25 Facts About The Fall Of Detroit

From theeconomiccollapseblog.com (July 20):

One of the greatest cities in the history of the world is just a shell of its former self.  The following are 25 facts about the fall of Detroit that will leave you shaking your head...

1) At this point, the city of Detroit owes money to more than 100,000 creditors.

2) Detroit is facing $20 billion in debt and unfunded liabilities.  That breaks down to more than $25,000 per resident.

3) Back in 1960, the city of Detroit actually had the highest per-capita income in the entire nation.

4) In 1950, there were about 296,000 manufacturing jobs in Detroit.  Today, there are less than 27,000.

5) Between December 2000 and December 2010, 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in the state of Michigan were lost.

6) There are lots of houses available for sale in Detroit right now for $500 or less.

7) At this point, there are approximately 78,000 abandoned homes in the city.

8) About one-third of Detroit's 140 square miles is either vacant or derelict.

9) An astounding 47 percent of the residents of the city of Detroit are functionally illiterate.

10) Less than half of the residents of Detroit over the age of 16 are working at this point.

[read more]

Wasting away in Progressiveville as the singer/songwriter Jimmy Buffet might sing.

In March 2005, Lawrence W. Reed wrote an essay called “Detroit's Flirtation with Economic Suicide”. In this essay he writes:

The political establishment in Detroit is statist to the core. No failure of government is too big to prevent that establishment from throwing more public money at it.

By a vote of 7–2 last September, the Council endorsed a paper titled “A Powernomics Economic Development Plan for Detroit’s Under-served Majority Population.” It spent a reported $112,000 for the document, written by a former low-level apparatchik in the Carter administration. It called for the creation of an “African Town” within the city, to be implemented by an overtly racist policy of dispensing city-financed loans and grants exclusively to black applicants.

So, it seems that Detroit is done flirting. It is married to economic suicide. Hopefully, it can get a divorce.

Progressivism—coming to a town near you. Or maybe your town. Who knows. God I hope not.

The Founding Fathers on God and Jesus

Here’s what Benjamin Franklin said about Jesus:

Christ gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all Iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar People zealous of Good-Works. And there is scarcely a Chapter in the whole Gospels or Epistles from which this Doctrine can’t be prov’d.

Christ by his Death and Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and Repentance.

John Adams on Jesus and God:

Our Saviour taught the Immorality of Revenge, and the moral Duty of forgiving Injuries, and even the Duty of loving Enemies. Nothing can shew the amiable, the moral, and divine Excellency of these Christian Doctrines in a stronger Point of Light, than the Characters and Conduct of Marius and Sylla, Caesar, Pompey, Anthony and Augustus, among innumerable others.

Is it not then the highest frenzy and distraction to neglect these expostulations of Providence, and continue a rebellion against the Potentate who alone has wisdom enough to perceive, and power enough to procure for us the only certain means of happiness, and goodness enough to prompt him to both?

My adoration of the author of the universe is too profound and too sincere. The love of God and his creation — delight, joy, triumph, exultation in my own existence — though but an atom, a molecule organique in the universe — are my religion.

And finally George Washington on Jesus and God:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.

I am sure there never was a people, who had more reason to acknowledge a divine interposition in their affairs, than those of the United States; and I should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency, which was so often manifested during our Revolution, or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of that God who is alone able to protect them.

These are just a sampling of quotes from the Founding Fathers about God and Jesus. In his book Hidden Facts of the Founding Era (2012) by Bill Fortenberry does a good job of dispelling the argument that the Founders were not Christian that historical revisionists try to make. There are many more quotes by other Founders like above in the book.

Woodrow Wilson

For Wilson and other Progressives at this time, the idea behind compulsory education was not to provide children with a well-rounded education but to make them wards of the state.

Clearly, Wilson did not want compulsory education to give all children an equal opportunity. He genuinely believed that children could be divided into elite and non-elite classes, and that their roles in society could be predetermined based on their class.

Shortly after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Revenue Act of 1913. It imposed a system of income tax that was the direct precursor to what we have in place today—a progressive tax system.

The passing of the 17th Amendment [under Wilson’s administration] was an important aspect of the goal of concentration of power, because it destroyed the balance of powers between the states, the people, and the federal gov’t that the Constitution had originally set out; and it prevented the states as states from blocking federal encroachments of their sovereignty.

While he was governor of New Jersey, Wilson signed legislation creating the Board of Examiners of Feebleminded, Epileptics, and Other Defectives. Under this law New Jersey had the power to determine when “procreation is inadvisable” for the “defectives” and others who were referred under the legislation.

Woodrow Wilson believed that the days of open competition were gone and that planned economies were the future.

Source: Theodore and Woodrow. How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom. (2012) by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.

In his book, History of the American People, Wilson depicted white European immigrants with empathy while African American immigrants and their children were regarded as unsuitable for citizenship and unable to assimilate positively into American society.

Wilson believed that slavery was wrong on economic labor grounds, rather than for moral reasons.

Wilson's segregationist stance as president should perhaps not have come as a surprise; while president of Princeton University, Wilson had discouraged blacks from even applying for admission, preferring to keep the peace among white students than have black students admitted.

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding lecture notes part 2

Progressive writer Frank Goodnow wrote in “The American Conception of Liberty” that man as viewed in Europe as a member of society as secondarily as an individual. The rights an individual possesses comes from the society in which he belongs and not from his Creator. His rights are to be determined by the legislative authority in view of needs of that society. Social expediency is what determines his rights.

Natural rights theory, according to the progressives, was appropriate at that time. Perfectly understandable. The Founders were oppressed by a tyrannical king. Today, gov’t has to be understood by its particular historical context. The problem was the doctrine of natural rights was meant for everybody at all times. That it transcended time and space.

Abe Lincoln praised Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote in 1859. The last paragraph Lincoln wrote:

“All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times [my emphasis], and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.”

John Dewey said in his “Liberalism and Social Action” (LSS) essay that the italicized part of the letter was the problem. He agreed with Goodnow that the Declaration did not transcend space and time. The doctrine of natural rights is a relic from the past.

Dewey writes the following in LSS:

“The earlier liberals lacked historic sense and interest. For a while this lack had an immediate pragmatic value. It gave liberals a powerful weapon in their fight with reactionaries. For it enabled them to undercut the appeal to origin, precedent and past history by which the opponents of social change gave sacrosanct quality to existing inequities and abuses. But disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant only to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves....”

Dewey goes on to explain in the essay that the idea of liberty is not frozen in time. Liberty has a history of evolving meaning. History of liberalism is a progressive history. It’s a narrative of the move to a more primitive to a more mature form of liberty. Progressivism is a vast improvement over early or classical liberalism according to Dewey.

This coupling of historical contingency with the doctrine of progress is shared by most progressives to one degree or another. It shows how German historicism was imported from Europe into America in the 19th century. Almost all progressives at that time were either educated in German political philosophy by studying in Germany or had teachers who were educated in Germany who taught the philosophy. By 1900 the faculty of most universities were populated by those educated in the German model because it was prestigious to get a European Ph. D. at the time. John Hopkins University for example was one university was founded to bring the German model to America. Woodrow Wilson and John Dewey went to John Hopkins.

The American progressives took from the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and his disciples this critic of social compact theory and the “organic” notion of the Constitution. Woodrow Wilson wrote of gov’t as a living thing. The notion of the Constitution as a living Constitution is vastly superior, according to the progressives, to the notion of the Constitution as a fixed-mechanistic form of gov’t. In his essay, “What is Progress?” Woodrow Wilson talks about the Founders view of the Constitution:

“….the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian Theory. You have only to read the papers of The Federalist to see that fact written on every page. They speak of the "checks and balances" of the Constitution, and use to express their idea the simile of the organization of the universe, and particularly of the solar system,---how by the attraction of gravitation the various parts are held in their orbits; and then they proceed to represent Congress, the Judiciary, and the President as a sort of imitation of the solar system.”

Then Wilson explains his organic notion of the Constitution:

“The makers of our Federal Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way,---the best way of their age,---those fathers of the nation. Jefferson wrote of "the laws of Nature,"---and then by way of afterthought,---"and of Nature's God." And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery,---to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of  ‘checks and balances.’

The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

So according to Wilson, Gov’t has to evolve. It has to adapt to all the changing circumstances that are out there. Liberty is no longer threatened in the way like it was in the Founding era. Take a look at all the new economic and social ills out there and it seems to call out for a new gov’t remedy. For an adaptive gov’t. So, the progressives took this idea of progress and translated it into a call for an sharp increase in the scope of gov’t power.

Theodore Roosevelt saw almost no limits in the power of the national gov’t especially when he was in charge of the national gov’t. In the “New Nationalism” speech he calls for the State to take an active role in effecting economic justice, redistributing property,  and superintending the use of private property. He said new circumstances have necessitated a new view of gov’t.

We have to reexamine this idea of property rights. Those rights should no longer serve as principle boundary that the State is prohibited from crossing. In Woodrow Wilson’s “Socialism and Democracy” essay he defines socialism:

“'State socialism' is willing to act through state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will…”

Then he goes on to say that democracy and socialism are essentially the same principle:

“For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme [my emphasis] over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”

According the progressives, we ought to have faith in the majority. This rights-based Republicanism of the Founders is not democratic and isn’t going to work for our circumstances today. It limits the people to implement their collective will.

Progress for the progressives is about moving on from the limited principles of the Founding. It’s about opening up the power of the gov’t. It’s about faith in the people to use gov’t in a way that won’t be threat to the liberty of their fellow citizens.

The Progressive Rejection of the Founding lecture notes part 1

The intellectual roots of the New Deal took hold in the Progressive Era.  FDR named Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson as laying the foundations for progressivism.

Progressivism is the argument to progress or to move beyond the political principles of the American founding. Things are different. Times have changed. We need to think more historically, we need to think in terms of catching up with new circumstances. We need to get beyond the notion of gov’t that we had in the county thus far.

The reason for rapid change the progressives give is because of historical circumstances. The founders could not envision industrialization, immigration issues, economic problems in the future therefore we need a big gov’t to handle those issues.

Progressives believe the ends of gov’t, the scope of gov’t have to be redefined in each new historical era. Progressives believe in historical contingency, ie just gov’t depends on what time and place the nation is in. They believe in the historical power of evolution that gov’t evolves to become less and less a danger to the public and becomes more capable of solving current issues more effectively. History has helped people overcome the factionist of human nature.

The Progressive Era is the first period in American history where the progressive writers openly criticized the Constitution. Criticizing the Constitution was the dominant theme of progressive writers at that time. In their writing they said the Constitution was old and obsolete. It was written for another time. The progressive writers at that time were honest and direct.

The progressives understood the Constitution very well. That it was meant to limit gov’t powers. Progressives understood the Constitution as an obstacle to their agenda like social justice.

The progressives interpret the Declaration of Independence as a mean to secure man’s natural rights. In their writing they attacked natural rights theory, the philosophy of social compact, the framing of the Declaration, the idea that the fundamental goal of gov’t is to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

Woodrow Wilson said “if you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence do not repeat the preface.” What’s in the preface? Securing the natural rights of man as the purpose of American gov’t. So, if you ignore the preface of the Declaration you basically are treating the document just as an article of historical grievances against a king. Since King George III is dead the Declaration is irrelevant today under Wilson’s way of thinking. Gov’t is tied to the specifically things going on right now (historical contingency). Conditions change gov’t changes.

Source: Hillsdale College’s Constitution 101 lecture series, “The Progressive Rejection of the Founding” (2012) by Associate Professor Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto.

This attitude that the Constitution is an obstruction to the progressive agenda or vision continues into the present day. For example, President Obama said during an interview that “our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Sometimes? Really?

If you want to put the progressive reaction to the Constitution in psychological terms, the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion goes like this:

           Stimulus –> Interpretation of stimulus –> Physiological reaction/emotion

The physiological reaction and emotion happens simultaneously according the the theory. So,  here’s how the Left’s reaction:

          The Constitution –> An obstacle –> Increase pulse, face reddens, muscles tighten/Irritation or Frustration or Anger

By the way, the lecture series is free to anyone. You just have to register online to take the courses.

Excerpts from “Are We Rome?”

The paramount lesson of the Roman experience is actually not peculiar to Rome. It may be, in fact, the most universal lesson of all history: No people who have lost their character have kept their liberties.

Roman society at the time of the Republic’s founding was basically agricultural, made up of small farmers and shepherds. By the second century B.C., large-scale businesses made their appearance. Italy became urbanized. Immigration accelerated as people from many lands were attracted by the vibrant growth and opportunities the bustling Roman economy offered. The growing prosperity was made possible by a general climate of free enterprise, limited government, and respect for private property. Merchants and businessmen were admired and emulated.

No one should claim that Romans fostered a libertarian society. They took liberty to new heights in many ways by limiting the power of the State, but shortcomings were plentiful. This much is clear: The liberties they achieved were made possible and sustained for centuries by traits of character on which liberty always depends: courage, hard work, personal independence,  and self-reliance.

Rome’s remarkable achievements in sanitation, education, banking, architecture, and commerce are legendary. The city even had a stock market. With low taxes and tariffs, free trade and considerable private property, Rome became the center of the A.D.; when it was gone, the world was plunged into darkness and despair, slavery and poverty.

Why did Rome decline and fall? Rome collapsed because of a fundamental change in ideas on the part of the Roman people—ideas which relate primarily to personal responsibility and the source of personal income. In the early days of greatness, Romans regarded themselves as their chief source of income. By that I mean each individual looked to himself—what he could acquire voluntarily in the marketplace—as the source of his livelihood. Rome’s decline began when the people discovered another source of income: the political process—the State. In short, it was a character issue.

When Romans abandoned self-responsibility and self-reliance, Peter and pay Paul, to put their hands into other people’s pockets, to envy and covet the productive and their wealth, they turned down a fateful, destructive path.

In the waning years of the Roman republic, a rogue named Clodius ran for office of tribune. He bribed the electorate with promises of  free grain at taxpayer expense and won. Thereafter, Romans in growing numbers embraced the notion that voting for a living could be more lucrative than working for one.  

Candidate for Roman office spend huge sums to win public favor, then plundered the population afterwards to make good on their promises to the rent-seekers who elected them. As the republic gave way to dictatorship, a succession of emperors built their power on the huge handouts they controlled. Nearly a third of the city of Rome itself received public relief payments by the time of the birth of Christ.

The central government also assumed the responsibility of providing the people with entertainment. Elaborate circuses and gladiator duels were staged to keep the people happy. One modern historian estimates that Rome poured the equivalent of $100 million per year into the games.

There were plenty of taxes to evade. Emperor Nero is said by Roman historian Gaius Suetonius in De Vitae Caesarum to have once rubbed his hands together and declared, “Let us tax and tax again! Let us see to it that no one owns anything!” Taxation lower classes. “What the soldiers or the barbarians spared, the emperors took in taxes,” according to historian W. G. Hardy.

Source:  “Are We Rome?” (July 2013) by Lawrence W. Reed.

I wonder if Clodius and Emperor Nero would have been the first progressives? Nero could have been one easily. Yea, America is getting close to being Rome. When the powers-that-be start to lose their character they become more corrupt.

The Sharon Statement

Adopted by the Young Americans for Freedom Conference at Sharon, Conn., September 11, 1960:

IN THIS TIME of moral and political crises, it is the responsibility of the youth of America to affirm certain eternal truths

WE, as young conservatives believe:

THAT foremost among the transcendent values is the individual's use of his God-given free will, whence derives his right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force;

THAT liberty is indivisible, and that political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom;

THAT the purpose of government is to protect those freedoms through the preservation of internal order, the provision of national defense, and the administration of justice;

THAT when government ventures beyond these rightful functions, it accumulates power, which tends to diminish order and liberty;

THAT the Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for empowering government to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power;

THAT the genius of the Constitution - the division of powers - is summed up in the clause that reserves primacy to the several states, or to the people in those spheres not specifically delegated to the Federal government;

THAT the market economy, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom and constitutional government, and that it is at the same time the most productive supplier of human needs;

THAT when government interferes with the work of the market economy, it tends to reduce the moral and physical strength of the nation, that when it takes from one to bestow on another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both;

THAT we will be free only so long as the national sovereignty of the United States is secure; that history shows periods of freedom are rare, and can exist only when free citizens concertedly defend their rights against all enemies…

THAT the forces of international Communism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

THAT the United States should stress victory over, rather than coexistence with this menace; and

THAT American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?"

Source: “The Sharon Statement” from the Young American’s Foundation website.

Excellent statement that is still true today. I would make one minor change to it though. The third statement from the bottom could read:

THAT the forces of international Marxism and its derivatives (Socialism, Progressivism, etc.) and Militant Jihadism are, at present, the greatest single threat to these liberties;

That would make the statement more up to date. Otherwise an excellent statement.

The Twisted Tree of Progressivism

From FEE.org (Nov. 30, 2011):

Sorting out the Progressive movement and its constituent ideologies can be difficult in that the very term “progressive” is burdened with contested meanings. Rather than work along lines agreeable to presently out-of-office politicians hoping to regain power by denouncing long-dead Progressives, we begin with some deep background.

One portent of Progressivism is found in the Liberal Republican movement of the 1870s. Prone to Paris Commune panics, distressed by strikes and labor trouble, such reformers as Charles Francis Adams (descended from John Adams), Francis Amasa Walker (Boston laissez-faire economist and Indian manager), and E. L. Godkin (Anglo-Irish editor of The Nation) concluded that efficient, inexpensive bureaucracy was just the ticket. It could manage questions too important to be left to democratic processes, especially those touching on the lately acquired government-bestowed advantages of big business. (“Efficiency” had a great future before it.) This movement was urban, basically eastern, and closely connected with economic elites (Nancy Cohen, Reconstruction of American Liberalism).

Another tributary into Progressivism—populism—began in opposition to all the above. Populists stated the case for tariff- and debt-ridden farmers in the South and the West. Their key innovation, or deviation from the Jeffersonian-Jacksonian tradition, was the belief that “the powers of government . . . should be expanded,” as their 1892 platform put it. How far this idea actually reached depended on the particular populist, but this new approach brought some of them closer, in method anyway, to the later Progressive movement. [read more]

Evidently, Charles Francis Adams never learned anything from his ancestor. Maybe, he never read any of his papers.

Basically here are the tributaries the writer is talking about:

• Liberal Republican movement (RINO’s anyone?)
• Populism
• University-based intellectual movement
• Post-millennial Protestant reform (yea, Progressivism can infect any social group).

The IRS and its 46 new powers to enforce ObamaCare

From The Galen Institute (June 5):

The power granted to the IRS to enforce ObamaCare’s mandates, taxes, penalties, reporting, and other requirements is unprecedented. Based upon Government Accountability Office data, we count 46 new responsibilities assigned to the IRS under the health law.1

IRS officials have acknowledged the huge problems these major new responsibilities will create for the agency.  On March 5, 2013, an official from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration, J. Russell George, testified before the House Appropriations Committee. Mr. George was asked about the tax implications of ObamaCare.

“It is unprecedented in recent history, the amount of responsibility the IRS is being given in an area that most people don’t think of as an IRS function,” George said. Americans, he added, will have more questions about their taxes because of health care penalties or credits, flooding already busy call-in and walk-in tax help centers. “This is going to lead to problems, sir,” he testified. [read more]

Examples of the new powers:

• Charitable Hospital Tax: Imposes additional reporting requirements for charitable hospitals to qualify as tax-exempt under IRC 501(c)(3) and requires hospitals to conduct a community health needs assessment at least once every 3 years and to adopt a financial assistance policy and policy relating to emergency medical care.
• Tax on Innovator Drug Companies: Imposes a fee on each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike: Limits eligibility for deductions under section 833 (treatment of Blue Cross and Blue Shield) unless the organizations meet a medical loss ratio standard of at least 85 percent for the taxable year.
• Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax: Imposes an additional Hospital Insurance (Medicare) Tax of 0.9 percent on wages over $200,000 for individuals and over $250,000 for couples filing jointly.
• Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: Imposes a tax of 2.3 percent on the sale price of any taxable medical device on the manufacturer, producer, or importer.
• Individual Mandate Tax: Requires all U.S. citizens and legal residents and their dependents to maintain minimum essential insurance coverage unless exempted starting in 2014 and imposes a fine on those failing to maintain such coverage.
• State Exchange Information Reporting: Requires state exchanges to send to Treasury a list of the individuals exempt from having minimum essential coverage, those eligible for the premium assistance tax credit, and those who notified the exchange of change in employer or who ceased coverage of a qualified health plan.
• Taxpayer Information Disclosure: Authorizes IRS to disclose certain taxpayer information to HHS for purposes of determining eligibility for premium tax credit, cost-sharing subsidy, or state programs including Medicaid, including (1) taxpayer identity; (2) the filing status of such taxpayer; (3) the modified adjusted gross income of taxpayer, spouse, or dependents; and (4) tax year of information.
• Health Plan Penalty: Imposes a penalty on health plans identified in an annual Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) penalty fee report, which is to be collected by the Financial Management Service after notice by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury).

Yea, it sounds like one big bureaucratic mess.

EPA Encourages Utility Controlled Refrigerators

From CNSNEWS.com (July 3):

(CNSNews.com) - At times of peak demand for electricity, do you want your refrigerator to run at the discretion of the power company?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has revised its Energy Star energy-efficiency requirements for residential refrigerators, and it is encouraging the inclusion of “connected” features that respond to utility signals to curb their energy consumption.

The EPA announced the new requirements on June 27. Included is the optional “smart-grid” connection for customers to electronically connect their refrigerator or freezer with a utility provider. [read more]

Why stop at refrigerators and freezers? Why not have every appliance plugged into the “smart-grid?” Isn’t that what the Left wants? Complete control of your life. That’s what Obamacare is really about. But I digress….

You may say that it’s the power companies that are controlling the electricity going to the refrigerators or freezers. (Why aren’t driers and washers part of this “smart-grid” connection? They use a quite of bit electricity too. Hmm. Maybe, the EPA will do that later.) True, but if the power companies are nationalized (you know like the healthcare industry is going to be. Don’t laugh. It could happen.) then it is the gov’t ultimately doing the controlling. This is a dictator’s ultimate dream—one of them anyway.

Why is the EPA encouraging companies to make “smart-grid” enabled refrigerators and freezers you ask? Can you say Global Warming, er, sorry Climate Change (I keep forgetting)? Right now the consumers have a choice to have their appliances connected to the grid. But it might not be a choice in the future if Climate Change is such a problem (as Obama thinks it is). An American citizen might be required to have their appliances plugged into the “smart-grid” to save the planet.  We all have to do our part after all.

Happy Birthday America!

Here an excerpt from an article that Matthew Spalding, Ph. D. wrote about the Declaration of Independence:

As a practical matter, the Declaration of Independence publicly announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning--then as well as now--is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people. "If the American Revolution had produced nothing but the Declaration of Independence," wrote the great historian Samuel Eliot Morrison, "it would have been worthwhile."

Although Congress had appointed a distinguished committee--including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston--the Declaration of Independence is chiefly the work of Thomas Jefferson. By his own account, Jefferson was neither aiming at originality nor taking from any particular writings but was expressing the "harmonizing sentiments of the day," as expressed in conversation, letters, essays, or "the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc." Jefferson intended the Declaration to be "an expression of the American mind," and wrote so as to "place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent."

The structure of the Declaration of Independence is that of a common law legal document. The ringing phrases of the document's famous second paragraph are a powerful synthesis of American constitutional and republican government theories. All men have a right to liberty only in so far as they are by nature equal, which is to say none are naturally superior, and deserve to rule, or inferior, and deserve to be ruled. Because men are endowed with these rights, the rights are unalienable, which means that they cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess these rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights and, although prudence tells us that governments should not be changed for trivial reasons, the people retain the right to alter or abolish government when it becomes destructive of these ends. [read more]

Here’s some information about the men who signed the Declaration:

Nine of the signers were immigrants, two were brothers, two were cousins, and one was an orphan. The average age of a signer was 45. The oldest delegate was Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, who was 70 when he signed the Declaration. The youngest was Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina, who was 26.

Eighteen of the signers were merchants or businessmen, 14 were farmers, and four were doctors. Forty-two signers had served in their colonial legislatures. Twenty-two were lawyers--although William Hooper of North Carolina was "disbarred" when he spoke out against the Crown--and nine were judges. Stephen Hopkins had been Governor of Rhode Island.

Although two others had been clergy previously, John Witherspoon of New Jersey was the only active clergyman to attend--he wore his pontificals to the sessions. Almost all were Protestant Christians; Charles Carroll of Maryland was the only Roman Catholic signer.

What happened to some of the signers after they pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor?

Eleven signers had their homes and property destroyed. Francis Lewis's New York home was destroyed and his wife was taken prisoner. John Hart's farm and mills were destroyed when the British invaded New Jersey and he died while fleeing capture. Carter Braxton and Thomas Nelson (both of Virginia) lent large sums of their personal fortunes to support the war effort, but were never repaid.

Finally, here are some quotes about the Declaration:

I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure, that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of light and glory; I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that posterity will triumph.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776

-----------------------------------------------

There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!

John Hancock (attributed), upon signing the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

-------------------------------------------------

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

--------------------------------------------------------

The flames kindled on the 4th of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, September 12, 1821

------------------------------------------------------------

Independence Forever.

John Adams, toast for the 50th Anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1826

---------------------------------------------------------------

I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt to the chain of your nation's destiny; so, indeed, I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

Frederick Douglass, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" July 5, 1852

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Our Declaration of Independence has been copied by emerging nations around the globe, its themes adopted in places many of us have never heard of. Here is this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted it by the people. There have been revolutions before and since ours, revolutions that simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. Ours was a philosophical revolution that changed the very concept of government.

Ronald Reagan, address at Yorktown, October 19, 1981

If you wondering who did the painting above it was done by Armand-Dumaresq circa 1873.

Ancient Egyptian Statue Apparently Rotating on Its Own

From independent.co.uk (June 23):

Bosses at Manchester Museum have been left puzzled by the mystery of an ancient Egyptian statuette which - a video has revealed - seems to turn itself around 180 degrees in its display case.

The 10-inch tall statue of Neb-Sanu, which dates back to 1800 BC, was found in a mummy’s tomb and has been at the Museum for eighty years.

And now a time-lapse video clearly shows it turning on its axis during the day, apparently of its own volition. During the night, however, it remains still.

Campbell Price, an Egyptologist at the museum, suggests the museum may have been struck by ancient curse. [read more]

Spooky. I don’t know about a curse causing this rotation but something is causing the statue to move. Maybe, get an infrared camera or even an ultraviolet camera (I’ve been watching too many Ghost Hunter episodes. Ha!) to maybe find out what’s causing the mysterious movement. Even use a portable EMF meter to pick up any electromagnetic fields on the statue. This would be a interesting case for the Ghost Hunters International (GHI) crew.

I’m not so sure about the physics professor’s “differential friction” explanation. If vibrations caused the Neb-Sanu statue to move wouldn’t the same vibrations cause the statue next to it to move too? One way to test that theory is to put a piece of cardboard or paper between the glass and the bottom of the statue and see if it still moves. Or better yet, put a device that measures vibrations next to the statue. GHI could do these experiments. Also, usually vibrations wouldn’t cause the statue to move in a nearly perfect circle and only in the daytime.

I am thinking either a mischievous demon is causing this motion or a really strong spirit (of the mummy?) that has to rest during the night. Hey, rotating statues takes a lot of energy for a spirit. You just never know.

Now, if the statue levitates (that would be great to get on video!) that definitely would be paranormal.

Congressional Wasteful Spending in 2012

Congress spend $132 million dollars in 2012 in wasteful spending. Like what you might say?

• In West Virginia, thousands of dollars were spend to reconstruct a historic streetscape… out of Legos.
• More than the $300,000 USDA is spending to tell Americans to eat caviar.
• Out-of-this-world Martian food tasting – (HI) $947,000.
• $2 million in financial assistance provided to cupcake specialty shops.
• An unused Ohio bridge — not even connected to a road or trail — received a half-a-million dollar makeover this year.
• Professional sports loophole – (Taxes) $91 million.
• Junk food, luxury drinks, soap operas, and billions of dollars in improper food stamp payments – (Department of Agriculture) $4.5 billion.
• Oklahoma keeps unused airport open to collect federal checks – (OK) $450,000.
• Moroccan pottery classes – (U.S. Agency for International Development) $27 million.
• When robot squirrels attack – (CA) $325,000.
• Bailed out tourist boat sinking private business – (AK) $3.3 million.
• The government pays as much as $2 million annually in monthly service fees to maintain about 28,000 phantom grant accounts that are empty and have expired.
• A penny made is two pennies wasted – (Department of the Treasury) $70 million. In fact, the cost to produce a penny in 2012 is more than two times its actual value.
• Call me for free, maybe – (Federal Communications Commission) $1.5 billion.
• Powerful routers installed in tiny rural libraries and schools – (WV) $24 million.
• Relive prom week with National Science Foundation video game – (CA) $516,000.
• Pulp and paper companies could reap a $268 million tax windfall by asserting an industrial waste byproduct of the wood-pulping process - referred to as “black liquor” - is actually an alternative fuel.
• Beverly Hills, often noted for its affluence, and the city of Santa Fe Springs will sell $206,426 of their Community Development Block Grant dollars this year to other cities, in exchange for $145,662 in general revenue.
• Russian weapons institutes recruiting new scientists with U.S. funds – (Department of Energy) $15.0 million.
• NASA has been working on a number of out-of-this-world apps, games, and other entertainment programs to beef up its marketing efforts. These efforts will cost taxpayers at least $1.6 million.
• Three Smokey the Bear statues cost taxpayers $13,938 this year alone, and a set of Smokey road signs cost another $4,438. The total spent on these statues, signs, and balloon appearances was $49,447.
• Speed reading faces – (WA) $30,000. A study supported by the National Science Foundation was done to find out if people could determine if someone was gay or not just by looking at his/her face.
• More than $1 billion overpaid annually for products and services – (Government-wide) $1 billion.
• The National Endowment for the Arts has allocated $1 million to organizations throughout the country to “read, discuss, and celebrate one of 31 selections from U.S. and world literature.” Perhaps offering the most unique selection of activities is the Shrewsbury Public Library, which received a $10,800 federal grant. The library will host the traditional book discussions, but it will also include “a tour of the Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, Connecticut, a ghosts and graveyards tour for teens in Boston, a picket fence decorating contest, an old-fashioned county fair celebration for children, fishing lessons, [and] a performance by a Mark Twain historic interpreter.”
• Nebraska steered $505,000 of Community Development Block Grant  funds provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to Sergeant’s Pet Care Products, Inc., which specializes in pet shampoo and toothpaste.

Source: Wastebook 2012 by Senator Tom Coburn, M. D.

Here is another list of wasteful spending: The Waste List.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 29

• The new pope is the anti-Obama. Humility is the key here.
• I think Germany and Japan should have their own military. America can’t afford anymore to defend them and that “probation” period after the WW II should haven’t been permanent. Ten years would have been long enough. Then see if they’re peaceful neighbors or not.
• Jesus once said: No man can serve two masters. He will love one and hate the other. Well, the Left better take heed. They worship money and power. Or are at least obsessed with both. Obsession can be a master too.
• King Louis XIV said he was the state. Hitler probably thought that too. So, did Stalin. I wonder if Obama thinks the same way.
• It’s hard to stop an ingenuitive and determined person hell bent on committing an evil act.
• Do you think Obama’s presidential library will contain any of his Harvard term papers? Or maybe his teleprompter? Or those columns of his first inauguration? More likely a painting of him walking on water. Or a photo of him standing with terrorist Bill Ayers. Or a bust of Karl Marx? Just wondering.
• Since the Left likes “comprehensive reform” platforms here are some more platforms for them: Comprehensive abortion reform, comprehensive affirmative action reform, comprehensive trial-lawyer reform, and how about comprehensive big labor reform.
• Ignorance isn’t bliss when it comes to voting for candidates or issues.
• A quantum computer would take the square root of 10¹⁰⁵⁰ moves to make in a chess game. The 10¹⁰⁵⁰ moves is how long a non-quantum computer would take to make.
• The US constitution is a contract with the American people. Some believe that this contract is a living, evolving document. Well, can any contract live and breathe too? If so, you better be careful with who you make contracts with.

Quotes from the “Tolerant” Left about Conservatives

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.  -  John Kenneth Galbraith

A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward.  - Franklin D. Roosevelt, radio speech, 26 October 1939

A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.  ~ Alfred E. Wiggam

Conservatism is the policy of make no change and consult your grandmother when in doubt.  - Woodrow Wilson

A conservative is a man who just sits and thinks, mostly sits.  - Woodrow Wilson

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.  -  John Stuart Mill

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid. -
Kin Hubbard (1868 - 1930)

There are no black conservatives. Oh, there are neoconservatives with black skin, but they lack any claim to blackness other than the biological. They have forgotten their roots. - Stephen Carter

All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

To be conservative requires no brains whatsoever. Cabbages, cows and conifers are conservatives, and are so stupid they don't even know it. All that is basically required is acceptance of what exists. - Colin Welch

A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run.  -  Elbert Hubbard

Conservatives have no understanding of modern capitalism. They have a distorted understanding of the traditional values they claim to defend. -  Christopher Lasch

 

Now you know why I put quotation marks around the word “tolerant.” The Left has a tendency not to be tolerant of anyone who doesn’t follow or agree completely with their “perfect” ideology.

Spontaneous Order: Awakening the Sacred

As scientists begin to unlock the principles that order complex systems like ecosystems and economies, they are revealing the power of spontaneous order. But might they also be rediscovering the sacred?

[Physicist and Nobel Laureate Steven] Weinberg argued that to understand “big” phenomena we always peer downward: we travel from large objects like societies to groups, to individual people, to organs, to cells, to chemistry, to physics. Finally we might arrive at a set of ultimate laws that explain everything—Weinberg’s dream of a “final theory.” Causality points upward, from parts to the whole. Everything thus reduces.

Theoretical biologist Stuart Kauffman, in the vanguard of complexity sciences at the Santa Fe Institute, disagrees. In his book Reinventing the Sacred, Kauffman argues that we can find a new sense of the spiritual in the behavior of complex systems like the biosphere and the economy. These systems, Kauffman argues, cannot be reduced. Their complexity is beyond Weinberg’s final theory.

In a 1972 article titled “More Is Different,” Nobel Laureate physicist Philip Anderson argued against reductionism in physics. If we think of causality as an arrow, it does not just point upward from particles, thought Anderson. As the size and complexity of something increase, “entirely new properties appear” that cannot “be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles.” Things are not just the sum of their parts. More is different.

There is no way to define the possible functions of a box of Legos, since the function largely depends on the context and what has already been created. With each change, new combinations and possibilities appear that can disrupt previous functions. New forms become the pieces for still newer combinations and forms.

The economy works this way too. Think of all the possible uses of a simple screwdriver: open a can of paint, defend oneself in an assault, use as a paperweight, open coconuts on a desert island, and so on. The number of uses explodes exponentially as you include any new object that could be combined with a screwdriver (like an electric motor to make a drill). And, of course, the new form’s properties would depend, in some sense, upon the environment in which it’s used. For example, it would not be a drill in 1800, because electric motors co-evolved with the advent of electrical grids. Electrical grids created the possibility of the electric drill.

In markets, humans search through these endless networks of possibility, combining and recombining resources and technologies with never-ending freshness in ever-changing contexts.

The human economy is massively more complex than a box of Legos. The “econosphere,” as Kauffman calls it, roils with novelty and creativity, just like the biosphere. Markets are the collective expression of our creative work, and they are more than the sum of individuals that compose it. We do not fully understand them, and we cannot predict them. We never will, because things will always suddenly appear and change the course of their evolution. But in their creativity, Kauffman believes we can rediscover the sacred. To sacralize, after all, is to venerate the sources of creativity that are beyond any one mere human’s own powers of creation. For many in the past this was an all-powerful Creator God. For Kauffman, it is the natural creativity of the universe.

Source: “Spontaneous Order: Awakening the Sacred” The Freemen. Volume 63, No. 4. May 2013.

A system is complex if its degrees of freedom of movement is two or more. That is to say it has two or more choices or options it can take. See complexity theory or what’s sometimes known as chaos theory for more information.

Power and Character

Power corrupts as Lord Byron once said.  And the possibility that it will corrupt is inversely proportional to the character a person in power has. Without character you have no humility. No humility means a higher chance of corruption and abuse of power. The founders knew this principle well. That’s why America has the Constitution.

Character for a leader is more important than intelligence and charisma. Both intelligence and charisma may help a leader, but aren’t necessarily good traits for the people he rules. Most dictators can have both intelligence and charisma. But all dictators don’t have character.

If a leader is willing to learn he can learn what he needs to learn for the job. Or he can delegate to smart people he trusts that follow the rule of law.

Character and charisma are the only traits that cannot be learned. Given a choice I would choose character for a leader 100% of the time. Hitler, Mussolini, Sadaam Hussein, Stalin and most other dictators have charisma. Like I said earlier, all dictators don’t have character.

 

The fear of God is instruction in wisdom, and before honor is humility.  -- Proverbs 15:33.

Put on humility, because God sets Himself  "Against proud ones, but He gives grace to the humble." (Proverbs 3:34) – Peter 5:5.

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. --  Abraham Lincoln.

To lead the people, walk behind them.  -- Lao-Tzu.

A leader leads by example not by Force.  -- Sun Tzu.

A man is only a leader when a follower stands beside [my emphasis] him.  -- Mark Brouwer.

A good leader is a person who takes a little more than his share of the blame and a little less than his share of the credit.  -- John C. Maxwell.

Leaders don't create followers, they create more leaders.  -- Tom Peters.

It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles.  -- Niccolo Machiavelli.

A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small bundle.  -- Benjamin Franklin.

Excerpts from "Freedom Is Good for Design: An Interview with Adrian Bejan"

Adrian Bejan is a professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University. So why on earth are we talking to him? Bejan is the first person to articulate what could be one of the most important ideas since Darwin’s theory of evolution. He calls it the Constructal Law. It goes like this:

For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.

All this may sound highfalutin. But the idea is this: Systems survive when things flow better over time—all kinds of systems. In fact, this is what “life” is: flowing  and changing  (morphing) freely to flow/move more easily. From natural systems to human systems, when things low better, we start to notice patterns in nature that are products of good flow. And if Adrian Bejan is right, this is one of the most important—and underappreciated—aspects of our world. Combine the insights of Hayek, the
mathematics of Mandelbrot, and the biology of Darwin and you get something that might transform the way you see the world.

Adrian Bejan: Put another way, a rigid flow system (dammed river, rigid society) is not natural and is destined to be replaced by one that is free to morph, because the future points toward configurations with greater and greater low access. This is why freedom is good for design.

The Freeman: You have discovered an important relationship using constructal thinking: the relationship between energy and the wealth of nations. Can you help us understand this in layman’s terms?

Adrian Bejan: Look, everything that moves does so because it is being pushed or pulled. Nothing is moving by itself. The river water is pushed by the earth heat engine, which drives the climate (winds, oceans, and so on), the animal is moved by the work derived from food, and we are pushed by our engines—by the work derived from fuel. All this work is destroyed (dissipated), and the visible phenomenon is movement with evolving design.

With the Constructal Law, we had predicted that our movement on the globe should be hierarchical, with few large and many small (as in the mass traffic of airways), and that it should be increasing over time, to spread more, to bathe the world map more.

The Freeman: With a few major arteries and many minor streets and roads, for example.

Adrian Bejan: Exactly. Then we discovered that the big channels (the few large) in this global basin of human flow are the inhabitants of the affluent countries. So, because more flow means more fuel spent, we made an x-y plot with all the countries, showing (x) the annual fuel  consumed, versus (y) the annual wealth—i.e., the gross domestic product (GDP). We found that the intangible “wealth” is proportional to the fuel spent, which means
that wealth is movement, and wealth is physics.

The Constructal Law governs not only the hierarchical, vascular designs—i.e., few large and many small movers—but the future design, which consists of more movement over time and greater wealth and fuel consumption for every group on earth. This is why every group is racing upward on the line indicating the proportionality between energy use and wealth.

The urge to have wealth is a manifestation of the Constructal Law. It is the urge to have more movement, fewer obstacles, and more freedom.

Source: “Freedom is Good for Design. Freedom Is Good for Design: An Interview with Adrian Bejan” The Freemen. Volume 63, No. 4. May 2013.

N.J. Bill Would Allow Cops to Look Through Your Phone After an Accident

From The Blaze.com (Jun 11):

Those involved in car crashes in New Jersey might need to prepare themselves to hand over their license, registration and cellphone — no warrant required — to police if new legislation introduced by the state Senate becomes law.

According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, such a law would assist in accident investigations by allowing police to see if a hand-held phone was a contributing factor. Such hand-held devices are illegal to use while operating a vehicle in the state.

Others though are protesting the legislation saying it violates Fourth Amendment protections against a search and seizure of private property without a warrant.

Here are the perspectives of both sides as presented by the Star-Ledger:

“Think about it: The chances of the cop witnessing the accident are slim to none,” said the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. James Holzapfel (R-Ocean), the bill’s sponsor, who has worked as a county and municipal prosecutor. “He’s dispatched, and by the time he gets there — unless they’re unconscious and the phone is in their hands, or some passenger says they were on the phone — then he’s got to do what? Subpoena the service to see if the phone was actively used or not?”

The measure is troubling to the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which said it is “likely susceptible to a constitutional challenge.”

“This bill is problematic because it infringes on the privacy rights of citizens,” said Alexander Shalom, the ACLU’s state policy counsel. “Our state and federal constitutions generally require probable cause before authorizing a search, particularly when it comes to areas that contain highly personal information such as cell phones.”

[read more]

If the police suspect you are under the influence when they pull you over, they have to ask you if you want to walk a straight line or take a breathalyzer test. You have to agree to do either test. I believe this is what is the procedure in most states. I believe it should be the same with the cell phone when you are stopped.

Now, I would hope most police officers would ask to see your phone if you are involved in a car accident even if this law passes. It’s just a courteous thing to do. Is the police going take the phones of both parties involved in the car accident?

I mean if you are hit from the rear wouldn’t it be the fault of the other car? Even if you were using your cell phone at the time it would be almost impossible for you to cause the accident unless by chance you slammed your breaks on or your car just happen to break down. Then slamming on your breaks would show skid marks and if you had a car malfunction an analysis of the car would show that. And if you slammed your breaks on, that wouldn’t necessary be your fault if you got rear ended. You could have slammed your breaks on because you had to make a quick stop to avoid hitting something. The driver rear ending you could have his brakes go out if there are no tire marks but then an inspection of the brakes would show this. 

Side on collisions is a little more complicated. If you hit someone on the side that mean you or the other driver ran a stop sign or a red light. Both of which could be caused by the driver or caused by the brakes not working. Front-on collision are even more complicated to analyze. They are usually caused by one of the drivers. It’s complicated because now you have to decide which driver is at fault. I don’t see how a car malfunction could cause this kind of accident. Although, I guess it is possible. In both these two cases, I can understand the police taking the cell phone, but still I think they need a search warrant.

If the police are trying to figure out if you were distracted before the accident what are they going to do about “non-cellphone” distractions like sneezing or just reaching for something under the dash or even glancing away briefly from the road? Or even talking to a passenger or yelling at your kids to settle down in the back seat. How can the police or even the driver prove any of these distractions unless a witness or a camera saw it? Then again if a camera or witness saw the distraction, then both would have seen the driver use his/her cellphone. Then what would happen if you used your cell phone then had a stroke or heartattack a second after using it? Looking at the cell phone wouldn’t show the true cause of the accident.

World Murder Rates and Gun Regulations

Looking at the murder rates around the world the highest is would you believe Turkey (184.053 per 1 million people). Since the Left likes to blame a lot of murders on guns (like that’s the only way to kill someone) let’s look at Turkey’s gun regulations. In Turkey, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms and semi-automatic firearms. Those are assault weapons aren’t they not?  Also,  in Turkey, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted under license. An applicant for a firearm license in Turkey must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, domestic violence, medical, and addiction records.

Next highest murder rate per capita is Belarus. It’s rate is 100.35 per 1 million people. What about its gun regulations? In Belarus, civilians are not allowed to possess handguns unless awarded for military service. Belarus has background checks too. In Belarus, third party character references for each gun license applicant are required.  So, if only people with  military service are allowed to have guns why are there any gun homicides at all? The rate is low. The highest was 0.8 in 1995. But still you think it would be zero. Are the only ones committing gun homicides military people? I don’t think so.

The third highest murder rate per capita is Lithuania at 81.84 per 1 million people. In Lithuania, the right to private gun ownership is guaranteed by law. In Lithuania, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic weapons (category A), military sniper rifles, unmarked firearms, craft weapons, armor-piercing ammunition. Again these are categorized as assault weapons. Lithuania has background checks too.

Albania has the forth highest murder rate. It’s rate per capital is 80.637 per 1 million people. Here is it’s gun regulation policies: The regulation of guns in Albania is categorized as permissive. Not sure what “permissive” means. In Albania, licensed gun makers are required to keep a record of each firearm produced, for inspection by a regulating authority.

What about America’s murder rate per capita? I don’t know. I couldn’t find it on Nation Master.com. But America wasn’t listed in the top 37 countries. Although, Wolfram Alpha.com had the murder rate 5.65 murders per 100,000 people.

Now, if you are curious about gun homicides  around the world, the country with the highest count is South Africa. As of 2002, they had 31,918 gun homicides. That’s because of lax gun laws right? No, not really. In South Africa, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law. So, no 4th amendment for them. In South Africa, civilians are not allowed to possess semi-automatic firearms without special endorsement, automatic firearms and specifically modified firearms. In South Africa, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited. In South Africa, only licensed gun owners (with competency certificate) may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition. S. Africa has background checks. You got to have 3rd party character reference to get a gun. Licensed firearm owners in South Africa are permitted to possess 1 firearm per firearm license. One other gun fact about South Africa: It has gun free zones.

Next highest in gun homicides (21,898) is Columbia. In Colombia, the right to private gun ownership is guaranteed by law. In Colombia, civilians are not allowed to possess pistols and revolvers of caliber superior to 9.652mm, automatic arms, semi-automatic rifles and carbines over 22 caliber LR, arms with military-style devices (infrared and laser sights, grenade launchers and silencers) and ammunition for these arms. Does the drug cartels in Columbia know this? In Colombia, private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited with only narrow exemptions. In Colombia, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited with only narrow exemptions. Again with the “narrow exceptions.” Applicants for a gun owner’s license in Colombia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, personal protection, security, hunting, target shooting, collection. Like who is going to say their reason is to kill someone.  Yea, I am wanting to start up a hitman business. And yes Columbia has background checks too. It has gun free zones too. Actually, I counted 19 countries (America is one) that have gun free zones. Do these really work? I doubt it.

A lot of countries with high gun homicides either restrict assault weapons or ban them altogether. Most countries have background checks. A lot of countries you have to have a character reference and/or a genuine reason to own a gun. In countries where there is no “right to own a gun” like the United Kingdom, Japan and China there are still gun homicides. Why? I thought regulation is supposed to stop gun homicides. In the UK handguns are completely prohibited. In Japan you have to be an accomplished sports shooter to own a gun. All you amateur sports shooters are out of luck. In China you have to be a hunter and have permission. 

If you are wondering America is ranked 4th in gun homicides.

So, what’s the point of this essay? The point is gun regulation doesn’t really have that much affect on murders.

Surveillance USA

From the guardian.co.uk (June 5):

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. [read more]

Keep in mind that the gov’t is looking at all Verizon customer records not just some. If the NSA can look at records of Verizon what’s going to stop them from looking at the records of other cell phone company records?

The Obama administration justifies this surveillance on “national security” reasons. So, I guess all terrorists use Verizon phones, huh?

A NSA whistleblower William Binney told Glenn Beck on his radio show Friday that the NSA has been snooping on Americans for more than a decade and that they are not just looking at the records of the phone calls but the content of the phone calls and emails. Binney said that “the NSA is collecting data on 3 billion phone calls every single day.”

Well, it’s not like the NSA is tapping directly into servers of nine major American Internet companies (Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple).  Oh, wait. It is. Not only them but so is the FBI. The agencies are not only looking at the content of emails, but almost everything else including video chat.

At least the Post Office is not photographing every mail it receives. Wouldn’t it be funny if the Post Office did that? The jokes on America. It does. That’s how the ricin suspect was tracked. As The Washington Post.com states:

According to FBI Agent James Spiropoulos, investigators accessed a Postal Service computer system that “incorporates a Mail Isolation Control and Tracking (MICT) program which photographs and captures an image of every mail piece that is processed.” Agents were able to obtain front and back images of about 20 mail pieces that had been processed “immediately before the mail piece addressed to Mayor Bloomberg.”

Highlights of Rand Paul’s Obamacare Rant

With the implementation of Obamacare, doctors will soon be required to use roughly 122,000 [my emphasis] new medical diagnostic codes to inform the federal government of injuries sustained by Americans.

The new codes include classifications for “injuries sustained from a turtle,” “walking into a lamppost” and “injuries sustained from burning water skis.”

312 new codes for injuries from animals; 72 new codes for injuries just from birds; 9 new codes for ‘injuries from the macaw.’

Injuries sustained from a turtle.

A code for … walking into a lamppost. There’s also a code for ‘walking into a lamppost, subsequent encounter.’

A code for injuries sustained from burning water skis.

[read more]

Senator Paul asks physicians around the country if they have ever seen injuries from a macaw. No one has.

As for turtles, he jokes that they are of course dangerous, but why have two codes for them? Your doctor has to inform the gov’t if you have been struck or bitten by a turtle.  Turtles can be dangerous if you let them. And because they are so slow they can sneak up on you quietly. Watch out for them. While you think they are being harmless munching on their lettuce or whatever they are eating, they are planning your demise. As the saying goes, a turtle’s hit is worse than it’s bite.

Rand Paul says this about the gov’t: “Your government just wants to take care of you. They don’t think you’re smart enough to make these decisions.” Duh. My thoughts exactly. The gov’t thinks its citizens are like Homer Simpson or worse like cows.

What Conservatives Are For

On April 22, 2013, Senator Mike Lee (R–UT) addressed an audience at The Heritage Foundation outlining a conservative vision of a free society based on American first principles. Two institutions lie at the core of American freedom, said Lee: free enterprise and civil society. American-style freedom brings people together, while big-government policies divide people into interest groups and turn citizens into dependents. Lee flatly rejects the liberal claim that conservatives oppose progress, and he makes the case that elected conservatives must do a better job of presenting the conservative vision to the American public.

Here are this four key points:

1. The conservative vision of American freedom depends on free enterprise and civil society; the great obstacle to realizing this vision today is government dysfunction.
2. A new conservative reform agenda should center on three basic principles: equality, diversity, and sustainability.
3. Equality means everyone plays by the same rules with no more preferential policymaking. Diversity is another name for federalism. The federal government makes too many mistakes because it makes too many decisions. Most of them it doesn't have to make - and therefore shouldn't. The states, however, should.
4. Once we eliminate policy privilege and restore policy diversity, we can start ensuring policy sustainability. When the federal government stops doing things it shouldn't, it can start doing the things it shouldn't and do them better.

[read more]

The real-life tricorder

 

From the dailymail.co.uk (May 23):

The tricorder, a medical device that scan patients in seconds, originally shot to fame in Star Trek - but now a California firm has made it a reality.

The Scanadu Scout can measure your heart rate, temperature, blood oxygen levels, respiratory rate, blood pressure, ECG and emotional stress - just like Spock's handheld gadget.

It can be placed on the user’s forehead and within ten seconds uses Bluetooth to send the results direct to their smartphone after an array of sensors and a camera scan the patient.

It is also able to store previous results meaning that patients can track changes in their vital signs.

'The Scout puts your body’s information where it belongs: in your hands,' the firm says.

'Share it with your doctor and others to take health conversations – and discoveries – to a new level.' [read more]

Health discoveries to a new level? Hmmm. Don’t know if that sounds good or not. Discovering something about your body is usually not a good thing. Although, hypochondriacs would love this device.

Somebody commented that it needs to monitor blood sugar and hormone levels. Maybe in the next version.

I wonder if this gadget will be required when it gets fully developed and the Unaffordable N0-Care Act (Obamacare) kicks in. The gov’t could want all of its citizens to upload their health data using this device to a national database. Good for Scanadu (they make a lot of money) but not so good for the consumer.

How police can find your deleted text messages

From money.cnn.com (May 22):

Smartphone forensics experts can retrieve just about anything from any phone. Police will often seize and analyze phones for evidence of things such as indecent photos and videos, what calls were placed when and to whom, browser history, calendar events and explanations of a suicide or murder.

All of that can be uncovered whether or not a user deleted it from their phone.

"It makes it much, much harder, but wiping a phone doesn't always mean you can't get the data," said Courtney Lancaster, forensic analyst with IT consulting company TCS, at the CTIA wireless industry trade show in Las Vegas.

Forensic analysts have dozens of tools that allow them to access many layers of data on a device.

A so-called "physical" analysis can typically retrieve deleted information that is hidden deep within a smartphone's memory. When a photo is saved, for example, the device's operating system will typically store variations of that image in several different locations -- a thumbnail view may still be available even if the original isn't. [read more]

If computer forensic experts can look at a PC’s contents why not a smartphone’s contents? Both are basically computers. You have the right tools you can just about analyze any computer or smartphone.

Small Businesses Startups and Job Growth

The Kauffman Foundation has done extensive research on job creation. Kauffman Senior Fellow Tim Kane analyzed a new data set from the U.S. government, called Business Dynamics Statistics, which provides details about the age and employment of businesses started in the U.S. since 1977. What this showed was that startups aren't just an important contributor to job growth: they're the only thing. Without startups, there would be no net job growth in the U.S. economy. From 1977 to 2005, existing companies were net job destroyers, losing 1 million net jobs per year. In contrast, new businesses in their first year added an average of 3 million jobs annually.

When analyzed by company age, the data are even more startling. Gross job creation at startups averaged more than 3 million jobs per year during 1992-2005, four times as high as any other yearly age group. Existing firms in all year groups have gross job losses that are larger than gross job gains.

Half of the startups go out of business within five years; but overall they are still the ones that lead the charge in employment creation. Kauffman Foundation analyzed the average employment of all firms as they age from year zero (birth) to year five. When a given cohort of startups reaches age five, its employment level is 80 percent of what it was when it began. In 2000, for example, startups created 3,099,639 jobs. By 2005, the surviving firms had a total employment of 2,412,410, or about 78 percent of the number of jobs that existed when these firms were born.

Source: The last chapter in John Mauldin’s 2011 book Endgame: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How It Changes Everything.

Startups are fragile. It’s hard enough getting and retaining customers and trying to be better than your competitors. Then I read that start-ups are prime targets for cyberattacks. Geez.  And when gov’ts over-regulate and over-tax the start-ups it doesn’t make running a business any easier. More obstacles to overcome.  Then when they grow, the gov’t punishes them unless they do business with the gov’t—ie crony capitalism.

Is There a Moral Basis for Capitalism?

From FEE.org (August 1983):

The contemporary indictment of capitalism usually takes two basic forms. First, there is the economic indictment. Those who make the attack from this perspective argue that capitalism is not viable because it is afflicted with insurmountable contradictions which result in a permanent state of crisis, or problems which can only be temporarily resolved by palliatives. Second, there is the moral indictment. Capitalism, according to this view, is the exploitation of man by man, the profit motive and the rule of money supreme, with an inevitable cruel injustice everywhere manifest.

The claim that capitalism provides the best economic structure for man’s moral development, long a virtual article of faith in American life, is met with derision these days by politicians, journalists, university professors, and theologians. Clergymen daily rage with indignation against the “evils” and “injustice” of the competitive market. Capitalism is, so we are told, “intrinsically immoral.” “Soul dead, stomach well alive,” was Thomas Carlyle’s estimate of the market system, and all the cultured despisers of commercial civilization are in hearty agreement.

The critics are right when they demand that our economic system rest on a firm moral basis. If it can be shown that it does not, then we should abandon it immediately and seek to establish a more just order. At the outset, however, important distinctions and clarifications must be made. Arthur Shenfield calls attention to one of the most vital, viz., “the economic system called capitalism is a system of relationships. It is a composition of markets, and markets are by definition systems of relationships, not purposive bodies. It follows that we can apply the tests of morality to capitalism only by considering the behavior of individuals who operate within it, not as a system capable in itself of being moral or immoral.”

It is Shenfield’s contention that since capitalism is “a system of relationships it cannot be moral or immoral in the sense that a purposive group can be . . . .” He denies, however, that such a system is morally neutral. “If its essential characteristics on balance positively nurture or reinforce moral or immoral individual behavior, it is a moral or immoral system in its effects.”

Economic freedom is born and thrives only in nations or communities where reverence for all human life is widely held to be a supreme value, where the personal safety of the neighbor and his family is generally regarded as inviolably sacred, and where compassionate individuals, acting either alone or through voluntary associations, are encouraged to offer substantial assistance to the poor and needy. This differs radically from the command society of socialism, whose adherents are frequently found not only approving but actively promoting violence, terrorism, and the destruction of the middle class. In such societies (and this would include the Welfare State) “compassion” is institutionalized, and becomes a monopoly of the state.

The seventh commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” teaches us, as does the ninth commandment, that contracts must be honored and double-dealing scorned. “The historic link between the biblical idea of binding covenants and the Western idea of binding contracts,” writes Gary North, “is obvious enough.” The very idea of contracting for joint benefit presupposes a high level of moral integrity and faithfulness on the part of all the parties engaged in the transaction.

In socialism the paternal state seeks to vitiate the necessity for the sanctity of contracts by substituting its omnipotent controls and decrees. Opportunity for moral development and the growth of trust between free men is thereby suppressed.

The right of private ownership is based on the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal.” According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, this commandment requires “the lawful procuring and furthering the wealth and outward estate of ourselves and others.” The commandment forbids “whatsoever doth or may unjustly hinder our own or our neighbor’s wealth or outward estate.” The eighth commandment “means that the Bible countenances private property—for if a thing is not owned in the first place it can hardly be stolen.” [read more]

Just as I thought. God’s a capitalist. (Just joking! Then again…)