertarian.

Slavery: The Opposite of Free Enterprise

Even slaves with relatively humane masters lacked the freedoms that most of today’s Americans, living under the modern leviathan, take for granted.

Peter Kolchin, in his seminal American Slavery: 1619–1877, sums up the reality:

Slaves could hardly turn around without being told what to do. They lived by rules, sometimes carefully constructed and formally spelled out and sometimes haphazardly conceived and erratically imposed. Rules told them when to rise in the morning, when to go to the fields, when to break for meals, how long and how much to work, and when to go to bed; rules also dictated a broad range of activities that were forbidden without special permission, from leaving home to getting married; and rules allowed or did not allow a host of privileges, including the right to raise vegetables on garden plots, trade for small luxuries, hunt, and visit neighbors. Of course, all societies impose rules on their inhabitants in the form of laws, but the rules that bound slaves were unusually detailed, covered matters normally untouched by law, and were arbitrarily imposed and enforced, not by an abstract entity that (at least in theory) represented their interests, but by their owners. Slaves lived with their government.

I thank God I don’t live with my government! For many years the pro-market tradition saw slavery as a grave violation of its principles. Kolchin writes:

Early political economists—including Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations (1776) remained for decades the most influential justification for the principles underlying capitalism—believed that slavery, by preventing the free buying and selling of labor power and by eliminating the possibility of self-improvement that was the main incentive to productive labor, violated central economic laws.

Although critics blame market exchange for the rise of slavery, this criticism is grossly unfair. The slave trade was indeed a market of sorts—unfree, unjust, and regulated—but the most fundamental relationship in slavery was not a market at all. Kolchin explains:

Slave owners engaged in extensive commercial relations, selling cotton (and other agricultural products), buying items both for personal consumption and for use in their farming operations, borrowing money, and speculating in land and slaves, but the market was conspicuously absent in regulating relations between the masters and their slaves. In other words, relations of exchange were market-dominated, but relations of production were not.

The slave power dominated political life in the South and enjoyed federal support through the Fugitive Slave Clause. Slavery was a major government program, its enforcement costs socialized through law. “The chief way that the South’s slaveholding elite externalized the costs of the peculiar institution was slave patrols,” writes Jeffrey Rogers Hummel in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men. These slave patrols were “established in every slave state” to enforce black codes, inflict punishment, and suppress insurrections and were “compulsory for most able bodied white males.” Slave patrols, necessary to slavery’s maintenance, were a flagrant violation of the free economy. [read more]

It sounds like slaves were owned by progressive masters.

Ayatollah Khomeini's Four Basic Techniques

Here are the four basic techniques that Khomeini consolidated his domestic power after the overthrow of the Shaw:

1. The constant mobilization of the masses. The mobilization exploited the symbols and doctrines of Islamic fundamentalism, and the techniques of twentieth-century movements, from monster rallies, constant incitement of hatred to the revolution’s “satanic” enemies and once Saddam Hussein attacked and the bloody Iran-Iraq war began, constant reference to martyrdom.  
2. The regime devoted constant attention to the needs to the most impoverished sectors of society. Money, food, and housing were seized from the old elites and redistributed to the very poor. Even the poor was exempted from paying taxes and provided free transportation. This ensured the loyalty of the lower classes and kept the well-to-do constantly concerned about their own well-being.
3. Total, uncompromising war against anything having to do with the West. Khomeini banned music. Western books were removed from the schools and often burned. Strict segregation of the sexes was imposed throughout the educational system. Polygamy was reinstituted.
4. Use of the judicial system as an instrument of terror. In the first seven months of Khomeini’s rule, the revolutionary tribunals killed off more than six hundred people, including many who had welded great power under the old regime. 

Source: Iranian Time Bomb. The Mullah Zealots ' Quest for Destruction (2007) by Michael A. Ledeen.

The first three techniques are probably still used in Iran. Probably the fourth one too especially if you criticize the current leader or Islam or the Quran. The satanic enemies of Iran are of course America, Israel and our allies. Mainly America and Israel. That hasn’t changed even after the Iran-Iraq war is over.  Being nice to Iran’s leadership won’t change how they think or feel about America or Israel.  Western ideas are probably still banned in Iran.

Conservative Parents, Left-Wing Children

An interesting article by Dennis Prager:

There is a phenomenon that is rarely commented on but which is as common as it is significant.

For at least two generations, countless conservative parents have seen their adult children reject their core values.

I have met these parents throughout America. I have spoken with them in person and on my radio show. Many have confided to me -- usually with a resigned sadness -- that one or more of their children has adopted left-wing social, moral and political beliefs.

A particularly dramatic recent example was a pastor who told me that he has three sons, all of whom have earned doctorates -- from Stanford, Oxford and Fordham. What parent wouldn't be proud of such achievements by his or her children?

But the tone of his voice suggested more irony than pride. They are all leftists, he added wistfully.

"How do you get along?" I asked.

"We still talk," he responded.

Needless to say, I was glad to hear that. But as the father of two sons, I readily admit that if they became leftists, while I would, of course, always love them, I would be deeply saddened. Parents, on the left or the right, religious or secular, want to pass on their core values to their children. [read more]

A new plan for the Grand Old Party

From Joe for America.com:

In light of the 2013 election with Chris Christie getting elected and Ken Cuccinelli getting defeated, the Republican Party establishment will look at the results and think that in 2014 and 2016 that they need to go moderate; and they will be wrong. There are several problems with the Republican Party and they need to be addressed if the party is going to be viable and effective.

   •    The Party needs to decide who and what they are.

Are they conservative? Are they moderate? Are they ideologically pure or is there a big tent mindset? As someone who is an aspiring campaign manager and has studied politics most of her life, I have a solution. I think that the Republican Party needs to be primarily conservative with moderate elements but those moderate elements MUST understand that they are in the minority in this party and that they can’t tell the majority what to do. The party needs to be conservative to provide voters a clear choice. I often hear people say “There’s no difference between the parties.” Any more that’s true when speaking of the GOP establishment and the Democrat Party; but contrast the Tea Party with the Democrats and you get a stark contrast. GOP history should be a lesson that when we run conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and how George W. Bush was sold to us, then we win. But when we run moderates like Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney we lose. So the GOP establishment needs to stop dead their headlong rush to embrace the Christie 2016 Presidential campaign NOW. The GOP needs to be looking around for articulate, charismatic conservatives who are women and minorities to break the stereotypical old, white guy candidate. Sen. Ted Cruz would be an excellent choice as would Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Susannah Martinez. Until and unless the party decides that it’s conservative with moderate elements then the party will continue to struggle and be ineffective because it will continue to be at odds with itself. [read more]

A good detailed plan. The rest of the points are:

• The GOP establishment needs to recognize that they are not listening to their base and are no longer connected with it.
• The Party needs a 21st Century version of The Contract with America.
• The Party needs to package the message to make it easy to understand, personal and yet in line with the principles of the Party.

Only the Self-Reliant Remain Free

An interesting essay by Terence P. Jeffrey:

Who had more freedom?

Was it the pioneer who rode horseback across the Midwest, settled in a wide-open space without paved roads, grocery stores or hospitals, and had to build his own home, cultivate his own food and educate his own children?

Or was it the less-adventuresome brother he left behind in an Eastern city who lived next door to a hospital, across the street from a public school and kitty corner from a grocery store — but in his later years could only get to work if he rode a public transit line and if the transit line ran on time?

I vote for the pioneer. He was not dependent on government. His brother was.

Self-reliance and freedom are inseparable. Americans once knew this in their very souls. Now, coaxed by those with a socialistic vision of government, we are beginning to forget it. We are becoming ever more dependent on government and putting our freedom at risk.

It is as simple as that.

The Census Bureau recently published some remarkable data. As of the end of 2011, it said, there were approximately 151,014,000 who received one or more benefits from the federal government. That was 49 percent of the population of the country, which then stood at 306,804,000. [read more]

So, true. America needs to get back to what made this country great: self-reliance and innovation. It’s what socialistic countries don’t have and that’s why most don’t have productive economies.

A Twelve Step Plan for Understanding the Free-Market

1. Admit that government solutions are a problem.
2. Have faith that people can interact peacefully and that economic blessings are available for all.
3. Surrender to the fact that certain social ills cannot be irradiated by force or politically will.
4. Ask yourself do I want to advocate self-sufficiency and voluntary means or do I want to look to politicians every time I don’t like something.
5. Survey the past record of governments when it comes to economic planning or other allegeds improvements.
6. Learn to look for the hidden costs of government intervention rather than the superficial benefits.
7. Understand the role of market prices and why tampering with them interferes with the job they have to perform.
8. Study history. Examine whether governments that violated private property rights stayed out their citizens other affairs.
9. Before condemning a market outcome is unjust first understand why it occurs.
10. Study other spontaneous social institutions such as language and science where no-one is in charge and yet the outcome is quite orderly.
11. When politicians propose a new program remember how much they said it would cost at the outset. Compare that number to the actual amount spent.
12. Go through the newspaper and discover how government meddling causes or exacerbates the conflict in virtually every story.

Source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism (2007) by Robert P. Murphy, Ph. D.

This is good advice for everyone but especially for the ones in power since they are the ones that make policy.

Le Contrat Social (1922)

This an interesting essay written by H.L. Mencken:

All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: Its one permanent object is to police him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. Thus one of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives.

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are. Ludwig van Beethoven was certainly no politician. Nor was he a patriot. Nor had he any democratic illusions in him: he held the Viennese in even more contempt than he held the Hapsburgs. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the sharp criticism of the Hapsburg government that he used to loose in the cafes of Vienna had its effects that some of his ideas of 1818, after a century of germination, got themselves translated into acts in 1918. Beethoven, like all other first-rate men, greatly disliked the government he lived under. I add the names of Goethe, Heine, Wagner and Nietzsche, to keep among Germans. That of Bismarck might follow: he admired the Hohenzollern idea, as Carlyle did, not the German people or the German administration. In his “Errinerungen,” whenever he discusses the government that he was a part of, he has difficulty keeping his contempt within the bounds of decorum. [read more]

So, true now as it was back then. Nazism hadn’t completely taken over Germany then (that would be in ten years) but like communism and socialism what he described is very similar for all three ideologies. Remember during WWII the Soviet Union made a pact with Germany which Hitler promptly broke. But why would the communist Stalin back then even make a pact with a national socialist like Hitler in the first place if there were no commonality between their ideology?

The Reichstag Fire, 1933

The alarm was sounded on the evening of February 27, 1933 signaling not only a fire, but the arrival of a crucial moment in German history. The Reichstag Building in Berlin, the seat of the German Parliament, was ablaze. By the time firefighters arrived, the Reichstag was overwhelmed by the flames. In addition to destroying the physical embodiment of democracy in Germany, the conflagration provided the first step down a path that led to the solidification of Hitler's dictatorship and to the most devastating war the world has ever known. This pivotal inferno was no accident.

In 1932 the democratic government of Germany, dictated by the Versailles Treaty at the close of World War One, was in political chaos. The Nazi Party was the largest political party within the Reichstag but did not have a majority of seats. After several failed attempts to form a new government in the latter part of that year, German President Hindenburg appointed Adolph Hitler Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Having achieved political power, Hitler and his Nazi cohorts looked for a way to solidify their position. The destruction of the Reichstag Building was their answer.

Evidence discovered after World War Two indicates that the fire that engulfed the Reichstag twenty-eight days after Hitler's ascendency to Chancellor was planned and executed by his henchmen, Herman Goering and Joseph Goebbels, Hitler publicly blamed the Communists, an accusation that allowed him to arrest the Communist members of the Reichstag and thereby eliminate his major political opposition. A young, mentally deranged Communist Dutchman by the name of Marinus van der Lubbe was arrested, tried and convicted of setting the fire.

In late March 1933, Hitler presented legislation to the Reichstag that would transfer its powers to himself. The members easily voted themselves out of existence and proclaimed Hitler the sole leader of Germany. His total control of the country was democratically reconfirmed the following year when, in a plebiscite, 90% of the voters approved of Hitler's dictatorial leadership. He was acclaimed as der Fueher. He had learned a bitter lesson years earlier when he sought to achieve power through violence and failed (see Adolph Hitler Attempts a Coup, 1923). Now, he attained his goal through the skillful use of the tools of democracy. A fire during the night of February 27, 1933 paved the way. [read more]

I am not sure that Hitler had one of his henchmen start the fire. Herman Goering joked he started the fire. Maybe that is why the Eye Witness to History.com website talked about “evidence discovered.” Either way Hitler and the National Socialist Party exploited the fire so Hitler could gain power. They didn’t let a good crises go to waste.

It was the Enabling Act that was passed that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. As Britannica.com stated the Act “’enabled’ Hitler’s government to issue decrees independently of the Reichstag and the presidency.” Sort of like executive orders.

Was Hitler taking over an example of Van Jones top down-bottom up-inside out-strategy? Well, not completely. There probably wasn’t really any top-down part. The bottom-up part was the arsonist himself. The inside-out part was the economic chaos that happened before the fire then the fire itself which didn’t help matters. Hitler was smart enough to exploit the chaos like any good radical.

Russia Wants Monitoring Stations in America

From The Blaze.com (Nov. 16):

The CIA and Pentagon have been trying to halt a State Department plan to let Russia’s space agency (Roscosmos) construct within the United States a handful of monitor stations, according to American officials, the New York Times reported.

The fear is that the stations could aid Russian efforts to spy on the U.S. and bolster the accuracy of Russian weaponry, the officials told the Times, adding that the Russians said the monitor stations would dramatically improve their version of the Global Positioning System.

The CIA and other U.S. spy agencies, along with the Pentagon, believe the monitor stations would provide Russia with better accuracy with weapons and an opening to spy on the U.S., the Times noted.

In addition members of Congressional intelligence and armed services committees regard Moscow’s GPS — a.k.a. Glonass (i.e., Global Navigation Satellite System) — with suspicion and want answers from the Obama administration.

“I would like to understand why the United States would be interested in enabling a GPS competitor, like Russian Glonass, when the world’s reliance on GPS is a clear advantage to the United States on multiple levels,” said Representative Mike D. Rogers, Republican of Alabama, the chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee. [read more]

More and more I think that the Obama administration is clueless about international affairs. I wouldn’t put it past Russia’s leadership to spy on America with those monitoring stations.

Congressman Warns of Obamacare “Secret Security Force”

From Infowars.com (Nov. 15):

During an appearance on the Janet Mefferd Show, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) warned that a provision within Obamacare could create an armed “secret security force”.

Referring to a section of the gargantuan Obamacare law which discusses “the president’s own commissioned and non-commissioned officer corps,” Gohmert drew attention to the notion that under the pretext of a “national emergency,” such individuals could be used to impose some form of medical martial law.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the Ready Reserve Corps is directed to “assist full-time Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.”

“It says it is for international health crises, but then it doesn’t include the word ‘health’ when it talks about national emergencies,” said Gohmert.

“I’ve asked, what kind of training are they getting….I want to know are they using weapons to train, or are they being taught to use syringes and health care items?” asked the Congressman, adding that “no clear answers” had been forthcoming on the issue.”

Combined with the continued DHS arms build up along with the federal agency’s hiring of armed guards with “Top Secret” security clearances, Gohmert characterized the issue as “very disturbing”. [read more]

Spooky. I wonder if the Ready Reserve Corps is going to be like the KGB in the old Soviet Union? Nah.

Beware of “False Flags”

From US Concealed Carry.com (Nov. 6):

Anti-gun zealots have recently been creating more and more fake “gun rights” groups, often duping unsuspecting gun owners into contributing to them. What’s most diabolical is that the money collected is then used to attack gun owner’s rights, not protect them.

Probably the best example of a “False Flag” gun rights group is the infamous “Americans for Gun Safety,” started in 2001 and bankrolled by Monster.com mogul Andrew McKelvey. After digging into the group’s origins and supporters, writer James L. Pate noted:

“With an initial start-up budget of more than $12 million of his own fortune, McKelvey created AGS as a new national coalition of local and state anti-gun groups. AGS was designed to move debate from Capitol Hill into state legislatures and to bring various state anti-gun activists under one umbrella.” [Emphasis ours.]

Other states have similar stories. “Iowa Gun Owners” is a recent example of a previously unknown group appearing out of nowhere, run by folks with suspiciously anti-gun backgrounds. So stay alert. These “Trojan Horse” outfits sound pro-gun, but often betray their agenda with phrases like “common sense” gun laws, “sensible” restrictions, or “closing loopholes.” [read more]

This is SOP for the Left. Especially the far left. Like for instance, in the Virginia governor race the libertarian candidate wasn’t really a libertarian at all. Even Ron Paul didn’t support him. He was a false flag candidate funded by the Left. That’s why a voter should never vote on just the party itself. Look deeper.

It won’t surprise me if the Left does other false flag activities like for instance saying they are pro-life or pro-school choice when they are not. Just be cautious.

Wickard v. Filburn

Here is an example of federal abuse of power. In 1942, a farmer was fined for not following the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 guidelines. The farmer was growing “wheat crop which was available for marketing in excess of the marketing quota established for his farm.”  Here is more on the case from the docket:

“The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption, and to keep the rest for the following seeding.”

So, basically the farmer was just minding his business not hurting anyone and he got in trouble with the gov’t.  He wasn’t even really selling all that much wheat. Just a little bit and using the rest for his farm and family.

5 Pillars of Becoming a Self-Aware Leader

From Fox Business.com (Sept. 16):

Americans are obsessed with doing. We like to be in constant motion even if we don’t always have a clear sense of exactly where we are going. As long as we are moving, we feel productive. But this steady movement is often unnecessary and unproductive, and professor Hitendra Wadhwa from Columbia University, is trying to change this mentality.

He founded the Institute for Personal Leadership to modify the way budding young leaders view leadership. His goal is to “invite people to dissolve boundaries” and learn to practice their core values in all circumstances. He says there is a “hunger in our society for self-awareness” and the practice of introspection can greatly benefit America’s emerging young business leaders.

The business world and pop psychology have long tried to create false boundaries between our inner-selves and our business-selves with the belief that trying to separate the two is somehow healthy, explains Wadhwa. But our experiences, values, emotions and beliefs all act to shape how we think and act across all circumstances. He points out that you just can’t separate your inner-self from your business-self and expect to function in a healthy way.

Wadhwa details five pillars of personal leadership that we should all strive to embrace in order to achieve a more holistic and fulfilling life. [read more]

The five pillars are:

1. Purpose
2. Wisdom. According to Wadhwa, wisdom is about mindset and the ability to “harness your emotions and thoughts to allow yourself to be at your peak performance at all times” regardless of the circumstances.
3. Self-awareness
4. Growth
5. Love. Wadhwa’s not talking about romantic love, but that leaders need the desire to win through others and genuinely take joy in their success.

The best pillar is love. Second best is wisdom. Even though these pillars are meant to be for business leaders, any kind of leader could use them.

The Nature of Jesus Christ

1. A man of deep concerns, with a passion to communicate, but he did not hammer away. Rather he clothed his concerns in stories that showed the profoundest respect for the intelligence of his audience*, Jesus spoke on one occasion of casting out demons by God's gentle power (“the finger of God”). The same could be said of his approach to teaching. Not harsh harangue, but gentle, sometimes humorous, sometimes biting image and winsome evocation consistently characterize his effort at counteracting what he felt to be destructive tendencies in the spirit of his time.
2. In the parables, perhaps as nowhere else, we can get a feeling for the priorities of Jesus' concerns. By taking the stories as a whole one begins to sense where the real weight of his thinking lay, where its focal centers were—the points to which it returned again and again. These can be summarized very simply. He felt the world to be radiant with the gracious, forgiving, healing activity of God. It was a disaster to him that the people of his time, the leaders especially, were so hostile to those who were most alienated and therefore most in need of this God. He felt that the "religious" just had to face up to what they were doing, and that they were indeed capable of doing so. The active goodness of God, the summons to faith, to compassion and love, and the urgency that men and women do something about their most obvious responsibilities toward each other— these are the notes that sound again and again through the stories we have just studied.
3. One theme above all, however, surfaces in these parables: the inherent dangers of self-righteousness, the supreme worth of humble repentance. To a too-reverent seeker who had called him good Jesus once replied: “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18). In parable after parable he says the same thing. Surely Jesus is the humblest of world religious leaders. It is dangerous, yes fatal, he insists, not to face up to our fallibility and sin and learn to forgive and be forgiven.
4. Surprising is the simplicity and down-to-earthiness of the stories that Jesus fashioned to convey this message. They testify to the way his mind dwelt on the ordinary. If Jesus did speak of an apocalyptic future, a time when God would shatter the fabric of history, and introduce a totally new world, one must say that this was not by any means what preoccupied him. What preoccupied him, the parables would suggest, was the interrelationship of the ordinary and the spiritual. The goodness of God became manifest to him in the bumbling response of a friend at midnight, and the kingdom of God in the everyday miracle of leaven in dough. The profoundest issues of life were forcefully displayed by two men in prayer, and how a man should act could be seen in a scoundrel scrambling for a place for himself in the wake of precipitous dismissal from his job. That we are surprised by this down-to-earthiness of his teaching testifies no doubt to the plastic image of Jesus that has been too long dominant in Christendom.

Source: Step by Step through the Parables: A Beginner's Guide to the Modern Study of the Stories Jesus Told; Their Meaning in His Time and Ours (1981) by John W. Miller.

There is one characteristic of Jesus I would like to add to the list above that the author didn’t. And that is Jesus’ emphasis on the individual not on the group. Take for instance the parable of the lost sheep:

What man of you having a hundred sheep, and losing one of them, does not leave the ninety nine in the open and go after the lost one until he finds it? And finding it, he puts it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And coming to the house, he calls together the friends and neighbors, saying to them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that had been lost. I say to you that so is joy in Heaven over one sinner repenting, than over ninety nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance. (Luke 15:4-7)

The italics in the passage are mine. Notice that Jesus talks about a single sheep being lost not a group or collective of sheep being lost. Jesus says Heaven is happy when one person changes his or her life for the better. The sheep herder didn’t have to worry about the other sheep that didn’t stray. If the herder was a collectivist then the lost sheep wouldn’t have been saved because its life didn’t matter as much as the other sheep.  The lost drachma parable (Luke 15:8) is similar to the lost sheep parable.

 

*Too bad most politicians can’t have this attitude.

Epicycles and Obamacare

From FEE.org (Oct. 28):

Ever heard of Ptolemy? He’s the guy whose model of the universe lasted for more than 1,000 years. The earth, thought Ptolemy, is at the center of the known universe and the planets dance around the earth. But this is where things got unnecessarily complicated.

To explain the apparently strange planetary motions, Ptolemy and astronomers after him used epicycles. It took centuries before Copernicus figured out that the need for epicycles could be reduced by putting the sun at the center of the known universe. Improvements by Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler and Newton eliminated epicycles altogether.

Regulators are much like Ptolemaic astronomers—only they can meddle directly in the economy to try to get it to fit their model. The regulators perceive some “market failure,” then apply their linear logic to justify an intervention. When the intervention fails or causes some perverse effect, the regulator’s epicyclical thinking kicks in. He decides to fix the bad consequences of the earlier fixes. Intervention begets intervention.

Take Obamacare. Regulatory interventions in healthcare since World War II have created an unnecessarily expensive healthcare sector. These interventions have created a cozy provider-insurance cartel, but they have also caused medical inflation, which has made healthcare and health insurance increasingly less affordable over time. Less affordability limits people’s access. [read more]

Copernicus was able to change the paradigm because he had mental flexibility and objectivity—the “earthcentric” view of the universe was not his theory so inverting the theory was no big deal to him. In other words, his ego wasn’t attached to the theory. Initially, it is easy to under why people back then believed the earthcentric view. It is what they observed with their eyes even after the invention of the telescope. 

To those whose ego and power is attached to Obamacare won’t look for other models of healthcare. Also, if you think you’re ideology or narrative is perfect then any system or theory you devise that is based on that ideology you won’t probably change since it will be perfect too. There is no mental flexibility if you believe your narrative or theory is right. Even if the facts say otherwise.

Are Anti-Bullying Programs Having An Opposite Effect?

From CBS local.com (Oct. 8):

NORTH TEXAS (CBSDFW.COM) – A lot of schools spend countless hours trying to stop bullying. But some question if they are sending the right message.

It started as a simple look at bullying. University of Texas at Arlington criminologist Seokjin Jeong analyzed data collected from 7,000 students from all 50 states.

He thought the results would be predictable and would show that anti-bullying programs curb bullying. Instead — he found the opposite.

Jeong said it was, “A very disappointing and a very surprising thing. Our anti-bullying programs, either intervention or prevention does not work.”

The study concluded that students at schools with anti-bullying programs might actually be more likely to become a victim of bullying. It also found that students at schools with no bullying programs were less likely to become victims. [read more]

If the anti-bullying programs are those so-called “conflict resolutions” programs then it is not wonder the programs fail. You want to stop bullying? Expel the bully especially if he or she is a serial bully. That will send a signal to other bullies. Usually, kids that are bullies have parents that are bullies. Or the bully is being bullied by another kid or by a bunch of kids.

Maybe, the victims of bullies should take the RAGE approach next time they are bullied. Not bad suggestions by the author.

Post-1960s Progressivism notes

Post-1960s Progressivism is an incoherent blend of the earlier Progressive emphasis
on material and spiritual uplift coupled with a new, adamantly relativistic orientation. his
altered Progressivism champions an understanding of freedom as “the right to define one’s
own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the meaning of human life.”
Policies that attack the traditional family through the promotion of sexual liberation, the
redefinition of racial equality in terms of atonement for alleged historical victimization, and
a preference for the preservation of the environment over human flourishing—demonstrate
that post-1960s Progressivism not only rejects the ethical ideal of earlier Progressivism; it
also denies the Founders’ conception of equality and rights as grounded in “the Laws of
Nature and of Nature’s God.”

Post-1960s Progressivism actively promotes sexual liberation at the expense of
the traditional family in order to overcome the purportedly intolerant and repressive
standards of the older morality.  Women and gays especially are considered victims of
the older moral standards; they deserve legislation promoting their specific interests.
As victims, they join thereby the ranks of other minority groups who require special
privileges in recompense for discrimination. These policies dovetail with the current
elevation of environmental concerns above the rights of individuals—the environment
also must be freed from the exploitation of humankind.  

Terms:

Anti-foundationalism- the idea that there is no foundation or ground upon which can one base judgments about truth.

Irony- is the term used by postmodern thinkers like Richard Rorty to mean that there are no enduring truths.

Ruling Class-  "the complex of government, the mainstream media, most of the academy, much of our senior military class and industrial and public sector unions that are tied to government power."

Biocentric- environmentalism privileges nonhuman nature as opposed to human life and prosperity.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 201 lecture series, “Post-1960s Progressivism” (2012) by Dr. John Grant.

America’s Latest Propaganda Machine

From The Blaze. com (Oct. 17):

Glenn Beck on Thursday broached a topic that he said “horrified” him when it was brought to his attention roughly two weeks ago, describing it as an “effort to re-write our history and catalyze a new culture for America” with the help of “America’s latest propaganda machine.”

Beck proceeded to tell his viewers about two groups, the first called “Imagining America” and the second called “The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture.”

The latter isn’t actually a body of the United States government, but in the group’s own words, “the nation’s newest people-powered department, founded on the truth that art and culture are our most powerful and under-tapped resources for social change.”

Beck highlighted various individuals affiliated with the organizations, who he described as “the people that will be teaching and influencing your children” through “art and music and film and history books.”

Among the topics the individuals were caught on tape discussing was the fair redistribution of wealth and how “we’re funding the arts through the Cultural Development Fund, which is upwards of $20-some-odd million funding our cultural communities.”

Beck also said Imagining America was created by Bill Clinton, and that its membership now includes roughly 90 universities including Columbia University, Brown University, the University of Chicago, and more. [read more]

Companies Will Start Reading Your Mind To Figure Out How Much You're Willing To Pay

From Fastcoexist.com (Oct. 18):

The price that companies set for their products is already a high-stakes game of psychology and competitive strategy. But there’s still a lot of guesswork and uncertainty. Would pricing be more simple and profitable if market researchers could just read consumers’ minds?

Like it or not, such “feel good” pricing could be coming down the product pipeline.

The German news site Spiegel Online last week profiled the provocative work of a Swiss neuroscientist and former sales consultant who is devising a method of measuring brain waves to determine how much a person would be willing to pay for a good or service. Testing his theory has led the researcher, Kai-Markus Müller, to conclude that Starbucks is not actually charging enough for its expensive coffee. In fact, it's probably leaving profits on the table because people would probably still buy it if they charged more.

Müller figured this out by targeting an area in the brain that lights up when things don’t really make sense. A coffee for 10 cents? The brain reacts unconsciously because that is so cheap. A coffee for $8? The brain also reacts because it’s too expensive. Measuring our brain activity in this way apparently can get at optimal pricing. [read more]

Interesting. An unscrupulous gov’t could use this technology to figure out how much it should tax you. Or even possibly regulate you.

The Founders vs. The Progressives Overview lecture summary

Progressivism was a radical departure from the Founding and the Founders' ideas of liberty and equality had nothing to do with the progressive liberal transformation of America.

Here are the differences between the two:

1. What is freedom?
   • Founders view: People are created equal with unalienable rights such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, religious liberty and property. The source of these rights are laws of nature and nature's God. These laws are discovered by human reason although their truth is confirmed by the Bible. We are obliged to respect those rights in others. These rights and duties constitute a natural moral order. Everyone is born free and no-one has the right to make a slave of another.
   • Progressives view: People are not born free. Freedom is a product of human making. Historical relativity: Human values change over time. History is changing in the right direction--more freedom. Negative freedom- freedom from the control & will of others. Negative freedom is good. True freedom is not just negative but positive or effective freedom. Positive freedom- positive control of resources and mental equipment including trained powers of initiative and reflection. Positive freedom requires transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor and education--shaping the mind for growth and development. Self development for the sake of others is the aim of social ethics.
2. Purpose of gov't
   • Founders: Main task of gov’t is to secure the natural rights listed in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents. Law should protect life, liberty and property from predators. Otherwise leave people alone. Founders knew in a free society there would be inequality of wealth but since people own their own body, minds, and talents, gov’t should protect these unequal talents. The attempt to make everyone equal would destroy liberty; it would deprive the people of the possibility of failure—their best incentive to master their destructive impulses and cultivate their talents. Founders did believe in a safety net for those who couldn’t find any help otherwise. 
   • Progressives: The only way positive freedom can be realizes is to take away someone else’s negative freedom—someone else’s property. Human beings by nature are unfree and unequal. It becomes the main task of gov’t to make them equal. The State has the responsibility to create institutions to help individuals realize their potentiality that is theirs. Laws and institutions are there to create individuals by redistribution of resources and transforming the character of the inferior citizens by a process called Uplift.  Social conditions, not God, is in which man moves, lives and has his being. Gov’t has to create individuals because on their own they are nothing. 
3. Domestic policy
   • Founders: State gov’ts took care of almost all domestic policy. A tough criminal law is essential. Civil law must define contract, property and minor injuries so people can effectively their right to acquire and possess property and sue people for less than criminal injuries.  State laws must protect the integrity of the family by defining marriage and specifying duties and rights of family members. Local gov’t provides a safety net. Gov’t supports the minimum moral conditions of a free society through schools, the encouragement of religion, public monuments to the nation’s heroes, and other means. Beyond these tasks gov’t leaves citizens alone to take care of their affairs. Besides a national defense a gov’t can maintain nationwide free trade by preventing states from interfering with trade between states and by defining money as gold or silver coin to prevent gov’t from using inflation as a tool of public policy. The Founders promoted the virtues of justice; moderation and frugality for self-restraint; and sturdy self-reliance. They promoted courage and vigilance for the defense of freedom. And they promoted enlightenment of rights and duties. Unfair trade practices mean violence and/or fraud.
   • Progressives: Income and wealth redistribution. Private property will always harm the poor or be mismanaged in some way. Businesses must then be pervasively regulated. Unfair trade practices mean anything that impacts people in a way that bureaucrats disapprove of. Any successful company is likely to be viewed of as unfair. To promote Uplift gov’t support of schools and universities was greatly expanded. Schools were reorganized to promote progressive doctrines. Modern university is the church of progressivism. Prior to WWII, the Uplift agenda segregated the races by gov’t mandate. The progs argued that it is better that blacks be excluded from white society and be forced to provide for themselves.
4. Foreign policy
   • Founders: Defend the rights of Americans from outsiders. The gov’t  maintains a strong national defense against foreign attack. It secures the borders of the nation against the intrusions of non-citizens. They made alliances with foreign nations only if it served the cause of national defense. It is not the gov’t’s job to secure the rights for the rest of the world.
   • Progressives: The progs advocated a policy of benevolent imperialism. They argued that the U. S. has a mission, perhaps a divine mission, to engage in imperialism and nation building. The progs believed that the citizens of the Philippines were like children who were incapable of self-rule so America made the Philippines and other islands colonies. The progs applied the same rule for foreign and domestic affairs: Consent of the governed only matters for civilized people.
5. Consent of the governed
   • Founders: Gov’t can only be fully legitimate if it is based on consent. If we are ruled without consent then we are slaves.
   • Progressives: Gov’t is democratic when feeds, sustains, and directs individuals. To accomplish this gov’t must extend to all the ways of living of the people. Many reforms appear to be expansions of consent like direct elections of senators and primary elections. But these reforms lessen the power of local communities so the elites can get elected who then can put the prog agenda into action.  The result is the people are far removed from those they elect and the politicians get more power.
6. Gov't limited or unlimited?
   • Founders: The Founders wanted gov’t to be limited but strong in the areas where it is supposed to be strong: national defense, protecting individual rights by tough law enforcement and free markets. Individuals were to have a high degree of personal liberty. Private individuals should decide how land should be used.
   • Progressives: The progs favored unlimited power. There is no limit to the right of the state for the gov’t save its ability to do good. A typical prog policy was for the gov’t to own as much land as possible. Prior to 1900 most public land was sold or given to private owners. After 1900 that policy stopped. Now, private owners are viewed as threats to the environment or exploiters of the poor. Progs are impatient with democratic institutions. They are impatient with the view that men are not angels and should not be trusted with unlimited power. Progs therefore give people who believe like they do unlimited power to do good. The Ruling Class gets to extract vast amount of money from the productive people of America to fund themselves and the programs they run.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 201 lecture series, “The Founders versus The Progressives” (2012) by Dr. Thomas G. West

An Internal Memo That Warns Terrorists May Be Doing ‘Dry-Runs’ to Prepare for Next 9/11-Style Attack

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 10):

A horrifying internal memo obtained by WTSP-TV reportedly details an incident which some pilots believe may have been a “dry-run” for terrorists plotting another 9/11-style attack.

Delta Airlines pilot Wolf Koch told the news station that it is “very foolish” to believe that an attack similar to the one that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, could never happen again. In that attack, the deadliest on American soil, more than 3,000 people were killed.

In fact, Koch and other flight crews are worried that terrorists are already planning future attacks.

The memo obtained by WTSP-TV, which originated at the union that represents pilots for US Airways, reportedly states that “there have been several cases recently throughout the (airline) industry of what appear to be probes, or dry-runs, to test our procedures and reaction to an in flight threat.”

“What most security experts will tell you that if a dry-run is occurring, the attack will shortly follow,” Koch said. [read more]

God help us all if another attack happens. If another attack comes it will be Obama’s fault. When your enemies don’t fear or respect you don’t be surprised if they try to attack you. Weakness never does a country any good no matter how persuasive or likeable a leader think he is. You can’t persuade anyone if they think you are a joke.

Obamacare website security called 'outrageous'

From CSMonitor.com (Oct. 14):

Cybersecurity professionals are voicing questions about potential red flags in the new federal health care website system that could open the door to theft of personal information.

In the two weeks since the Affordable Healthcare Act site, www.healthcare.gov, went live, most complaints have centered on long wait times with sites initially overloaded by interested visitors. In response, government officials are scrambling to get more capacity for the main site and its satellites.

But potentially far more serious questions are emerging about cybersecurity. Experts have said that hackers could “spoof” the website with a look-alike website to collect personal information, or criminals could use an automated program to try repeatedly to enter the site even if it didn’t get a login correct.

Experts have stopped short of calling these concerns “vulnerabilities” – a term that means a proven weak spot to hackers. But they say these red flags need attention.

“I’ll ask you your Social Security, your date of birth, [so] an hour later I can empty your bank account,” John McAfee, who founded the cybersecurity company of the same name but is no longer associated with it, complained on Fox News. The Obamacare websites, he said, have “no safeguards,” and the main site's architecture is "outrageous."

'Clickjacking.' The government site lacks defenses to prevent an attacker from putting an invisible layer over the legitimate website, Ms. Shah added. As a result, a user clicking on a link or button might end up at a renegade site that looked just the same – and end up divulging personal information to that site. [read more]

So, now only do people have to contend with website delays now they have to worry about conartists stealing their info possibly their identity. Well, that’s what you get when the federal gov’t builds a website.

Along the same lines:

Oct. 14: Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are (Not surprising. This is like saying turtles move slow.)

Oct. 17: Obamacare Website Violates Licensing Agreement for Copyrighted Software

                 ObamaCare's Black Box (From the article: The failures [of the website] that have all but disabled ObamaCare are the result of deliberate political choices, which HHS and the White House are compounding with secrecy and stonewalling.)

The Rules of Society

In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.

Source: The Social Contract and Discourses (1761) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In other words the “superior intelligence” is an omniscience being like God. This why gov’t cannot be God or even act like God because being composed of mankind it is related to our nature and its happiness is dependent on the governed.  Progressive gov’t leaders wish to be omniscience (even omnipresent and omnipotent like God) but they can’t and shouldn’t be.

Healthcare Law to Fine Hospitals That Provide Free Services to Poor

From The New American.com (Oct. 9):

President Obama’s healthcare law is full of increased costs to taxpayers, in the form of taxes, higher premiums, and of course, fines. In fact, the healthcare law may punish charitable hospitals for treating uninsured Americans by issuing large fines to those institutions that continue to provide treatment to uninsured Americans.

The Daily Caller reported, “A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people.”

With approximately 60 percent of American hospitals classified as nonprofit, this can prove to be a substantial amount of money in penalties. Hospitals that fail to meet the new standards could face fines upwards of $50,000.

John Kartch of the Americans for Tax Reform added that the law requires tax-exempt hospitals to regularly prove that they are necessary by filing paperwork with the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said Kartch.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

[read more]

So, much for caring for the poor. Then again The Left believes that’s the gov’ts responsibility anyway. Can’t have non-profits and charities doing that.

Insurers Getting Faulty Data From U.S. Health Exchanges

From Bloomberg.com (Oct. 7):

Insurers are getting faulty and incomplete data from the new U.S.-run health exchange, which may mean some Americans won’t be covered even after they sign up for an insurance plan.

While it’s not clear how widespread the problem is, the reports from industry consultants are the first hint that the technical troubles faced by consumers trying to enroll in health plans under the Affordable Care Act may also be hitting the insurers. The companies are receiving electronic files that can’t open or have so much missing information on new enrollees they’re unusable, the consultants said.

Some insurers have been forced to fix entries by hand, said Bob Laszewski, an insurance-industry consultant based in Arlington, Virginia.

“If we don’t see substantial improvement by the end of this week, then I would throw up the yellow flag,” said Dan Schuyler, a consultant advising states and insurers on the exchanges. “If we don’t see it in the next two to three weeks, it’s time for red flags. The concern is some people could get to Jan. 1, and not have coverage.” [read more]

The Unaffordable No-Care Act should have been a red flag. Period. Total control of your life anyone? This is what Obama meant by “transforming” America.

The Obama administration doesn’t really care if insurers get the right info or not. Why? Because the end-game is single-payer universal health care where the insurers quietly fade away. They were conned just like the people who voted for Obama.

Maybe, Obama is trying to make people mad at the insurers enough that they will demand a single-payer system. Or he could even try to get the insurers ticked off enough so they will drop out of the exchanges. Who knows.

Happy Columbus Day!

In his Book of Prophesies, Christopher Columbus said he could not have reached the shores of America without prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit. His exact words were:

“It was the Lord who put it into my mind....I could feel His hand upon me... the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies....All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me...There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures. . .I did make use of intelligence, mathematics, or maps….No one should fear to undertake a task in the name of our Savior if it is just and the intention is purely for His service.”

Here are some biographical info about Christopher Columbus:

Christopher Columbus was born in Genoa in 1451. At the time Genoa comprised its own city state. Historians believe that Christoforo Colombo (as he was called then) was well educated. He knew several languages including Latin, Portuguese, and Spanish, as well as the native language of Genoa, Ligurian. He is known to have read many classical works including Ptolemy, St. Augustine, the stoic Seneca, and most particularly a book by or about Marco Polo.

Columbus came from a family of wool merchants and weavers. The young Columbus himself became a member of the weaver's guild, but decided on a more adventurous calling and went to sea. On a voyage in 1476, when he was about 25, his ship was wrecked, and he was cast ashore in Portugal. Fortunately, he had a brother (Bartolomeo) who was already there working as a map maker. Christopher Columbus established himself in Portugal. From there he went on many merchant voyages. He was probably master of the ships he sailed on, and may even have been part owner.

Columbus was a planner and an adventurer. He looked for opportunity wherever he could find it. Ever since Constantinople had fallen in 1453 the trade routes to the east had largely been shut down. The Portuguese, looking to take advantage of their position, jutting out into the Atlantic and just north of Africa, decided to look for a route around the huge continent. Although they had not reached China by the 1490s their voyages seemed promising and had already proved profitable. Columbus proposed that there was a faster way to reach the far East. Paradoxically, he suggested that explorers might find the rich cities of China and India by going west!

When he was still a teenager, he got a job on a merchant ship. He remained at sea until 1470, when French privateers attacked his ship as it sailed north along the Portuguese coast. The boat sank, but the young Columbus floated to shore on a scrap of wood and made his way to Lisbon, where he studied mathematics, astronomy, cartography and navigation.

Immigration Reform Rally on ‘Closed’ National Mall OK’d by Park Service

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 7):

The Park Service will reportedly allow a pro-immigration reform rally to occur on the National Mall even though the site is technically closed due to the partial government shutdown.

Organizers for the event, titled “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform,” set up a stage and equipment for the Tuesday rally as the public was kept out. A spokesperson for the event told the Washington Examiner that the Park Service has granted them permission to utilize the site.

“The President and his administration have a history of picking and choosing which laws they want to obey and this is no different,” Dane told The Blaze. “Americans who fought for freedom are denied access to the WW II memorial while those who violate our laws are rewarded.” [read more]

Gee, I wonder if the TEA Party can demonstrate in the Mall? Hmmm.  Meanwhile, WWII vets can see their memorial before they die. Or the American people can’t view Mount Rushmore (its out in the open for Christ sakes! Okay, I can see not letting visitors go inside) or the Lincoln Memorial. Is this the top down part of top down-bottom up-inside out? Causing inconvenience for no good reason? (Or maybe there is a sinister reason and not by the Park Service…)

Examining World Religions summary

Scientific skeptic Hugh Ross wanted to prove through scientific means that the world religions are humanly crafted frauds. So, he decided to be honest and would look at the holy books of the religions.

First, he looked at the Hindu Vedas and found several scientific absurdities like time being eternal and about the moon and the planets. The general rule of thumb the author was using is that when we look at the cosmos—in fact when we look out in any field of scientific endeavor—we discover consistency, beauty and harmony. There’s freedom from contraction. So, his assumption was that if the God that created the universe decided to communicate with us humans in a direct fashion, that communication would have those same characteristics. But for things of human origin, we can expect human feelings and ideas to creep in, and that’s what he looked for. He looked for those human perspectives.

Second, Mr. Ross looked at the Buddhist texts and found they borrow a lot from the Hindu texts. So, he wasn’t satisfied with those texts.

Then, he looked at the Qur'an of the Islamic faith. He found it too esoteric. If you were one of the “enlightened ones” you could then understand the holy book. More frequently Mr. Ross found that the Qur'an places historical events in the wrong geographical location. Hope the author doesn’t travel anywhere in the Mideast if they read his essay.

Fourth, he looked at the Book of Mormon and found the founder Joseph Smith got some prophecies wrong. And the ones he did get right, newspaper reporters predicted too.

Finally, Mr. Ross looked at the Bible. He found no esoteric poetry, No hint of “hidden” meanings. Almost every statement in the Bible was scientifically testable. For example, in Genesis he found eleven creation events and three initial conditions. All put in the correct chronological sequence and all correctly described from a scientific perspective.  The author said the Genesis creation account reflected the scientific method. Mr. Ross read the entire Bible and couldn’t find any contradiction or provable error. 

Source: Hugh Ross, "A Scientist Who Looked and was Found,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Boehner and Reid

From The Blaze.com (Oct. 2):

A series of leaked emails authored by House Speaker John Boehner’s chief of staff Mike Sommers show that the Speaker may have coordinated with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to exempt Congress from Obamacare.

The emails were leaked Tuesday by Reid chief of staff David Krone, who actually has a history of this sort of thing. [read more]

This is despicable. Then again it is not surprising. The Ruling Class always looks out for themselves. It’s almost like a reflex. If Obamacare is not good then exempt everyone from it or at least make it optional without penalty. Can’t the republican house find a better leader? Someone who is looking out for the American public?

In other news, the senate leader Harry Reid was asked this question by a reporter:

"If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn't you do it?"

His answer?

"Why would we [the Senate] want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own."

Wow! So, kids with cancer are non-essential people now? And since when is cancer a “problem?” I thought it was a deadly disease. Maybe, the reporter should have phrased the question like this:

If you can help one potential Democrat voter who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

or

If you can help one potential Democrat donor who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

Another example of the collective or group is more important than the individual.

Ten states where Obamacare wipes out existing health care plans

From Daily Caller.com (Sept. 28):

President Barack Obama famously promised, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.” He later got even more specific.

“If you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have,” Obama said.

But as Obamacare’s rollout approaches, we have learned this is not true. Here are the ten states where consumers may like their health care plans, but they won’t be able to keep them.

1) California: 58,000 will lose their plans under Obamacare. The first bomb dropped in California with a mass exodus from the most populated state’s Obamacare exchange. Aetna, the country’s third largest insurer, left first in July and was closely followed by UnitedHealth. Anthem Blue Cross pulled out of California’s Obamacare exchange for small businesses as well.

Fifty-four percent of Californians expect to lose their coverage, according to an August poll.

2) Missouri: Patients of the state’s largest hospital system — which spans 13 hospitals including the St. Louis Children’s Hospital — will not be covered by the largest insurer on Obamacare exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield. Anthem covers 79,000 patients in Missouri who may seek subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, but won’t be able to see any doctors in the BJC HealthCare system.

3) Connecticut: Aetna, the third largest insurer in the nation, won’t offer insurance on the Obamacare exchange in its own home state, where it was founded in 1850. The reason? “We believe the modification to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers,” said Aetna spokesman Susan Millerick.

4) Maryland: 13,000 individuals covered by Aetna and its recently-purchased Coventry Health Care won’t be able to keep their insurance plans if they want Obamacare subsidies on the exchanges. Aetna and Coventry canceled plans to offer insurance in the exchange when state officials wouldn’t allow them to charge premiums high enough to cover costs.

[read more]

Wow, that’s quite a few states. The rest of states are: Iowa, Georgia, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. Half of the states are states that generally vote liberal. I wonder what they think about losing their coverage? If they are Obama zombies probably put the blame somewhere else.

But isn’t this the ultimate plan anyway? Single-payer healthcare system like in Canada. Put the evil insurance companies out of business so the nice-compassionate-wise monopolized gov’t insurance company can take of your health care needs? Of course, who knows what the tax premium will be when the competition goes out of business. Anything, the gov’t wants it to be. 

Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'

From The Weekly Standard.com (Sept. 30):

Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center."

However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" Here is how the page currently appears:

The page in question is not a new one, as the webpage's Internet address remains the same, still containing the word "free": www.healthcare.gov/where-can-i-get-free-or-low-cost-care/.  However, there is no notation anywhere on the page that it was revised; the change just appeared unannounced. [read more]

So, Obamacare is not free anymore? What?! The American people have been lied too! This is an outrage!

Actually, the message should read to be honest:

Where can I get high-cost very-little-to-no-care in my community? If you can’t afford any health care plan, well it sucks to be you. Welcome to the New Normal.

More Guns, Less Crime summary

In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott,  Jr. talks about a robber named Darnel “Bubba” Lowery and his accomplice robbed and murdered a musician. He said basically they picked the musician because he was “vulnerable.” After taking the money from the musician Mr. Raglin asked if the man’s car was a stick or an automatic. Then he shot the guy. The musician cooperated and just handed over the money.

What’s interesting is this: Lowery and his accomplice decided against robbing cab drivers or drug dealers because they both sometimes carried guns.

Serial killers, rapists, muggers, etc. are just predators. Their prey is the victim. They size-up the situation when they look at a victim and think to themselves: Is my reward greater than my cost when I attack the victim? The cost being arrested, seen by a bystander or policeman or even being harmed by the victim? If the answer is yes, then they will pounce. Just like a lion attacking the weakest in the herd a criminal will go after the most vulnerable. Probably someone alone, someone not very strong or physically fit, someone not aware of their surrounding, and even someone as a study suggested who is not showing confidence in their behavior. And if the criminal believes his potential victim is not armed, like with a gun, then so much the better for the criminal. I wonder if the victims of Jack the Ripper had guns would they had a chance to survive? Keep in mind England back then banned firearms. It still has the ban. So, those victims never had the opportunity to use a gun to defend themselves. Maybe one would have survived. Ripper himself used a knife to commit the crimes.

In the book the author provides strong evidence that concealed-handguns laws reduce violent crime and that higher arrest rates deter all types of crime.

Massive killings drop dramatically when states adopt nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws*.

Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws have equal deterrent effects on murders committed both with and without guns.

Mr. Lott says a gun-control advocate from the Violence Policy Center did not even want to look at his original study. Why? Because the advocate didn’t want to give publicity to the paper. That’s the stated reason. The real reason I believe is because the Left is arrogance and small minded. They never want to learn because they know all the answers or at least they believe they do. That and they are afraid they might be proved wrong. It was only after his paper got publicized did the advocate want to read it. Even then it was only to criticize it. Even Congressman Schumer attacked not only the paper but the author too (which is not surprising. That’s what the Left does. When you attack their narrative you are attacking a basic tenet of their religion. The quicker conservatives or anyone else learns this the better off they will be.)

Source: More Guns, Less Crime. Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) by John R. Lott, Jr.

*Nondiscretionary concealed-handgun law- the term nondiscretionary means that once a person meets certain well-specified criteria for obtaining a concealed-handgun permit, no discretion is involved in granting the permit—it must be issued.

Explaining God Away

An evolutionary scientist says, “Ah, the answer is that it’s hard-wired into us by the process of natural selection.” That is, belief in God is something that helped our ancestors survive. Therefore, in a sense, evolution selected that trait, so that's why we all have it. But there's a problem with this.

The problem with saying that belief in God or morality is hard-wired into us—that our belief-forming faculties or moral impulses are the product of evolution and therefore can’t tell us the truth about things but only help us survive—is that you’ve proved too much. If we can't trust what our belief—forming faculties tell us about God and morality, because it’s just to help us survive, why should we trust our belief—forming faculties when they tell us evolution is true? How dare you use the scalpel on every other thing, everybody else’s belief, but not your own?

Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame has argued this at a very high level in a number of his books. He’s a philosopher, and he says: If we believe that everything in us is only the product of evolution, and that all our belief-forming faculties are there only because they help us survive, not because they tell us the truth, then we cannot trust our cognitive faculties to tell us what’s really out there. In fact, if anything, a mildly paranoid take on reality will certainly help us survive more than an accurate take on reality. And therefore, if we can’t trust what our faculties tell us about God or morality, how dare you say, “But you can trust what your faculties tell you about the theory of evolution?” Therefore, if we have a theory like evolutionary theory, we can’t trust our mind.

At the end of the Abolition of Man, regarding people who explain away religion and morality as “Well, it’s just evolutionary” or "It's just this, just that,” C. S. Lewis writes:

You cannot go on "explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained explanation itself away. You cannot go on "seeing through" things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To "see through” all things is the same as not to see.

So if as Nietzsche says, “All truth claims are really just power grabs,” then so is his, so why listen to him at all? And if, as Freud says, “All views of God are really just psychological projections to deal with our guilt and insecurity,” then so is what he says about God. So why listen to him? And if, as the evolutionary scientist says, what our brain tells us about morality and God is not real, it’s just a chemical reaction designed to pass on our genetic code, then so is what their brains tell them about the world and evolution itself, so why listen to them? In the end, to see through everything is the same as not to see anything. And if we try to explain away belief in God like that, by appealing to evolution, then we’ve explained away everything. So we can’t explain it away.

Source: Timothy J. Keller, “Reason for God: The Exclusivity of Truth,” A Place for Truth, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Parent ‘Manhandled’, Arrested While Speaking Out Against Common Core at Public Forum

From The Blaze.com (Sept. 20):

A parent in Towson, Md., was arrested Thursday night at a public forum after vocally expressing his concerns about the Baltimore County School District’s plan to use Common Core standards in its curriculum.

Robert Small, a concerned father, was forcefully removed from the meeting by a police officer after he interrupted Baltimore County Schools Superintendent Dallas Dance during the question-and-answer portion of the forum.

The meeting apparently didn’t allow parents to stand up and ask questions or comment. Parents and other attendants were instead asked to write their questions on a piece of paper and officials would read them.

However, Small began speaking out against the district’s use of Common Core, prompting a security guard, who was also a police officer, to approach him and order him to leave. “Let’s go!” he said sternly.

When Small didn’t immediately comply, the officer began pulling his arm and pushing him towards the exit. Some audience members gasped at the cop’s use of force.

“Don’t stand for this,” the father said as he was dragged out. “You are sitting here like cattle! Is this America?”

Small also urged other parents to demand answers on Common Core and the curriculum being used to educate their children.

Small was charged with second-degree assault of a police officer and faces a $2,500 fine and up to 10 years in prison. He was also charged with disturbing a school operation, which carries an additional $2,500 and up to six months in jail.

[read more]

The good news is (if you can call it that) the charges were dropped by the state attorney. He said “in the interest of justice, further prosecution will not accomplish anything more.” Not that what Small did was constitutional or legal (the attorney said Small “disrupted the meeting”), but having him arrested was good enough. Also, he said the security guard did nothing wrong. Okay, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the security guard who thought he was just doing his duty.

Clearly arresting Small is bordering on 1st amendment right violations.

I wonder why the parents could not ask questions out in the open anyway. Could it be the superintendent wanted to filter out any questions or comments he didn’t want the other parents to hear because maybe he believes the Common Core curriculum has issues or even dare I say a fraud? Or maybe he thinks the parents are like raucous cattle (like Small suggested) who need to be controlled. Or both? Yes, to either answer should any sane person nervous.

I hope this isn’t a trend where parents are treated like children in public school forums and  seen but not heard. After all parents have to trust the gov’t public schools and not question them like good sheep followers.

The 7 Characteristics of a Conscious Culture

1.        Trust: Conscious business have high levels of internal and external trust.  Internally, there is a high level of trust between the leadership and employees, within the leadership team itself and across teams at all levels. Externally,  there is a high degree of trust between the company and its customers, suppliers, other business partners, the communities within which it operates, investors and governments.

2.        Accountability: Conscious cultures combine high levels of trust with and caring with a strong emphasis on accountability. People stick to their commitments and hold esch other responsible for performance, efficiency and deliverables. Suppliers are accountable to the company and vice versa.  Accountability goes hand-in-hand with high levels of decentralization and empowerment, both of which are the norm in conscious businesses.

3.        Caring: The human need to care and be cared for is an extremely powerful motivation – often equal to and sometimes even exceeding the need to pursue one’s self-interest. Conscious cultures are marked by genuine, heartfelt love and care for all stakeholders. People in conscious cultures behave in ways that are thoughtful, authentic, considerate and compassionate.

4.        Transparency: There are few secrets in a conscious culture because there is little to hide! Financial books are usually open, salary information is more readily available, and strategic plans are widely discussed and disseminated. Conscious firms embrace the fact that most information of genuine significance soon becomes known in this age of instant digital connectivity.

5.        Integrity: A Conscious culture is marked by strict adherence to truth telling and fair dealing. Conscious firms readily forgive lapses in judgment, but do not tolerate lapses in integrity. The commitment to integrity goes far beyond mere adherence to laws. Conscious firms typically set global standards that exceed the requirements placed on them by law; they are guided by what they believe is ethically right, not merely by what is legally required or socially acceptable.

6.        Loyalty: Conscious businesses exist in a system of high loyalty. All the stakeholders are loyal to each other and the company. This is a natural consequence of the relationship mind-set that permeates the business. Stakeholders are more patient and understanding with each other when short-term blips or other unusual situations occur. High accountability ensures that those who consistently fail to live up to expectations experience consequences for their non-performance.

7.        Egalitarianism: Conscious companies do not have a class system that separates leaders from front team members at large. The salary differential between the top and front lines is smaller than typically found in traditional companies. Senior executives do not enjoy special privileges and perks that are not available to others. To a large extent, all employees have input in to how the company is managed and led. There is usually an open-door policy so that employees can communicate with the leadership team in an informal way.

Source: Conscious Capitalism. Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business (2013) by John Mackey and Raj Sisodia.

Those characteristics above could also be applied to gov’ts (especially the federal gov’t).  Wouldn’t that be nice? As for the transparency (which Obama promised when he ran for POTUS), the State cannot be completely transparent about military secrets. I understand that especially during war time, but that doesn’t mean it can’t try to be transparent in other areas. Isn’t that what a democratic republic supposed to be?

I like to see the feds have more integrity and accountability too. That’s a good starting place. Yea, I know I’m dreaming.

In the book, the authors say every conscious business should have these tenets or building blocks:

1. Conscious leadership. Types of intelligence: Emotional, Spiritual (morals, deepest meanings, values), Systems. Servant leadership.
2. Higher purpose and core values. Higher purposes: The Good (service to others), The True (furthering human knowledge), The Beautiful, The Heroic (courage to do what is right)
3. Conscious culture and management.
4. Stakeholder integration.

One last thing. In the book the authors mentioned Nordstrom Rule #1: Use good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules.

Not a bad suggestion for everyday life.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 30

• If killing Jihadists with drones ticks the Jihadists off and make them want to cause even more terrorism then why the heck did Obama have Bin Laden killed? After all Bin Laden was their leader. Wouldn’t that action really tick them off?
• To the Left group identity is the only identity that is important and relevant.  The Left really need to think outside the group.
• I wonder if Native Americans of the past had people who blamed bows-and-arrows for crime.
• If all of humanity is downloaded to a supercomputer who is going to maintain the supercomputer’s physical structure? I mean someone or some group has to be still in their skin so to speak to make any repairs. You can’t do that bodiless inside a computer.
• If I was a defendant in court, I would be nervous being judged by low-information jurors.
• Creativity requires risk-taking, questioning the status quo, and individuality. A collective therefore cannot be creative.
• A penny saved is a penny taxed.
• I believe there hasn’t been a law in a country where owning a firearm is mandatory. Think about it.
• Truth and reason are optional to the Left especially the far-Left.
• It’s too bad in those Star Trek shows that someone didn’t leave behind the Constitution in an underdeveloped planet. Then again it probably wouldn’t have made a good plot.

An Argument for Truth

Without truth there is only manipulation. In other words, many of our postmodern people suggest there’s a brave new world. Dismantle all these fancy claims to truth and we get down to the fundamental agendas of power. So just strip it all away and we’re in a great state. If our power game is stronger than everyone else’s, we’re in great shape. But what happens if we’re weaker than others? If there’s no truth and truth is dead, and knowledge is only power, then might makes right. The victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall. That of course was what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel were standing against. They did not have the powers but they had truth. Because of truth, they could not and would not be manipulated.

But that’s true not only in the grand cosmic sense, like bringing down the Soviet Union, it is also true in all sorts of other ways, for example, when people have a family member who is a tyrant emotionally. or a boss is extremely controlling, or a professor is thoroughly unfair in his manipulations. Whatever the situation is in human life, the only way to stand is on the basis of truth. Without truth, there is only manipulation.

Without truth there is no freedom. When I was at Oxford, one of the grand old men of the university was Isaiah Berlin, the great Jewish philosopher. And repeatedly I saw him teasing American graduate students. He would say, “You know, in America you come across to England with only half of your freedom,” and they would look at him. He would expound freedom with two dimensions, and said that most Americans only had one dimension (but he said the same to the British too).

In other words, most people, for example, the archetypal teenager, would say that freedom is “freedom from.” The teenager is free from parents, from professors, from the police, from any parental supervision, and thinks that’s free: freedom from. And of course that is a very vital part of freedom, whenever there are tyrants and repressive authorities, becoming free from is a big deal.

Freedom is not just freedom from, it’s freedom for. As Lord Acton, the great Catholic historian, put it, “It’s not just the permission to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.” Real freedom depends on knowing who we are, because we’re most free when we are ourselves. G. K. Chesterton says we can free a tiger from its cage, but we can never tree it from its stripes. Stripes are part and parcel of the tiger. We can free the camel from the zoo, but for heaven’s sake don't free it from its hump. The hump is part and parcel of being a camel.

In other words, we have to discover the truth, the character, the nature of what something is in order for it to be itself and be free. We need to know the truth of what it is, And without truth, there is literally no freedom.

I suggest that many of our fellow citizens do, sort of half-consciously, believe in truth. But in a day when it’s unpopular, and now it’s associated with religious totalitarianism and Osama bin Laden and so on,  people are ashamed to say that they believe in truth, and we need to build back in some of these fundamental arguments for the importance of truth.

Source: Os Guinness, “Time for Truth,” A Place for Truth: Leading Thinkers Explore Life's Hardest Questions, ed. Dallas Willard (2010).

Usually when someone is not being himself he is hiding an agenda that involves power. Like a sociopath. Or the gov’t punishes the person for being himself. Or he is an undercover policeman.