Philosophy and Science

Commentary by Eric Metaxas on Break Point.org:

Socrates said that wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing. If that’s true, a few of our brightest scientists need some enlightenment.

The popular “Existential Comics” Twitter page appeals to a segment of the population most of us avoid at dinner parties. It’s humor at its most esoteric. But Existential Comics recently posted a real zinger that cuts scientific hubris down to size.

A scientists asks why philosophy matters. The philosopher counters and asks “Why does science matter?” The scientist thinks for a moment before replying that science matters because… And here, the philosopher interrupts him and says, “You’re doing philosophy.”

It would be funnier if so many scientists today didn’t share this ill-informed attitude toward philosophy. New Atheist rock star and Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins tweeted on Darwin Day that philosophers’ failure to anticipate Darwin was “a severe indictment of philosophy.” And theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking recently declared “philosophy is dead.”

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” took on the subject last month in a Big Think video on YouTube. A philosophy student contacted Nye to ask whether he, like so many atheist scientists, considers philosophy a “meaningless topic.”

………………………

These kinds of charges, writes Olivia Goldhill at “Quartz,” show that Nye buys into the common caricature that “philosophy is about asking pointlessly ‘deep’ questions, plucking an answer out of thin air, and then drinking some pinot noir and writing a florid essay.”

Far from it! As Existential Comics cleverly hinted, not only is philosophy not dead, but without it, science itself is impossible. Philosophy tells us not only why we do science—it gives us the assumptions that undergird the scientific method.

Ned Hall, a philosophy chair at Harvard, explains that science as we know it involves “unstated but fairly substantial assumptions about the simplicity and elegance of the natural world.”

In other words, the scientific process of observation, hypothesis, experiments, theories, and predictions requires us to assume that nature is orderly and predictable. Just because the sun has risen every day since the dawn of civilization doesn’t mean it will rise tomorrow without a human sacrifice—just ask the Aztecs! Modern inferences like the laws of gravity, optics, and Newtonian physics only make sense if you assume an orderly and consistent universe—the kind of universe the Judeo-Christian Bible says we have.

As historian Rodney Stark argues in his terrific book, “The Victory of Reason,” Christianity gave birth to modern science by laying this philosophical groundwork. That is to say, the Christian worldview, alone in the history of mankind, made the right claims about reality necessary for empirical science to develop and flourish.   [read more]

I agree that philosphy matters. Science is just finding the truth in the universe. Philosphy asks what happens if a particular truth is discovered and should it be discovered at all. Science leads to technology which affects people. So, we should be asking how that technology affects people.

For example, should driverless cars be completely without control of the “driver?” What if there is a bug in the software or a hardware glitch and the car is moving toward an embankment or cliff? Or what if the car “decides” to avoid hitting a squirrel, it moves toward a tree or another car? These are philosophical questions. I put the word driver in quotes, by the way, because if cars are steering themselves then basically there are really no human drivers anymore.

Then there is human cloning. I could go on.

Interesting essay.

Rigged Against Trump: Presidential Debate Commission

From Dick Morris.com:

The decision of the Presidential Debate Commission to hold two of the general election debates on nights that conflict with high profile NFL games — and their refusal to reconsider the scheduling — raises the question of pro-Hillary/anti-Trump bias on the Commission.

By deliberately setting the debate dates opposite highly popular football games, the Commission seems to be angling to cut the viewership of white males, a key voting groups generally supporting Trump, in a bid to reduce their interest in the election.

While theoretically bi-partisan, the Commission is currently dominated by high profile Hillary supporters and Republicans who oppose Donald Trump — elite insiders. So, in sum, it about as anti-Trump as a commission can get.

And the Commission also chooses the moderators for the debates. Look for a Hillary-friendly choice.

Take a look at some of the “non-partisan” members:

The two co-chairmen are Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s press secretary and Frank Fahrenkopf, who held the same post under Reagan. Sounds fair? Look closer. Fahrenkopf is 90 years old and well past his prime. His co-chair? Mike McCurry, 62, who remains a vigorous defender of the Clintons working especially hard to ward off negative stories. [read more]

Yea, it doesn’t look good for Trump but then what do you expect. Morris goes on to say that former President Jimmy Carter, a Democratic National Chairman and a long-time aide of Ted Kennedy, and Jim Lehrer, a noted but also liberal news commentator among others.

Trump says he doesn’t want conservative Mary Katharine Ham moderating debates because she “says only bad things” about him. He doesn’t know her though. Well, she, being a conservative, probably doesn’t say anything nice about Hillary either for that matter. I’ve seen her on the O’Reilly Factor and maybe Hannity and she seems nice. I think she would treat him fairly. Ham said she has had at least two nice interactions with Trump personally, once where he introduced himself, and the Republican debate she moderated in New Hampshire, which turned out fairly well for Trump. She did say during the Republican debate that “jabs are Donald Trump’s entire brand.” And “the only way to rattle the real-estate mogul and reveal the shallow nature of his policy ideas.” Maybe that is what Donald Trump is referring too. But that isn’t a personal attack so much. That’s an opinion. And he did throw jabs during, before, and after those debates. As long as she isn’t intentionally lying about him he should grow a thicker skin. Politics can be rough for a republican candidate especially by the drive-by-media and doesn’t get any easier even if you are president. Just look at how the press treated President George W. Bush and President Reagan when they were in office. They called Reagan a cowboy and Bush much worse. It’s what the press does. Sadly, nothing’s going to change that.

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Commentary by Lawrence W. Reed from FEE.org:

On June 16, 1992, London's Daily Telegraph reported this astonishingly bold remark by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: "Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind."^{1
……………………………}
You don't have to be a Christian to appreciate the errors in the Gorbachev canard. You can be a person of any faith or no faith at all. You just have to appreciate facts, history, and logic. You can even be a socialist — but one with open eyes — and realize that Jesus wasn't in your camp.
In a modern political, economic, and social context, socialism isn't voluntary like the Girl Scouts. Its central characteristic is the concentration of power to forcibly achieve one or more (or usually all) of these purposes: central planning of the economy, government ownership of property, and the redistribution of wealth. No amount of "we do it all for you" or "it's for your own good" or "we're helping people" rhetoric can erase that.
…………………..
So was Jesus really a socialist? More to the main focus of this essay, did he call for the state to redistribute income to either punish the rich or to help the poor?
I first heard "Jesus was a socialist" and "Jesus was a redistributionist" some forty years ago. I was puzzled. I had always understood Jesus's message to be that the most important decision a person would make in his earthly lifetime was to accept or reject him as savior. That decision was clearly to be a very personal one — an individual and voluntary choice. He constantly stressed inner, spiritual renewal as far more critical to well-being than material things. I wondered, "How could the same Jesus advocate the use of force to take stuff from some and give it to others?" I just couldn't imagine him supporting a fine or a jail sentence for people who don't want to fork over their money for food-stamp programs.
………………………
The fact is, one can scour the Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb and find nary a word from Jesus that endorses the forcible redistribution of wealth by political authorities. None, period.
"But didn't Jesus say he came to uphold the law?" you ask. Yes, in Matthew 5:17–20 he declares, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."³ In Luke 24:44, he clarifies this when he says, "Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." He was not saying, "Whatever laws the government passes, I'm all for." He was speaking specifically of the Mosaic law (primarily the Ten Commandments) and the prophecies of his own coming.
……………………….
In Luke 12:13–15, Jesus is confronted with a redistribution request. A man with a grievance approaches him and demands, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replies thusly: "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you? Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions" (emphasis added). Wow! He could have equalized the wealth between two men with a wave of his hand, but he chose to denounce envy instead. [read more]

Interesting essay. Socialists and the Left are always trying to twist and make socialism and Christianity the same thing by using code words like “collective salvation.” Socialism and Christianity are nothing alike and ministers and preachers who use Left’s terms like “social justice” are doing a disservice to Jesus’ teachings.
If anything, Jesus is more closer to what a conservative is.

Bryan Fischer on OneNewsNow.com also wrote an interesting commentary called "No, Jesus was not a socialist."

Sometimes a Question is Better than an Answer

Commentary by John Stonestreet on Break Point.org:

Ever left speechless on these tough conversations about social issues? Ever think afterwards, why didn’t I say that? Well, here are six questions for your conversational toolkit.
Last week, at a gathering of strategists on some tough cultural issues, a very good point was made: Sometimes the right question at the right time is the best way to have a conversation with someone with whom you fundamentally disagree.
I couldn’t agree more, especially when the topic is something like same-sex marriage, religious freedom, or bathrooms at Target—when you know that to have an opinion counter to the new cultural orthodoxy is to be thought of as hateful or intolerant.
………………..
Here are six questions I’ve found extremely helpful to create the sort of dialogue we should desire about issues of faith and culture.

1. What do you mean by that? The battle of ideas is always the battle over the definition of words. Thus, it’s vital in any conversation to clarify the terms being used.
2. How do you know that is true? Too often, assertions are mistaken for arguments. There’s a vast difference between the two. An assertion is a definitive statement made about the nature of reality. An argument is presented to back up an assertion. By asking “how do you know that’s true?” you’ll move the conversation beyond two people merely asserting what they believe to why those assertions should be taken seriously.
3. Where did you get this information? Once arguments are offered, it’s important to ensure the arguments are valid. For example, news reports love to shout that same-sex parents are better parents than straight couples—a talking point that’s based on very limited studies, while other studies suggest the exact opposite.
4. How did you come to this conclusion? Behind the person you are talking with and his/her convictions, is a story, a personal story. If you know that story, it may make more sense why they don’t find your views plausible. Plus, it’ll help you remember the person you’re talking with is a real, image-of-God bearing person.
5. What if you’re wrong?
6. What if you’re right?

[read more]

Good questions not just for faith and culture but about any topic that deals with culture.

Origins of the Islamic State and How to Defeat the Group

From Rand.org (May 19):

Drawing from more than 140 recently declassified documents from the predecessors of the Islamic State, a new RAND Corporation study shows that the group has been operating for years with remarkable continuity in its philosophy, methods and goals, including the long-standing aspiration for creating a caliphate.

The documents show that the leadership consciously designed the organization not just to fight, but also to build a state governed by the laws dictated by its strict Islamist ideology.

“The lessons from examining the group's history are useful for setting expectations about the strengths and vulnerabilities of the Islamic State and its ability to combat its opponents,” said Patrick Johnston, the lead author of the report and a political scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “Understanding the origins of the Islamic State can help lead to a coordinated and effective campaign against it. It also can explain how the Islamic State may be able to survive such an effort and sustain itself in the future, albeit perhaps at a lower level of threat.”

……………….

The group paid its personnel low wages that would draw true believers rather than opportunists, trained and allocated its membership with an eye toward group effectiveness, raised revenues locally through diversified sources and was able to maintain itself, albeit at much reduced strength, in the face of an aggressive counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategy put in place by its opponents.

“Its own records show that the group was rational in its administration, adaptive in its actions, careful about spending and diversified in revenue raising,” said Howard J. Shatz, a co-author of the report and a senior economist at RAND. “This made it — and continues to make it — a formidable enemy.”

The RAND report recommends that any counter-personnel strategy should strive to eliminate layers of high-level and mid-level managers from the Islamic State. Capitalizing on any fissures within the group can speed its decline, as can degrading its revenues and therefore its ability to make payments.

…………………….

“Targeting the Islamic State's training camps and its flow of skilled terrorists returning to their home counties could be a new approach to reducing the group's ability to strike abroad, especially if it is combined with the current campaign to eliminate their revenue sources and bulk cash holdings,” said Benjamin Bahney, a co-author of the report and a RAND policy analyst.   [read more]

Interesting. So, the Islamic State’s thugs are like the mob? Sounds like it to me. The mob I believe was efficient too. Both are evil. The only difference is one was about money, the other is about ideology. The Rand Organization has several reasearch articles on the Islamic State.

PragerU.com has an informative video called What ISIS Wants. It also talks about how the Islamic thugs got their beginning and about their ideology.

7 Habits of Highly Effective Libertarians

From FEE.org:

What can be done to sustain the passion for liberty throughout a lifetime? Here are my [Jeffrey A. Tucker] suggestions for seven habits to foster a lifelong attachment to liberty and to live a life that makes the best possible contribution to human well-being.

1. Oppose oppression but love liberty even more.
   1. You realize that there is such a thing as a state that is distinct from society at large, a fact that massive swaths of the social sciences (not to mention mainstream media) try to cover up.
   2. There is the new awareness that the state is distinct from every other institution in society because it uses aggressive force to achieve its aims.
   3. The state actually does not achieve the aims it promises. Rather, it violates rights, undermines economic achievement, fosters dependency, and serves a ruling class rather than the public at large.
2. Read broadly and be confident in your ideas.
3. Look beyond politics.
4. See everyone as an ideological friend.
5. Don’t have all the answers.
6. Hack your life. Once you realize that we are living under a central plan for your life and property, you can start to get creative about finding alternatives. You can use technologies to find a new approach to education. You can find better paths toward personal success. You can better manage your finances without the personal debt encouraged by the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can hack your appliances in ways that make them operate better than the regulations allow.
7. Be joyful.

[read more]

Good advice even for conservatives.

A Question for Minimum Wage Advocates

An essay by Donald J. Boudreaux (May 27, 2015) from FEE.org:

I state, however, here and again my conclusion: Legislating minimum wages – that is, enacting a policy of caging people who insist on entering voluntarily into employment contracts on terms that political elites find objectionable – is no more attractive or justified or likely to succeed at helping low-skilled workers if the particular caging policy in question is enacted locally than if it is enacted nationally or globally.

In this short post, I ask a simple question of all advocates of minimum wages: If enforcement of minimum-wage policies were carried out in practice by policing low-skilled workers rather than employers – if these policies were enforced by police officers monitoring workers and fining those workers who agreed to work at hourly wages below the legislated minimum – would you still support minimum wages?

Would you be good with police officers arresting those workers who, preferring to remain employed at sub-minimum wages rather than risk losing their current jobs (or risking having do endure worsened employment conditions), refuse to abide by the wage terms dictated by the legislature?

Would you think it an acceptable price to pay for your minimum-wage policy that armed police officers confine in cages low-skilled workers whose only offense is their persistence at taking jobs at wages below those dictated by the government?

If a minimum-wage policy is both economically justified and morally acceptable, you should have no problem with this manner of enforcement. [read more]

Good questions. The Left would say “no we wouldn’t be enforce minimum-wage polices on the workers because they are the ones being taken advantage of by the employers. The employers have all the power. They are coercing the poor worker into working for low wages.” This animosity toward the employers is why the Left has no problem about salary ceilings toward businesses.

The problem is the Left never gets that if a person wants to work for a low-age or even no wage temporarily (like an apprentice situation—on-the-job training before you get an actual wage) that’s between him and his employer. Both are adults who can make a contract. But if a person wants to work voluntary without pay for a non-profit—that’s okay. Then again  non-profits aren’t evil to the Left like the profit-oriented businesses are. It’s the word “profit” that drives the Left crazy as if they aren’t already there.

‘Radical Islam’ Does Matter in Identifying Enemy, Experts Say

From The Daily Signal.com (June 16):

Using the phrase “radical Islam” to describe the Islamic State or other jihadist groups will not win the war, but is nonetheless relevant in identifying the ideology—not the religion—that America is fighting, experts said.

“I don’t believe the phrase “Islamist extremism” or “Islamist terrorism” is some sort of incantation that’s going to fix everything,” Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“In fact, I don’t even think it’s the most important thing in this whole issue set. What’s most important are the policies that we pursue and the action that we take to defeat it, whatever you want to call it. But it does matter because we—Muslims, as much as other Americans—are engaged in a war of ideas as well as a war on terrorism.”

……………….

Lohman, who last December hosted a forum, “Muslim Voices Against the Islamic State and Islamist Extremism,” said the point is to understand the ideology.

“Islamism is a political ideology and it has to be taken on,” Lohman continued in the email. “If we physically dissuade terrorists from hurting people, we still have to stop Islamists from coercing people into their way of thinking by other means. Actually identifying the ideology is key to that, and unfortunately, that ideology is cast in religious terms. It’s like a Muslim civil society leader in Indonesia told me one time talking about the much more serious threat in her own country, ‘What difference does it make whether they are terrorists or not. They (Islamists) all want the same thing.’”  [read more]

I agree with Lohman. To solve a problem, you have to first define what the problem is. Just like during WWII FDR had no problem using the term Nazi. Using the term didn’t mean all Germans were Nazis only those Germans fighting for Hitler. The Isamists thugs know who they are and the peaceful Muslims who don’t support them know who they are too.

Obama and the Left have no problem calling republicans extremists or automatically grouping mass shooters as “radical right extremists” if they believe they are not Muslim. Then again Muslims are a minority so they are protected from the Left’s classification.  Heck, during the Dem presidential primary debate the moderator asked Hillary, Sanders, and the other guy whose name escapes me, if Republicans were the enemy. Not, mind you, an adversary (like in a sport) but an enemy. All three said yes. Well, the Left think politics is war. So, I guess that makes sense in a sort of warped way.

Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’ — However, Congress ‘Deserves’ and ‘Needs’ to Be Protected by Them

From The Blaze.com (June 23):

Tuesday night, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) was speaking with a reporter from the Daily Caller about a recently exposed scandal involving some members of the NYPD selling access to concealed carry permits when he laughingly stated that his constituents “just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.”
When asked about the armed security protecting him and the rest of the members of Congress, he answered, “I think we deserve, need to be protected down here.” [read more]

I wonder if Hillary Clinton and Obama think the same way too? Of course. They believe as most of the Left believe they are special because they are the Elites. The peons or if you prefer “the masses” don’t need protection. Rangel is just being honest about his beliefs.

Side note: On this day in 2006 I posted my first entry.

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency

From The Daily Signal.com (May 23):

The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.

More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.

………………………

The consequences of this rampant rulemaking are widespread:

• Restricted access to credit under the hundreds of rules unleashed by the Dodd–Frank financial regulation statute.
• Fewer health care choices and higher medical costs from the Affordable Care Act.
• Reduced Internet investment and innovation under the network neutrality rules dictated by the Federal Communications Commission.

These are just a few of the 2,353 regulations of 2015—and there have been 20,642 since Obama took office in 2009.

………………………..

There are already more than 2,000 proposed or final rules in the pipeline—including 144 that are expected to cost $100 million a year or more. These include yet more energy-efficiency mandates for home and commercial appliances, additional food-labeling requirements, stricter fuel economy standards for vehicles, and more stringent limits on consumer access to credit.  [read more]

Wow! Over 20 thousand regulations! No wonder the economy is stalling. If the secretary of the status quo (Hillary Clinton) becomes POTUS she won’t stop those additional regulations. Talk about strangulating businesses.

What Will Happen if Hillary Clinton Becomes President

Below is what I think Hillary Clinton will do if she becomes president in no particular order:

1. Hillary Clinton will veto any bill that removes Obamacare. This is a given.
2. She will appoint a very left-wing person to the Supreme Court. Another given.
3. She will get us into another war. Dick Morris says this.
4. She will try to get an illegal immigrant amnesty bill passed. A given.
5. She will move the server with classified emails to her bedroom closet or somewhere else. Okay, this is a joke.
6. More terrorist attacks will occur because the evil crazy Islamists will sneak across the border. See 4.
7. Sanctuary cities will continue because she will veto any bill that contains anything stopping sanctuary cities.
8. Kate’s Law will be vetoed.
9. More illegal immigrant crimes will happen because of 4, 7, and 8.
10. Hillary Clinton will use her power as a president to go after her political “opponents” or people with “Never Hillary” bumper stickers. Or conservative talk show hosts who criticize Hillary. Or conservative bloggers who criticize her. Dick Morris. I added the “Never Hillary”,  the “talk show” part and the “blogger” part.
11. She will lie to the American people like she did to the mother of Sean Smith, the diplomat that died in Libya.
12. She will try to put even more restrictions on guns.  A given.
13. Saudi Arabia and other countries will call in favors from her because of all the money given to the corrupt Clinton Foundation.
14. Wall Street will will be rewarded from the donations it gave.
15. She will be blackmailed by China, Russia and any other countries that hacked her email and servers.
16. There is high chance that America will be bombed by Iran if she becomes president. Why? Because Iran being an Islamist state treats women as second class citizens. And a women in power makes America look even weaker to them and to the Islamic State thugs. After they bomb America Iran will bomb Israel because Israel is “little Satan.”
17. The republicans in Congress won’t stop Hillary’s agenda because they don’t want to appear disrepecting the first woman president. So, impeachment is off the table if she ignores the Constitution. Sad to say, another given.
18. More blood in the White House will spill from things thrown at Bill by Hillary.
19. Hillary kills Bill by poisioning him. The FBI director says she didn’t intend to kill Bill. She got arsenic mixed up with sugar. Okay, this is another joke.
20. The lame-stream-press will circle the wagons around the secretary of the status quo. A given.
21. Hillary will get a new broom because the old one is getting worn out from all the sweeping she does. What? If you are thinking anything else shame on you!
22. Hillary will implement a “fair share surcharge” on multi-millionaires and billionaires and fight for measures like the Buffett Rule to ensure the wealthiest Americans do not pay a lower tax rate than hardworking middle-class families. From her website.
23. She will charge an “exit tax” for companies leaving the U.S. to settle up on their untaxed foreign earnings. Again from her website.
24. Make debt free college available to all Americans. Her website. So, the colleges are not going to charge intuition and for books? Or is the federal gov’t going to pay off the debt for the students? So, the national debt goes up and up.
25. Overturn Citizens United. Her website. This is about freedom of speech not campaign finance reform. I agree with the Citizens United verdict. The McCain–Feingold Act is stupid anyway.
26. Impose a tax on high-frequency trading. From her web site. Now, that is funny! See 14. Now, Bernie Sanders would have done this.

This is not a complete list.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 39

• There's a reason why it's called groupthink and not teamthink-- coaches or good leaders acknowledges member's skills and knowledge to accomplish a goal.
• Superdelegates sends a signal to the voters that we don’t trust you to make the right decision.
• Government creates private sector jobs. Everytime new regulations come out or a new regulatary agency appears a business gets created to help make other businesses compliant with the new regulations.
• If the GOP is going to have open primaries they should only allow independents,  Conservative Party members, Constitution Party members, libertarians, etc. People who are conservative by nature. Yes, I know this isn’t purely open but close enough.
• You can’t change the status quo if you are part of the status quo because you benefit from the status quo. It takes someone completely outside the status quo to change it.
• A politician can be a conservative problem solver. When you hold positions of power you either believe gov’t is the answer to most problems or you put your trust in the people to solve their own problems.
• The only wars the Left wants to win are political ones.
• Hillary Clintons slogan is: Fighting for us. My question is who is the “us?” Wall Street? Women and minorities? Americans? Illegal aliens? Her and Bill? Kind of vague. It would be a better and personal if the slogan said “Fighting for you.”
• All lives matter. – God.
• Don’t anyone put a server with classified information in your bathroom. Only Hillary Clinton can do that.

New Study Shows Marijuana Can Alter DNA, Create Mutations

From News Max.com (May 24):

Smoking marijuana can change users' DNA — and the mutations are then passed on to their children, new research shows.

In the study published in the journal Mutation Research – Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis, researchers assert they've been able to show for the first time how marijuana can be linked to serious illnesses and the implications for future generations, the International Business Times in Australia reports.

"Through our research we found that cancers and illnesses were likely caused by cell mutations resulting from cannabis properties having a chemical interaction with a person's DNA," researcher Stuart Reece of the University of Western Australia said in a news release, the IBT Australia reports. [read more]

So, smoking marijana causes mutations? Hmmm. I wonder if this is how the zombie apocalypse gets started. Or maybe turning people into Abbies (human genetic abhorations) like in the TV series Wayward Pines.

In other marijana news:

• July 22: Colorado Town’s Water May Be Tainted With Marijuana Chemical.

Islamic State duped by ‘dark web’ mafia site offering murder, mayhem for Bitcoins

From The Washington Times.com (June 29):

The Islamic State terror group is steering followers to a “dark web” mafia site that offers murder and other mayhem for hire at a price of thousands of dollars in Bitcoins, the online currency.

The problem for the world’s most vicious terrorist army is that hackers in recent weeks have exposed the “Besa Mafia” destination as an elaborate fraud. It is likely run not by the real-life Besa Albania Mafia and its criminal networks in Europe and the United States, but by a guy living in Romania.

This means the Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS, is sending its followers on a money-wasting venture that is not likely to get anybody killed.

The Islamic State’s endorsement of the Besa Mafia site was discovered by the Middle East Media Research Institute. MEMRI, which monitors jihadi traffic, found Islamic State’s June 14 message on the channel Cyber Kahilafah, which is carried on the encrypted messaging app Telegram.

Telegram is its own story. Invented by an exiled Russian technocrat as a way for dissidents to escape the wrath of Vladimir Putin, Telegram has become the go-to platform for jihadis’ planning and commanding terrorist attacks, according to its detractors. [read more]

Serves the stupid camel-humping thugs right. Morons.

How Congress Mysteriously Became a ‘Small Business’ to Qualify for Obamacare Subsidies

From The Daily Signal.com (May 11):

It seems that federal officials have worked overtime to undermine public trust. Benghazi, the IRS abuses, the “fast and furious” gun-running fiasco, the solar power boondoggles, and the seemingly endless implementation problems of the Affordable Care Act—all these scandals have common themes: arrogant and abusive bureaucracy, double dealing, lame excuses, and legal hairsplitting.

The outrages listed above can be placed squarely at the doorstep of the White House. But one scandal is truly bipartisan: How key administration and congressional officials connived to create, under cover of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, special health insurance subsidies for members of Congress.

Here’s how it went down.

Rushing to enact the giant Obamacare bill in March 2010, Congress voted itself out of its own employer-sponsored health insurance coverage—the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) required members of Congress and staff to enroll in the new health insurance exchange system. But in pulling out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they also cut themselves off from their employer-based insurance contributions.

(It should be noted that, before final passage, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, offered an amendment that would have provided Federal Employees Health Benefits Program subsidies for congressional enrollees in Obamacare, but Senate Democrats defeated it on a procedural vote, 56-43.)

Obamacare’s insurance subsidies for ordinary Americans are generous, but capped by income. No one with an annual income over $47,080 gets a subsidy. That’s well below typical Capitol Hill salaries. Members of Congress make $174,000 annually, and many on their staff have impressive, upper-middle-class paychecks.

………………….

So, let’s follow the thickening plot:

1. Act One—Congress Has a Panic Attack. Realizing what they had done, congressional leaders sought desperately to get fatter taxpayer subsidies in the Obamacare exchange system. In a nutshell, they wanted special funding unavailable to other Americans. The standard excuse was that, without a special “sweetener,” a Capitol Hill “brain drain” would ensue; the best and brightest would flee to the private sector to get more affordable employment-based coverage.
2. Act Two—Congress Gets Taxpayers’ Money Without Appropriating It. Anticipating an attempted “end run” around the law, on Aug. 2, 2013, The Heritage Foundation published a detailed paper outlining the legislative history of the controversy. The analysis concluded that neither the Affordable Care Act nor Chapter 89 of Title V (the law governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) authorized the transfer of monies in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program trust fund for use in health plans outside of the program.
3. Act Three—Congress Magically Becomes a Small Business. In a second iteration of its rule-making, the Office of Personnel Management declared that Congress and staff were eligible to enroll in the Washington, D.C., “SHOP” Exchange, a health insurance exchange reserved for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The exchange offers special insurance subsidies to participating small businesses.
4. Act Four—Congressional Bureaucrats File False Paperwork. In filing to get the special insurance subsidies for enrolling lawmakers and their staff members in the D.C. “SHOP” Exchange, congressional officials claimed that the Senate and House each had only 45 employees. That false information allowed both chambers to meet the magic number requirement.

[read more]

The author goes on to say that Congress has options to rectify the scam (my term) the Congress perputuated on the taxpayers like admitting it’s not a small business. Then again this the age where a white woman can believe she’s black or a Native American. “Identity” is the rule. Reality doesn’t count anymore. Down the rabbit hole we go.

The moral of this story is The Ruling Class has their own laws that nobody else has. Power does corrupt. Congress thinks they are special. I am thinking it is more and more the social system of Congress that needs to be changed. If you are elected to Congress and are a good person but aren’t a strong person you will be corrupted or you will be called an “outsider” or a “trouble-maker” if you don’t conform.

The Contested Convention of 1924

If you think the 2016 GOP primary was nuts, then you probably haven’t heard about the Democratic convention in 1924. It has been called the wildest convention in history — and with good reason. It’s also been called the Klanbake. In 1924, the clan heavily influenced the Democratic party.

Former Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, a renowned racist himself, had reignited interest in the Klan in 1915 when he hosted and attended a special screening at the White House of Birth of a Nation, a movie where the Klan are the heroes and blacks are the villains. It’s based on a novel written by Wilson’s friend, Thomas Dixon which was based on a history book written by Wilson himself.

One of the front runners of the Democratic nomination was Wilson’s former cabinet member, William G. McAdoo, who was supported by the Klan. So prevalent was the KKK within the party that there were no black delegates at all at the convention. The other front runner at this hotly contested convention was New York governor Al Smith, who opposed the Klan.

It was a raucous convention, described by silent movie star Diana Serra Cary as filled with “rough people who were drunk and disorderly.”

As the convention wore on, it became so contentious that the violence broke out when the delegates from Missouri and Colorado attacked each other. Police had to restore order and quell the rioting multiple times.

Source: The Contested Convention Part II: 1924 (Democrats).

The Dems in the convention had a vote to condemn the KKK. The vote failed 546 to 542. Well, I guess it was a close vote. There were two other contested conventions which I didn’t write about.

Al Qaeda urges lone wolves to target whites, to avoid 'hate crime' label

From Fox News.com (June 27):

Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.

In an article first reported by The Foreign Desk, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) called for more self-directed Muslim terrorists to kill in America. But the article, titled “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” tells terrorists to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found” because if gays or Latinos appear to be the targets, “the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility.” [read more]

Wait a second. How would the Islamic slime balls know if the target is homosexual or not just by looks? If the cowardice thugs is just murdering white people then the thugs might end up murdering a minority anyway because homosexuals are white people too. And avoiding gay bars is not a solution either because the homosexuals shop in stores, go to games, etc. Are the Islamic pig-fornicators going to ask a white person if he/she is gay before deciding in killing the person? Also, a light-skinned black may look like a white person.

This is what happens when authorities don’t define the problem correctly.

For those in the drive-by-media it is possible for a terrorist to have personal reasons and be a crazy Jihadist. You can murder a group of people for personal and religous reasons. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If anything they could reinforce one another.

Seven Ways School Has Imprisoned Your Mind

From the FEE.org:

The impediments to our freedom are not limited to the guns, handcuffs, and prison cells that threaten us with violence if we disobey the powers that be. We are also burdened with spiritual chains. These bonds are the self-limiting habits of mind and false presumptions that weigh us down throughout life. They were fastened on our minds through compulsory schooling: by the state monopolizing most of our waking hours throughout our most formative years. The mindset installed by schooling makes things much easier for the government, which can rely on us to largely police ourselves. We have virtually been deputized as our own spiritual prison wardens.

So the first step to self-emancipation is what Zak Slayback, author of The End of School, calls “deschooling.” But this involves not just unlearning disinformation, but unlearning attitudes. Even if you have already shaken off the indoctrination, you may still be burdened with the conditioning you were subjected to at school. And that may be holding you back in your career and your life in general.

The good news is that these mental shackles can be unlocked, once you are aware of them. And doing so requires no political campaigning or confrontation with the authorities. This liberation is yours for the taking.

Here are seven horizon-limiting mindsets that almost everybody has picked up from their schooling to some extent.

1. The Conveyor Belt Mindset. “The conveyor belt does all the work. You just have to sit still and get moved to the next station. Everyone moves in the same direction. Everyone makes progress at the same pace, based on external factors like age.”
2. The Permission Mindset. “Raise your hand and wait to be called upon. Get in single file lines. Even your basic biological needs cannot be met without permission. You get a hall pass to go to the bathroom. You eat only when scheduled.”
3. The Student Mindset. “You are a student. Your task is to memorize what teachers tell you. This phase in life is for absorbing information through books and lectures. You study. You cannot try things in the real world until you theorize about them for a few decades.” “The student is not a practitioner. The student can’t put ideas into motion until passing a test. Everything is pass/fail, not open exploration and experimentation. Everything has a grade. Students don’t play. They don’t work. They study.”
4. The Teacher Mindset. “You’ve graduated from studenthood. Your job is to have the answers and provide the structure. You must know everything and be the expert. Everyone’s fate is in your hands. You must train them to do what they couldn’t if left alone. You must grade them. They either pass or fail.”
5. The Worker Mindset. “Work is for survival. It sucks. You must be coaxed into doing it. You studied to be able to work and now you work to be able to live. You do exactly what the boss wants you to do and no more. You get a specific job with a specific title and that defines not only your activities but your personality.”
6. The Recess Mindset. “Play is an escape. It’s irresponsible in excess. It must be limited. If you study and work hard enough you can earn some tiny shred of play.”
7. The Major Mindset. “What do you want to be?”  “What’s your major?” “Your interests must be career-ified and tracked. Everything must be given a title and every action must be a step in a clear path to that one thing that will define you.”

[read more]

Interesting article. Like the authors say: You are not a student. You’re a lifelong learner.

 

 

 

The Contested Convention of 1860

The year was 1860. It was the GOP’s second nominating convention — and also its first contested election. The fledgling anti-slavery party — the Republican Party — had lost its first general election in 1856, but gained a lot of sympathy and momentum. And it believed their nominee, this time, would go on to win the presidency.

The Republican Party is a big tent fusion party. It is not the GOP, the Grand Old Party. It is the BNP, the brand-new party. And the problem with the brand-new party is that its elements, its makeup were people that were politically opposed to each other just a few years before. The Republican Party consisted of old Democrats and old Whigs and old free-soilers and old American and know-nothing elements. These were people that are politically opposed to each other, and they still hated each other.

The only thing they agreed on was the main principle of the Republican Party — not to extend slavery into the territorial region of the United States, what will eventually become the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, of course, and part of Colorado and Utah, which was a real threat when Stephen A. Douglas passed the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854.

……………

Heading into the convention, the presumptive favorite was a very confident senator William Seward who brought 19 train cars full of supporters with him to Chicago. Lincoln, however, used his home state advantage well. His supporters went to work, printing up counterfeit tickets they handed out to those friendly to their cause, loading the convention with supporters and causing many of Seward’s supporters to stand outside the convention. For those who did make it inside, Lincoln’s people maneuvered them into an area where they would be isolated from those who might sway their opinion.

Source: Contested Convention Part I: 1860 (Republicans)

7 Ways US Can Prevent Another Orlando Attack

From The Daily Signal.com (June 17):

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the Obama administration has been quick to blame gun control laws. This is because the administration refuses to admit its policies to defeat the Islamic State have failed.

Islamist terror attacks within the U.S. have dramatically increased within the past year—with Orlando being the 22nd instance of Islamist terrorism in the U.S. since 2015. This is out of 86 plots since 2001.

Gun control will not stop this rise in Islamist terror attacks, and the president is wrong to suggest so. To stop these attacks and defeat radical Islamism, the U.S. needs to defend the U.S. homeland and combat terrorism abroad.

We must maintain essential counterterrorism tools to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies find and stop terrorists before they attack.

Here are seven policies that will help prevent another Orlando:

1. Combat Terrorism Abroad and Deny ISIS Territorial Gains. Rolling back—and defeating—ISIS requires a global approach in which the U.S. leads a multipronged, multination effort that seeks to deny ISIS the ability to hold territory. This will disrupt its recruitment of foreign fighters, and will counter its destructive ideology.
2. Shut Down the Foreign Fighter Pipeline. In order to defeat terrorism abroad, the U.S. must lead an international effort to deny ISIS territorial gains and shut down the foreign fighter pipeline. While military victory would undermine ISIS’ legitimacy, the U.S. must also improve intelligence capabilities to identify potential recruits and preempt Islamist violence.
3. Ensure That the FBI Regularly Shares Information. The FBI must share information with state and local law enforcement—treating state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism.
4. Expand Active Shooter Threat Training Across the Country.
5. Community Outreach Remains a Vital Tool.
6. Maintain Essential Counterterrorism Tools.
7. Counter Islamist Ideology.

[read more]

Good ideas although the last way might be trickier to do. First Obama has to name the problem: Islamic radical terrorism. Or if you prefer militant Jihadism or something along the same lines. Glenn Beck thinks calling them “radicals” is a mysnomer. He says the radicals are the ones in the Middle East (and in Ameria) that are trying to reform the religion. He has a point. America should support the reformers. The ones causing all the violence are the devout fundamentalists—not the moderates and traditionalists. Mr. Beck confuses the tradional Muslims (the Sufi) with the fundamentalists (ISIS and Al Queda). The Sufi are persecuted too. Anyway, Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate willingly naming the problem. Hillary Clinton had to be shamed into it.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 38

• Never vote on emotion alone especially anger. Politicians know how to exploit emotions. Vote with logic and facts about the candidates like his/her character, positions on the issues, his/her belief system/principles. Vote instead who will do best for the country and respects the Constitution.
• Don’t vote on just a single issue like illegal immigration. Other issues are important too like the debt and the economy.
• The way to convert an atheist to a Christian is to first convert him or her to an agnostic. Might be hard to do.
• Astronaut Buzz Aldrin wants America to go to Mars. I sometimes think the Left is already there.
• What the Left calls inequality, the Right calls individual differences. The Left sees people in one-dimension only.
• The survival of the country is more important than the survival any political party. Political parties come and go. But there is only one America. Once America is gone, she might not come back again. And there probably won’t be political parties anymore if that happens.
• I think psychic mediums should do their best to get spirits to cross over especially if the spirit is seeing a portal to heaven.
• Too much federal regulations decreases the caveat emptor instinct.
• If a person running for office acts like a politician (eg using polls to base his stance on issues) then by all means he/she is a politician. Doesn’t matter if was never in office before. It’s a mindset.
• My Supreme Court litmus test: A judge must be a strict constructionalist who believes in negative rights only.

Startup Promotes Chatting With the Dead

From NewsMax.com (June 22):

Your body can't go on forever, but your memories and personality can – at least in digital form, stored in a library of "people instead of books," a new startup promises.

The Silicon Valley company, Eternime, aims to feed the digital data into "chatbots" that let you speak from the grave.

"Become virtually immortal," the website beckons. "Eternime collects your thoughts, stories and memories, curates them and creates an intelligent avatar that looks like you. This avatar will live forever and allow other people in the future to access your memories."

An illustration shows a bearded man's head smiling from a computer screen. [read more]

Interesting and yet kind of creepy. It’s too bad the company doesn’t show a demo on their website. Not that I’m interested but to any prospective consumer who would like to get an idea of their product. I am guessing that since this is a chatbot it doesn’t use the deceased’s voice during the conversation—which would be a nice feature. Also, since chatbot shows the deceased’s head, does the head move when the person talks? Another nice feature if not already implemented.

What would really be creepy is if this chatbot was part of the deceased’s headstone. Then any relative or anyone else for that matter could talk with the person. You never know. Maybe someone would like to talk to the famous. Possibly motion activated (which could scare some people especially at night) or just touch screen activated. In the future, a hologram of the person could be projected from the tombstone and talk to you when you touch the screen. On second thought, maybe that adds too much to the creepy factor.

Happy Birthday, America!

Ronald Reagan on America

The true meaning of America, you ask? It's in a Texas rodeo, in a policeman's badge, in the sound of laughing children, in a political rally, in a newspaper... In all these things, and many more, you'll find America. In all these things, you'll find freedom. And freedom is what America means to the world. And to me.  -- Audie Murphy

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. – Calvin Coolidge

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. – Thomas Paine

The five habits of liberty that have been crucial to sustaining American Exceptionalism:

1. faith and family
2. work
3. civil society
4. rule of law
5. safety and peace

Ten thing you can do to help America's future be as exceptional as its past:

1. Learn about American history, exceptional Americans, and America's founding principles.
2. Speak out. Once you feel confident in your knowledge, start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question governmental authority at every turn.
4. Teach the children around you.
5. Insist on schools that teach responsibility and the fundamentals of American citizenship.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges.
7. Reestablish the work ethic.
8. Celebrate American holidays: Memorial Day; Veterans Day; the Fourth of July; Thanksgiving.
9. Volunteer in your community.
10. Run for office. Your country needs you.

Source: A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters (2011) by Newt Gingrich.

The Declaration of Independence is the soul of the nation.

Some patriotic links:

• Signers of the Declaration of Independence (video)
• American Exceptionalism by James Q. Wilson
• Three Reasons America Is Exceptional by Jill Burcham
• Why is America Exceptional? by Matthew Spaulding, Ph.D.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Paraphrase

Here is my paraphrase of the Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech that Founding Father Patrick Henry gave:

Mr. President:

I don’t think the less of freedom anymore than the next man does, or even you. If what I say offends any of you, I’m sorry, and I apologize, but nonetheless it is of a matter of importance, not to me alone, but to everyone. The question before the house is a matter of freedom or slavery. So if I keep my opinions back because of giving offense I would divert the truth which is like lying to myself to the country, and the Almighty One. It is common for man to believe in hope, to shut his eyes against pain, but the pain doesn’t go away. No! It doesn’t! I don’t believe in this and I will try my best to know the whole truth and to provide for it. Experience is my guiding light to see through the trouble. I myself don’t believe the British will help us, you can see that from the past. We shall decieve ouselves no more. By deceiving ourselves we would then comply to British accusations that we are weak and they are strong. We have tried peaceful tactics, did everything we could but to no avail. The war will come, and let it come! I repeat let it come! We shall use the weapons we know and not surrender. We are already in slavery, but no more if we have this war. Peace will not come for those who cry out, but only to those who fight for it. I cannot speak for everybody, but as for myself, let me be free or kill me!

I wrote this I believe when I was in grade school. I got a 29/30 score. The errors on the original essay were corrected here.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers Notes

Myths of the Founding Fathers:

• The Founding generation created a democracy.
• The Founding Fathers really believed everyone was equal.
• Slavery was a sin of the Southern founders. Slavery was not a purely regional sin, largely because it was northern ships that conducted the slave trade.
• Paul Revere single-handedly warned the Boston countryside of the impending British invasion. Revere arrived in Lexington first and met with Hancock and Adams. [William] Dawes arrived thirty minutes later, joined by Samuel Prescott, they rode on to warn the people of Concord of the impending attack. But before they reached the town, British sentries stopped them at a roadblock. Revere was arrested, but Dawes and Prescott escaped. Dawes, however, fell off his horse and was injured, leaving Prescott to alert the Minutemen of Concord on his own.
• Benjamin Franklin had thirteen to eighty illegitmate children!
• Thomas Jefferson kept a concubine slave and fathered children with her! In 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society…released a report that directly contradicted [this myth]. In the summary of their findings, the scholars stated,”With the exception of one member…our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that is almost certainly false.” The scholars pointed to Jefferson’s brother, often called “Uncle Randolph,” as the probable father of Heming’s children. Randolph Jefferson was reported to have a social relationship with the Monticello slaves and had possibly fathered other children through his own servants.
• Washington had an affair with his neighbor’s wife! This myth has been a rumor since the publication of a suspect letter in the New York Harold in 1877. The contents of the letter seemed to indicate that Washington and Sally Fairfax…had a passionate, romantic interest in one another. No evidence of an affair exists. Washington’s primary biographer, Douglass Southall Freeman, wrote that such an affair would surely been the subject of considerable gossip in Virginia’s elite circles. Freeman believed Washington loved Sally Fairfax, but she did not return the admiration. While those letters have been cited on numerous occasions since John C. Fitzpatrick, who worked at the Library of Congress and had an enormous interest in Washington, included the letters in his thirty-seven volume series of Washington’s writings and correspondance (published between 1931 and 1944), their authenticity has always been in question.
• Alexander Hamilton had a gay lover! The myth of Hamilton’s homosexual past centers on his relationship with John Laurens of South Carolina. Both men served under George Washington during the American Revolution. Laurens and Hamilton developed a close relationship. Hamilton told Laurens that he loved him, and Laurens referred to Hamilton as “My Dear.” They were both young, involved in a dire situation, and had idealistic notions about life and society. They were kindred spirits, but no hint of a sexual relationship exists.
• John Hancock signed the Declaration of Indepedence in a big, bold hand so the king could read it without his glasses. Hancock signed it first and largest because he was the president of the Congress.

What the Founding Fathers would do*:

1. Follow the Constitution.
2. Cut federal spending and reduce the public debt.
3. Eliminate taxes and rein-in or abolish the Federal Reserve system.
4. Reduce the size of the military, and end foreign alliances and foreign wars.
5. Limit immigration.
6. Reassert state control over state issues.
7. Preserve the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The President is bound to stop at the limits prescribed by our Constitution and law to the authorities in his hands, [and this] would apply in an occasion of peace as well as war.

John Adams quotes:

I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from the thirteen sovereign States…nor indeed, in any moment of my life, did I ever approve of a consolidated government, or would I have given my vote for it. A consolidated government under a monarchy, an aristocracy, or democracy, or a mixture of either, would have flown to pieces like a glass bubble under the first blow of a hammer on an anvil.

Take Care that they [children] don’t go astray. Cultivate their Minds, inspire their little Hearts, raise their Wishes. Fix their Attention upon great and glorious Objects, root out every little Thing, weed out every Meanness, make them great and manly. Teach them to scorn Injustice, Ingratitude, Cowardice, and Falsehood. Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty.

Facts are stubborn things: and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. – at the Boston Massacre Trial, 1770.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. – Samuel Adams, 1772.

Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have power, that they each may defend itself against one another.  - Alexander Hamilton, 1787.

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency: but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. – Benjamin Franklin, 1789.

A nation oppresed by taxes, can never be generous, benevolent or enlightened. – John Taylor of Caroline, 1814.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render troops in a great measure unnecessary. – Richard Henry Lee, 1788.

Source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (2009) by Brion McClanahan, Ph. D.

 

*This is why the Left loathes the Founders.

How Donald Trump Can Politically Attack Hillary Clinton

From Dick Morris.com (June 24):

• Go after each of the Clinton Foundation/speaking fees that the Clintons have received and link them to actions by Hillary's State Department.
• Make clear that Hillary failed her test as Commander-in-Chief by her ineptitude and deceit on Benghazi.
• Attack how Hillary exposed our national secrets to foreign hacking just to conceal her e mails form the American media.
• Revisit her theft of gifts to the White House and discuss how she had to return so many of them.
• Go after her for insider trading in cattle futures.
• Expose her legal work on an illegal land deal in Arkansas and how she hid the billing records and lied to a grand jury (Castle Grande or AIDC land deal).
• Discuss how she had detectives blackmail and intimidate all of the women with whom Bill was involved.

Source: “How Trump Can Get His Groove Back” by Dick Morris.

All this is fair game. She is going after him personally so at least he can go after her with the above. He needs to get more specific which is has sort of done already.

Should Bad People Be Allowed to Save Lives?

From FEE.org:

Many  people believe for-profit kidney sales are wrong because they think people who save lives ought not be motivated by self-interest.*

There are lots of problems with this thought. Does it imply that competent and skilled surgeons (firefighters, nurses, police officers, EMTs, etc.) who are just in it for the money, or who are significantly motivated by personal gain, ought not take the job?

Suppose Helen is a sociopath who doesn’t care about others. She would all things equal prefer to be a fighter pilot, because that’s the job she most intrinsically enjoys. She thinks the life of a surgeon sucks. But suppose she would be an excellent surgeon. She decides to become a surgeon just because it pays better. As a result, she saves many lives. By hypothesis, Helen has bad character, but it seems weird to say that she’s done anything wrong, or that she should not become a surgeon for the money.

Consider a variation of Singer’s drowning child thought experiment:

Three toddlers are drowning in three different pools.

In the first case, a person says, “I value the toddler’s life for its own sake, and I am willing to save the child without getting a reward.”

In the second case, a person says, “I am willing to save the child only if I make a small profit. $10 will do it.”

In the third case, a person says, “I am not willing to save the child myself — I can’t be bothered to do so, because I don’t care enough about other people. However, I think the idea of saving a child for profit is evil. So, in addition to not saving the child myself, I’m also going to make sure that person 2 doesn’t save the child for $10 either.”

The first person is the most noble. The second person isn’t noble, but at least he’s willing to help people for money. The third person, it seems to me [the author, John Brennan], is vile and rotten. He uses moral language, but he is himself a morally contemptible figure. He refuses to help a child himself, and also, at the same time, stops less than fully virtuous people like person 2 from saving children.

Many opponents of kidney sales strike me as being like person three. I’ve given the Markets without Limits talk in front of about 3,000 total people at this point. I’ve always ask if anyone has voluntarily given another person a kidney. So far, no one has, even though it’s reasonable to estimate that at least 2,700 of the audience members I’ve encountered were healthy enough to do so, with little to no long-term health costs. So, one thing I know about the audience members I’ve encountered (including those at left-wing places like Boulder or Hanover†) is that they don’t care enough about strangers to save their lives by donating a kidney.

* One of the first things you learn in moral theory is that the moral status of an action and of the motivation behind that action can come apart. A person can do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason. For instance, suppose I rescue a drowning toddler, but only because I mistakenly believe the toddler is the next Hitler. My motives are bad, but my action was still right. Or, suppose a parent gives her autistic child a bleach enema because she falsely believes that will cure the disease. Here, her motives might be good, but her action is wrong.

† I always ask people if they would be willing to sell a kidney for various amounts of money. Two trends I’ve noticed: Young people seem more willing to sell than middle-aged people at any given price. That’s not surprising. The other: people at very left-wing universities are far less willing to sell than people at more moderate universities (or, to be precise, less willing to admit they are willing to sell). [read more]

The author has a point. And not just for kidney markets but for any organ a person wants to sell to help another person. I really don’t see a problem with a person selling an organ with a doctor’s advice and supervision. Whether you sell it or donate it the body part or piece of it, the result is the same—the body part is gone. So, why not sell it? Maybe the problem is knowing the monetary worth of the organ. An organ specialist could help in this situation. Which why it is a good idea not to remove the organ until you get a price you think is fair.

The person in the third case could be a pro-choice person who think aborting a fetus which has its own DNA is okay but selling an organ isn’t. An organ belongs to a person—a fetus doesn’t. Then again under socialized medicine selling organs would be a mute point because it is the State that owns your body not you. So, you would have to get its permission to sell or even to donate an organ.

The FCC and Netflix

From FEE.org (May 11):

In the Golden Age of Television, video consumers don’t have much to complain about. We have cable, satellite, and telco providers; Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon; smart TVs, Chromecasts, and tablets.

There have never been more devices, more content, and more ways to watch. So what problem is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) trying to solve by meddling in this market?

The purpose of regulation, at least in theory, is to protect consumers from marketplace harms. And while robust competition is usually the best antidote, government can fill the gaps by regulating in a smart, neutral way — e.g. rooting out fraud, preserving clean water, etc.

………………………

So what does that look like in the Golden Age of Television? Too many remotes. The FCC thinks you have too many remotes, and that government intervention is the solution.

Having one remote for Xfinity but a different one for Netflix? What a nightmare! Having to rent a set-top box from your cable company to watch TV? FCC to the rescue.

……………………………..

It’s often said that technology regulation inevitably fights the last battle. By the time the dust settles from years of litigation, the market has already solved or mooted the problem. In this case, we don’t even have to wait. The market has already crashed the FCC’s party.

Despite that, the Commission is moving ahead with plans to “open up” the set-top box by forcing multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) — think cable, satellite, and telephone companies — to allow other companies like Google and Amazon to reconfigure and carry their signals in third-party apps and set-top boxes. Currently, MVPD subscribers can access their content only through a rented set-top box or the MVPD’s app. [read more]

Yea, what the FCC is doing is stupid. Then again it is a gov’t agency filled with bureaucrats that think they are smarter than the free market.

Pro-Gun Control Dem Senator Stuns With Claim on What’s Really ‘Killing Us Right Now’

From The Blaze.com (June 16):

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Thursday called for new control measures to prevent potential terrorist suspects from buying guns. The big problem right now, according to the Democrat, is “due process.”

Manchin said the FBI did “everything they were supposed to do” in its two investigations into Orlando gunman Omar Mateen. Neither investigation returned actionable evidence and Mateen went on to kill 49 people and injure over 50 others at a gay nightclub in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. [read more]

Really? “Due process” is the big problem? Not Islamic extremism? Well, you can add that right to the growing list of rights the Left doesn’t like.

They don’t like freedom of speech if it contradicts what the Left believes like global warming. Freedom of religion they don’t like if it includes Christianity. And you have to make cakes for gay couples getting married if you own a Christian bakery—clear violation of freedom of assembly. The Left doesn’t like guns because they are “weapons of wars” as said by Hillary Clinton. That’s the new catch phrase. Watch it being used more.

If the FBI weren’t restricted in their law enforcement by political correctness there’s is a big chance that the Orlando act of terrorism wouldn’t have happened. And calling the people who were suspicious of the terrorist racist doesn’t help anything. It could actually hurt—people could stop reporting suspicious behavior if the person is Muslim.

In 2006 Hillary Clinton Agreed With Trump About Illegals

From The Blaze.com (June 9):

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly criticized Donald Trump for saying that he wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but a 2006 video by then-Sen. Clinton seems to suggest she agreed with Trump at one time.

“The Mexican government’s policies are pushing migration north,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., 10 years ago. “There isn’t any sensible approach, besides what we need to do simultaneously: secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers, if necessary, in some places.”

The proposal seems to contradict Clinton’s oft-repeated 2016 campaign statement that the U.S. shouldn’t be building walls, but bridges. Clinton has also gone after Trump’s proposal to deport illegal immigrants out of the U.S., but in the same 2006 speech, Clinton said she was open to deporting those who have committed crimes.  [source]

So, back then she was for the wall and even deportation? Hmmm. Her supporters would say she evolved since then or something stupid like that. The only thing I can say is will the real Hillary Clinton stand up.

Russia Held Successful Flight Test for Anti-Satellite Missile

From News Max.com (May 27):

Russia held a successful flight test of an anti-satellite missile that has the capability of shooting down orbiting satellites, according to American defense officials.

The Washington Free Beacon U.S. intelligence satellites monitored the successful launch from a test site 500 miles north of Moscow.
The Nudol direct-ascent anti-satellite missile was also successfully tested in November 2015, the Free Beacon said.

The missile indicated a Russian interest in increasing its capabilities in outer space, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. David J. Buck, who explained at a House of Representatives hearing in March that "Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitative vulnerability."

Former Pentagon official Mark Schneider said that military leaders regard such missiles as a serious threat. In the Free Beacon report, Schneider mentioned that, "The loss of GPS guidance due to attack would take out a substantial part of our precision weapons' deliverance capability and essentially all of our standoff capability."

Russian military analyst Pavel Podvig explained that it's possible Russia does not have a plan for the anti-satellite missile in place. "I wouldn't be surprised if the system is being developed just because it can be developed." [read more]

That doesn’t sound good. Can’t trust Putin.

New ISIS 'kill' list 'targets thousands of Americans'

From Vocativ.com (June 8):

(VOCATIV) — A pro-ISIS “hacking” group calling itself the United Cyber Caliphate distributed its latest “kill” list this week. The group claims the list includes names, addresses, and email addresses belonging to 8,318 people, making it one of the longest target lists ISIS-affiliated groups have distributed.

In a post Vocativ uncovered on the messaging app Telegram that was written in both English and Arabic, the United Cyber Caliphate called on its supporters to “follow” those listed and “kill them strongly to take revenge for Muslims.”

Most of the names and the accompanying addresses listed appear to belong to people in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Out of 7,848 people identified as being in the U.S. alone, 1,445 were listed as having addresses in California, 643 in Florida, 341 in Washington, 333 in Texas, 331 in Illinois, and 290 in New York. Another 312 names and addresses allegedly belong to people in Canada, while 69 allegedly belong to people in Australia. Another 39 are affiliated with the U.K. and the rest are listed with addresses in Belgium, Brazil, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago. [read more]

ISIS really has to be stopped. I wonder how many of those on the hit list are military.

H/T: WND.com.

Setting Priorities for Welfare Reform

From The Daily Signal:

Although the welfare reform of the 1990s was popular and initially successful, it was actually quite limited. Of 80 welfare programs, only the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was reformed, and even in TANF, the vigor of reform has nearly disappeared. Welfare reform should be rejuvenated and expanded by making the following changes.

1. Set the proper goals for welfare. The goal of welfare should not be to reduce poverty through an ever-larger welfare state. Rather, the goals should be to increase self-sufficiency (having an income above poverty level without relying on government welfare aid); enhance productive participation in society; and improve personal well-being and upward mobility.
2. Clearly enumerate the total cost of the means-tested welfare in the Congressional Budget Resolution and set annual spending caps on total welfare spending.
3. Measure poverty, income, living standards, and inequality correctly.
4. Require able-bodied non-elderly adults receiving welfare benefits to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job under supervision as a condition for receiving aid.
5. Promote healthy marriage in low-income communities.
6. Reject the ineffective pseudo-federalism of welfare block grants and begin to implement real federalism by transferring fiscal responsibility for low-income housing from the federal government to the states.
7. Reform the earned income tax credit. Fraud can be greatly reduced by requiring income verification before payments are made and limiting eligibility to custodial parents and legal guardians.
8. Reduce welfare fraud.Work requirements such as those recommended in this paper substantially reduce welfare fraud because requiring a recipient to be in the welfare office periodically interferes with holding a hidden or unreported job. Recipients cannot be two places at once. Faced with a work requirement, many recipients with hidden jobs simply leave the rolls.
9. Reform social service and training programs by funding them on a pay-for-outcome basis.
10. Create greater employment opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals in low-income neighborhoods.

[read more]

Makes perfect sense to me.

The Nature of Social Sciences

I had a cultural anthropology professor once said during the course that because of the nature of the science a scientist had to be or try to be honest. Objectivity cannot be obtained because you are interacting with people and they could influence you and you them.

Thinking back on what he said I believe that’s a noble goal. That goal should be applied to all social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology, etc.) because they all deal with the study of people hence the word “social.” Actually, it could really be applied to all sciences for that matter especially in matters of ambiguity. If a scientist is puzzled about a particular phenonomena he/she should say so. He should say he has no clear answer but does have theories or beliefs about it (if he does have one)—not facts if there are no facts. This is the least he can do.

Hillary To Her Voters: Stay Home, I’ve Already Won

From The Hillary Daily.com (May 23):

In one of the dumbest things any candidate for any office has ever said, Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that the primaries are basically over. “I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.”

Other than soothing her own anxieties by anticipating victory, her statement is nothing but counterproductive.

It tells her own voters not to bother to turn out and vote. She has, after all, already won she says.

It says to voters in California, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey and Montana that their role in the nominating process has been eclipsed: Hillary has won. [read more]

Wow, what nerve. Then again when the fix is in I guess she can say that unless of course she gets indicted then who knows who will be nominated at the convention. Possibly Joe Biden.

Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage

From FEE.org:

That didn’t take long.

It was only days after Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination that the mask (such as it was) came off. Suddenly he was telling multiple interviewers that he could be talked into raising taxes, boosting the minimum wage, and printing enough money to pay the national debt in cheap dollars.

"On my plan [taxes are] going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Trump said. “In my opinion, the taxes for the rich will go up somewhat." (After the outcry, he claimed he meant up from his proposed cuts.)

As for the minimum wage, he talks like Obama, completely uninterested in market forces, as if what people are paid is purely at the discretion of political managers: “I think people have to get more… I don't know how you live on $7.25 an hour.”

Oh, but he says he would leave it to the states to decide the height of the wage floor, which raises the question of why he is talking about it at all, since that can presumably happen now. The Department of Labor he would head as president possesses plenty of power to strongly nudge states however it wants. If Trump favors a higher wage floor, he is going to get it.

And, incidentally, such a higher floor could be an crucial part of an anti-immigration policy as well. If low-wage jobs become illegal, immigrants have no reason to cross the border at all. The eugenicists who passed the 1920s immigration laws understood this well.  [read more]

When you increase the minimum wage that hurts entry workers—teenagers. The wage should be negotiated between the employer and employee. Gov’t should keep out of it. Then again if big gov’t thinks the employers are the oppressors then a minimum wage makes sense (so do unions for that matter). I am not saying that employers are perfect but like everyone else they are human. Like teachers, labor union leaders, college professors, etc.

Here’s a question: What if the employee wants to give the job a try? Or wants on-the-job training like an apprenticeship? A minimum wage would prevent this from happening. When a business (especially a small business) hires someone its always taking a risk. Will this person be a hard worker? Show up on time? Will he/she fit into the business climate? That’s why some small family-owned business hire only family members—there is hardly any risk. They know who they are hiring.

FEE.org also has another article called “How Minimum Wages Discourage Entrepreneurship” which explains how the minimage wage law affects business and its employees in other negative ways. And it has an article called “Five Facts about Minimum Wages.”