Monday, July 04, 2016

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:

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

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.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

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.

Monday, June 27, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

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.

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

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.

Monday, June 20, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

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.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

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.

Monday, June 13, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

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.

Tuesday, June 07, 2016

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.

Monday, June 06, 2016

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.

Wednesday, June 01, 2016

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.”

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

10 Questions about Conscious Machines

A FEE.org article by Max Borders:

In the past year or so, there have been a lot of films about artificial intelligence: Her, Chappie, and now there’s Ex Machina.

These films are good for us.

They stretch our thinking. They prompt us to ask serious questions about the possibility and prospects of conscious machines — the answers to which may be needed if we must someday co-exist with newly-sentient beings. Some of them may sound far out, but they force us to think critically about some important principles for the coming age of AI.

Ten come to mind.

  1. Can conscious awareness arise from causal-physical stuff — like that assembled (or grown) in a laboratory — to make a sentient being?
  2. If such beings become conscious, aware, and have volition, does that mean they could experience pain, pleasure, and emotion too?
  3. If these beings have human-like emotions, as well as volition, does that mean they are owed humane and ethical treatment?
  4. If these beings ought to be treated humanely and ethically, does that also confer certain rights upon them — and are they equal to the rights that humans have come to expect from each other? Does the comparison even make sense?
  5. If these beings have rights, is it wrong to program them for the specific task of serving us? What if they derive pleasure from serving us, or are programmed to do so?
  6. If these beings have rights by virtue of their consciousness and volition, does that offer the philosophical basis of rights in general?
  7. If these beings do not have rights people need respect, could anything at all grant rights to them?
  8. If these beings have nothing that grants them ethical treatment or rights, what makes humans distinct in this respect?
  9. If we were able to combine human intelligence with AI — a hybrid, if you will, in which the brain was a mix of biological material and sophisticated circuitry — what would be the ethical/legal status of this being?
  10. If it turns out that humans are not distinct in any meaningful sense from robots, at least in terms of justifying rights, does that mean that rights are a social construct?
  11. These questions might make some people uncomfortable. They should. I merely raise them; I do not purport to answer them here.

[source]

Good questions especially the first. That’s the question no scientist has yet solved. Maybe we should first determine if androids have any kind of consciousness like dogs, cats or even dolphins. Isaac Asimov’s novelette The Bicentennial Man the android Andrew was given human status when he was made mortal. If humanity defines an android as a human being does that mean he can vote in elections? Serve on a jury? Own property? I guess what I am asking does the Bill of Rights and the clause “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (whatever happiness means to an android)” pertain to androids? Also, can an android be convicted of a crime in a court of law? Or even be suid? Something to think about.

Data in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series and Dorian in the Almost Human TV series were treated for the most part as human. In the Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” Data fights for his right of self-determination in order not to be declared the property of Starfleet and be disassembled in the name of science.

Maybe in the future there will be an advocacy group for androids like PETA. Except in the case PETA would stand for People for Ethical Treatment of Androids. Who knows.

Monday, May 30, 2016

Memorial Day Prayers

gv053016dAPR20160527044520

Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.

Protect them as they protect us.

Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need.

I ask this in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

Amen.

Source: “Remembering Those Who Never Came Home” from The Daily Signal.com.

Gracious, Sovereign God, Lord of all nations,

On this Memorial Day, we pause to reflect upon our blessings as a nation and the high cost of those blessings. We offer our prayers of thanks and intercession.

Thank you for the freedom we enjoy in this country, for opportunities to flourish, and for the security of our land. Thank you for those who have served in the armed services of our country, risking their lives for our liberty.

Thank you for those who have given their lives in service to our country, sacrificing in such a costly way for the sake of others, including me. Thank you for those who have given their lives so that those who live in other countries might experience freedom from tyranny.

Thank you for a day set apart, not just for celebration, but also for solemn remembrance as we consider the sacrifices of so many in our military.

O Lord, may we be more aware of just how blessed we are as a nation. May we be more grateful for our blessings, more faithful in stewarding them well, more eager to share them with others.

We pray today for the families and friends of those who have given their lives in service to our nation. May they be comforted in their sadness. May they be reassured that the sacrifice of their loved ones contributes to a worthy cause. May they be proud of those they have lost, entrusting their ultimate fate into your gracious hands.

Even as we remember those who have given their lives in the past, we also think of those whose lives are on the line today. Protect them. Encourage them. Bring them home safely...and soon.

Give wisdom to the leaders of our armed services, that they might know how best to deploy the troops in the cause of freedom. May their efforts be successful, so that peace with justice might be established in our world.
Guide those who lead our nation in international affairs. Help them to pursue diplomatic paths that prevent needless conflict. May they have your wisdom about when and how to use the military might you have entrusted to us.

God of peace, stir in the hearts of the leaders of all nations and in all who would use violence to further their cause. Change their hearts and minds. Give them a passion for peace. Bring an end to the pain, suffering, injustice, and violence in our world.

We know, dear Lord, that ultimate peace will not come until your kingdom is here in all of its fullness. Nevertheless, we pray for a foretaste of the future. We ask for the growth of peace throughout our world today, so that fewer and fewer men and women will have to risk and even to sacrifice their lives. We long for the day when people will “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. 2:4).

May your kingdom come, Lord, and your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven!

All praise be to you, God of grace, God of mercy, God of justice, God of peace, King of kings, and Lord of lords! Amen.

Source: A Prayer for Memorial Day

lb0527cd20160526043836

The Population Bomb Book

The Population Bomb was Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich’s dire and impatient warning to mankind. Ehrlich painted an apocalyptic picture of the future: Too many people were being born and too many resources were drying up. The professor believed this was a fatal scenario for both the planet and humanity. He even went so far as to compare humanity to cancer.

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells. The population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies, often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion, if only the symptoms are treated,” Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich had many actual solutions on how to combat the disease of the surplus population. He was a staunch supporter of families having no more than two children, so much so that he outlined in The Population Bomb how to attack the media for promoting large families. Paul Ehrlich also floated the idea of creating a federal Department of Population and Environment (DPE), arguing that one of the DPE’s main focuses would be encouraging more research on human sex determination to ensure first born children were males.

The Population Bomb proved so popular Paul Ehrlich was able to co-found an activist group named Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Its members were passionate about decreasing the population and expert at using sympathy to get their talking points across. The group still exists as the re-branded Population Connection, continuing to spread their morbid fantasies about who should be born into this world — and who should not.

Source: Environmentalism Part II: The Population Bomb

I wonder if China’s gov’t got the idea of controlling their population from this guy because that’s almost what they are doing.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton Literally Doesn’t Understand Why Obamacare Caused a $500 Increase in Small Business Owner’s Healthcare Costs

From The Blaze.com (May 10):

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton came clean about Obamacare during a town hall this week, telling one small business owner that she has no idea why the Affordable Care Act has raised her insurance costs by $500.

She was pressed on the issue by the business owner during a campaign stop in Lorton, Virginia, Monday afternoon.

“I have seen our health insurance for my own family go up $500 a month in the last two years, so we went from 400 something to 900 something,” the woman told Clinton. “We’re just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary. Yet to keep your employees happy, that’s a question that comes across my desk all the time.”

Because of the large increase, the business owner told the Democratic hopeful that she is forced to keep most of her workers as contractors, adding that many leave for other employers who can provide more benefits.

She went on to say if she can’t provide benefits for herself, there’s no way she can cover her family. She said the reason her health insurance has increased by so much is because she “unfortunately” makes too much money to qualify for a subsidy under Obamacare.

“So, I guess my question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can’t afford health care,” she said. “I’m someone that can afford it, but it’s taking a big chunk out of the money I bring home for myself.”

Clinton responded, “What you’re saying is one of the real worries that we’re facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets — not all, but many markets. Right now, like with so many of these programs, there’s just a cut off instead of what I would like to see a kind of gradual diminishment.” [read more]

What?! What kind of answer is that? The real reason costs are going up is because that’s the plan—to eventually go to a single-payer system. But no dem candidate will ever say that. The Left want the masses to revolt and demand a single-payer system. The real reason health care costs go up is because when consumers don’t know or care about prices of services and medical products then prices will automatically go up. Obamacare doesn’t change that.

Then again Hillary is economically stupid. That’s why she wants her hubby to be her economic advisor—although he’s not much better.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

The Trouble with Making Scientific Hypotheses into National Laws

From David Boaz on FEE.org:

As I wrote a few months ago in response to a Washington Post story on the possibility that decades of government warnings about whole milk may have been in error,

It’s understandable that some scientific studies turn out to be wrong. Science is a process of trial and error, hypothesis and testing. Some studies are bad, some turn out to have missed complicating factors, some just point in the wrong direction. I have no criticism of scientists’ efforts to find evidence about good nutrition and to report what they (think they) have learned.

My concern is that we not use government coercion to tip the scales either in research or in actual bans and mandates and Official Science. Let scientists conduct research, let other scientists examine it, let journalists report it, let doctors give us advice. But let’s keep nutrition – and much else – in the realm of persuasion, not force. First, because it’s wrong to use force against peaceful people, and second, because we might be wrong. ...

Today’s scientific hypotheses may be wrong. Better, then, not to make them law. [read more]

Mr. Boaz is exactly right. Science is never complete and even sometimes can be wrong because scientists are not perfect that’s why laws shouldn’t be based on science alone. In the 70’s scientists talked about global cooling not warming. Science is always influx.

Monday, May 23, 2016

Who Cares about Inequality?

Commentary from Don Watkins from FEE.org:

The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality. But this is a false dichotomy. The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality.

Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it. The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

By making the government the guardian of our equal rights rather than a tool for the politically privileged to control and exploit the rest of society, the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life. (Unfortunately, they failed to fully implement that principle, above all by allowing the continued existence of slavery, which was a clash of principles that nearly tore the country apart in a civil war.)

Political equality is what made America a land of opportunity. In a world where there were no special privileges and no special obstacles, each individual was free to rise as high as his ability and ambition would take him. This political equality inevitably went hand in hand with economic inequality, as the ability and ambition of some people took them further than others. There was no contradiction in that fact. Political equality has to do with how the government treats individuals. It says that the government should treat all individuals the same — black or white, man or woman, rich or poor. But political equality says nothing about the differences that arise through the voluntary decisions of private individuals. Protecting people’s equal rights invariably leads to differences in economic condition, as some people use their freedom to create modest amounts of wealth while others reach the highest levels of financial success.

……………………………

When a bank or auto company that made irrational decisions gets bailed out at public expense, that is an outrage. But the root of the problem isn’t their executives’ ability to influence Washington; it’s Washington’s power to dispense bailouts.  [read more]

The modern liberals the author is talking about are also called progressives or what I call The Left since they might change their name again. Good article.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

From The New York Times (May 6):

After assuring Americans he is not running for president “to make things unstable for the country,” the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, suggested that he might reduce the national debt by persuading creditors to accept something less than full payment.

Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money. [read more]

Wow! Donald Trump really has confidence in his negotiating ability. We’ll see. Actually, according to FEE.org, Trump is not the first to threaten default on the debt. The first was Obama.

It’s actually better for the powers-to-be have displine and stop spending amd make cuts in gov’t programs than to default on the debt. Donald Trump hasn’t suggested any gov’t program to eliminate or to cut. Ted Cruz on the other hand suggested five programs. Maybe Trump should look at that list programs to cut or to eliminate. He wouldn’t have to choose all five but say two to three would be a good start. I’m sure Ted Cruz wouldn’t mind.

To be fair, Mr. Trump said he like the “penny plan” when Sean Hannity suggested this plan.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

An Open Challenge to Liberals: Answer These 3 Questions

From Dan Bongino on Conservative Review.com:

We painfully learned during the presidency of Barack Obama that ideology matters more than words. And now that the 2016 primary season is coming to a close I think it’s appropriate to start asking the remaining candidates questions about the ideology that guides their decision-making. Barack Obama said a lot of things as a candidate but when it mattered (i.e. executive amnesty, Obamacare, foreign policy) he disregarded what he said and took actions guided by his big –government-knows-best ideology.

Here are three questions for liberal candidates I would like to see answered before the November elections.

  1. Do you believe in the rule of law? This is an important question because liberals tend to give conflicting answers to this question when it involves specific legislative actions. For example, ask many liberals about Obamacare and they’ll insist that “it’s the law of the land” and can’t be ignored, even though it has imposed devastating penalties on millions of Americans in the form of higher premiums and cancelled insurance plans.But ask liberals about current immigration laws, which are being openly violated by millions of illegal immigrants, and liberals will insist that “the immigration laws are broken,” insinuating that this is a permission slip for people who don’t like immigration laws to ignore them. Which is it though? You can’t be consistent and say that you believe in the rule of law if that belief means you only recommend following the laws that comport with your ideology.
  2. What is the safe limit for government debt?
  3. What special knowledge do government bureaucrats have about the economy? The modern liberal candidate for public office has largely abandoned the idea that free markets create prosperity. Given this, I would like to hear from liberal candidates what special knowledge government bureaucrats have that enables them to manage the economy?

[read more]

These are good questions for any Left-leaning candidate running for office at any time. As for the questions let me pretend to be a Leftist and answer these questions:

Answer to the first question is no. The Left believes in the rule of elites progressives. The Constitution is a nuisance that gets in the way of the Left’s so-called “compassion.”

The answer to the 2nd question is:  Getting people dependent on gov’t—we (the Left) mean compassion—is the goal then we don’t worry about running out of other peoples money. We will just raise taxes on the rich to cover any expenses since the rich hoard all the money anyway and they don’t deserve to keep it.

The answer to the last question is Marxist economists with a Ph. D.

Monday, May 16, 2016

Southern San Andreas fault in California 'locked and loaded,' warns scientist

From Fox News.com (May 5):

The southern part of the San Andreas fault is "locked, loaded and ready to roll," according to Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Jordan issued the warning during a keynote speech at the National Earthquake Conference in Long Beach, Calif. Wednesday, reports Fox 11.

"The pressure has been building on that part of the fault without being relieved for more than a hundred years," he said.

Parts toward the southeast of the San Andreas fault haven't moved since about 1680, according to the report.

"The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight,”  Jordan said.

……………….

The L.A. Times cited a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report, which warned that a 7.8-magnitude quake on the southern San Andreas fault could cause more than 1,800 deaths and 50,000 injuries. [read more]

Scary. Not good at all.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Trump Takes 'New Deal' Approach to Fixing Nation's Infrastructure

From News Max.com (May 5):

One of Donald Trump's campaign promises is one that involves fixing the nation's infrastructure, a claim he compares to the New Deal.

New York Magazine's Eric Levitz writes that Trump's plan to repair the United States' aging infrastructure — which includes roads, bridges, tunnels, and the power grid — could end up moving him left on the political spectrum because of the massive amount of government spending his plan would entail.
"Maybe my greatest strength is the economy, jobs, and building," Trump told CNBC Thursday. "We do have to rebuild our infrastructure."

Trump addressed the issue in his latest book, "Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again."

"Fixing our infrastructure will be one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken. There isn't going to be a second chance to get it right," Trump wrote in his book, according to an excerpt published by ABC News last fall. "Let me ask you, if your own house was falling down and you had to hire someone to fix it before it completely collapsed, who would you hire? A guy who tells you what he's planning to do, or a guy who has proven what he can do countless times before? [read more]

I thought Obama fixed the infrastructure already? I guess Trump is showing his progressive side making the infrastructure great again. He’s going to put people back to work by giving them gov’t jobs? Hmmm. Gov’t jobs never really revives the private sector.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Failure Made Disney Great

From Lawrence W. Reed on FEE.org:

What a phenomenal man Walt Disney was! A cartoonist and animator, businessman, filmmaker, theme park pioneer, and cultural icon, he may have manufactured more happiness in the world than any other man or woman of the 20th century. He was an American original and an American patriot, too. He deeply appreciated that liberty in America allowed him to invent, experiment, and ultimately succeed, as evidenced in this remark three years before his death: “To retreat from any of the principles handed down by our forefathers, who shed their blood for the ideals we still embrace, would be a complete victory for those who would destroy liberty and justice for the individual.”

Some people think that entrepreneurs build, innovate, and take risks just for the money they might make. To the imaginative Walt Disney, money was never the prime motivator. Not even close — though what could be wrong about that if it had been? Money paid the bills, but he hired his brother Roy to worry about it. Walt was driven by the sheer joy of creativity and the fulfillment that comes from bringing happiness to others. “It’s kind of fun to do the impossible,” he once said. These words from his dedication speech at the July 1955 opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California, encapsulate his amazing spirit:

To all who come to this happy place, Welcome! Disneyland is your land. Here, age relives fond memories of the past ... and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America ... with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.

No one could do justice to the life of Walt Disney in a short article, so I won’t even attempt to. Allow me to zero in on one particular aspect that underscores why he’s a hero: he knew failure and how to learn and prosper from it. As he put it himself, “All the adversity I’ve had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me.… You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.”

In “The Importance of Failure” (Freeman, November 2011), economists Steven Horwitz and Jack Knych explained that permitting failure is just as important as allowing success:

For example, in 1921 Walt Disney started a company called the Laugh-O-Gram Corporation, which went bankrupt two years later. If a friend of Disney or the government hadn’t let him fail and move on, he might never have become the Walt Disney we know today.

More important than this individual learning process is the irreplaceable role failure plays in the social learning process of the competitive market. When we refuse to allow failure to happen, or we cushion its blow, we ultimately harm not only the person who failed but also all of society by denying ourselves a key way to learn how best to allocate resources. Without failure there’s no economic growth or improved human well-being.…

Failure drives change. While success is the engine that accelerates us toward our goals, it is failure that steers us toward the most valuable goals possible. Once failure is recognized as being just as important as success in the market process, it should be clear that the goal of a society should be to create an environment that not only allows people to succeed freely but to fail freely as well.

Disney heard a lot about failure at the family dinner table before he ever failed himself. His father, Elias, tried twice to be a successful orange grower in Florida but couldn’t make it work. He flopped as a professional fiddle player in Colorado. He didn’t do much better farming in Missouri. Elias tried a lot of things to keep his family fed. That he never quit trying left a deep impression on young Walt.  [read more]

Monday, May 09, 2016

Legislation Will Curb the Power of Unaccountable Bureaucracy

From The Daily Signal (Apr. 27):

Each year, regulators impose thousands of rules on the American people—over 20,000 during the Obama administration’s tenure alone. The cost is staggering: According to an upcoming Heritage study, the cost of Obama’s new rules alone is over $100 billion each year, and that only counts the biggest regulations.

There is a solution: make Congress approve new regulations before they become effective. That would shift responsibility back to where it belongs—in Congress. Regulators would no longer be able to legislate though rule-making without congressional action, and Congress would no longer be able to evade accountability for the rules that are imposed.

The REINS (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny”) Act would implement just such a system, requiring congressional approval for the hundred or so “major” rules each year that cost $100 million or more. Yet, that bill—first introduced seven years ago—has been stalled in Congress. While approved by the House multiple times, it failed to gain any traction in the Senate.

Part of the reason for the stalemate is critics’ concerns over how the system would work in practice. That’s where Lee’s amendment comes in. He would impose REINS Act requirements solely on major rules from the Department of Energy.  [read more]

A good start but the act should cover all gov’t agencies. Obama and Hillary would veto the act. But would Donald Trump sign the bill into law if he became the president? According to the American Commitment presidential survey he said he would and would work hard to get it passed. That’s good to hear.  First of course, the Senate has to pass it.

Wednesday, May 04, 2016

Why We Need to Make Mistakes

An article by Sandy Ikeda on FEE.org:

But I think innovation, not efficiency, is capitalism’s greatest strength. I’m not saying that the free market can’t be both efficient and innovative, but it does offer people a strong incentive to abandon the pursuit of efficiency in favor of innovation.

What Is Efficiency?

In its simplest form, economic efficiency is about given ends and given means. Economic efficiency requires that you know what end, among all possible ends, is the most worthwhile for you to pursue and what means to use, among all available means, to attain that end. You’re being efficient when you’re getting the highest possible benefit from an activity at the lowest possible cost. That’s a pretty heavy requirement.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation means doing something significantly novel. It could be doing an existing process in a brand new way, such as being the first to use a GPS tracking system in your fleet of taxis. Or, innovation could mean doing something that no one has ever done before, such as using smartphone technology to match car owners with spare time to carless people who need to get somewhere in a hurry, à la Uber.

Innovation, unlike efficiency, entails discovering novel means to achieve a given end, or discovering an entirely new end. And unlike efficiency, in which you already know about all possible ends and means, innovation takes place only when you lack knowledge of all means, all ends, or both.

Where’s the Conflict?

Starting a business that hasn’t been tried before involves a lot of trial and error. Most of the time the trials, no matter how well thought out, turn out to contain errors. The errors may lie in the means you use or in the particular end you’re pursuing.

In most cases, it takes quite a few trials and many, many errors before you hit on an outcome that has a high enough value and low enough costs to make the enterprise profitable.) Is that process of trial and error, of experimentation, an example of economic efficiency? It is not.

…………………………..

Both efficiency and innovation best take place in a free market. But the greatest rewards to buyers and sellers come not from efficiency, but from innovation.  [read more]

The reason why socialistic nations are not innovative is because they focus too much on efficiency at the expence of innovation. Socialists believe the market systems should be perfect (read: efficient) but they never will be perfect because people are not perfect. Also, when beurcrats run the economy they focus more on efficiency rather than innovation. Bureaucrats, let’s face it, are not very creative. Add to this fact that innovation involves risks which scares the crap out of socialists.

Tuesday, May 03, 2016

10 Reasons You Might Want to Leave North Korea

  1. Life expectancy in the North is only 86 percent that of the South, 2013.
  2. GDP per capita in the North is only 5 percent that of the South, 2008.
  3. Infant mortality in the North is 679 percent that of the South, 2015.
  4. Maternal mortality in the North is 322 percent that of the South, 2013.
  5. Food consumption in the North was 63 percent that of the South, 2011.
  6. Democracy in the South is comparable to Belgium, but non-existent in the North, 2014.
  7. Environmental protection in the North lags behind that in the South.
  8. Rule of law in the South is on par with Spain; in the North, with Afghanistan, 2014.
  9. Internet access in the North is, well…[non-existence].
  10. Last, but not least, the colonel's chance of being murdered was almost six times higher in the North than in the South, including on the orders of this psychopath: [Kim Jong-un].

[read more]

The article started with a N. Korean colonel defected to S. Korea for unknown reasons. Well, if I was placing a bet I would say the last reason sounds reasonable.

Monday, May 02, 2016

Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty

From Nicolas Loris on The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 19):

Secretary of State John Kerry will join leaders from around the world to sign the Paris Protocol global warming agreement this Friday at the United Nations headquarters.

Here are the top five reasons Congress and the next administration should withdraw from the accord:

  1. Higher energy bills, fewer jobs and a weaker economy. The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe.
  2. No impact on climate. Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature. Even if the government closed the doors to every businesses and CO2-emitting activity in the U.S., there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.
  3. Massive taxpayer-funded wealth transfer for green initiatives. An important part of the Paris agreement for the developing world is money. More specifically, other peoples’ money. In Nov. 2014, President Barack Obama also pledged to commit $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, an international fund for green projects in the developing world.
  4. Avoids review and consent from elected officials. The Paris agreement is in form, in substance, and in the nature of its commitments a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for review and consent. The executive branch has shown contempt for the U.S. treaty-making process and the role of Congress, particularly the Senate.
  5. A top-down, government controlled push for economic transformation. To achieve their global warming goals, international leaders want to control an economic transformation. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has said that:

    This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

[read more]

Just like the unaffordable no-care act this stupid treaty is just another way to control the American people’s lives. Period. It’s not about helping the environment at all.

 

    Wednesday, April 27, 2016

    Lessons For Law Enforcement

    Following is a list of guidelines that emerged from the successful resolution of these cases of serial murder. While not exhaustive, it’s a start. Hopefully it will inspire both dedication and invention in current and future investigations.

    1. Read widely in fields that might seem relevant but have not yet been used in law enforcement. It was a police officer not a scientist who introduced the discrimination of animal and human blood, DNA analysis, and brain fingerprinting into an investigation. This requires creative thinking and awareness of what’s available.
    2. Be proactive. Detective William King kept planting items in newspapers, even years after the crime was committed, in order to bait the offender who’d kidnapped Grace Budd. Finally, his effort paid off. The Allentown police set up a sting operation, and Viktor Burakov read up on the FBI’s profiling methods, despite rebuke, to try to stop Chikatilo.
    3. Become educated about psychological angles on criminal behavior, which get updated with research on a regular basis. This arena is not reserved for profilers or psychologists. Most good detectives already have a sense of criminal psychology, but psychopathic serial killers require greater savvy. No officer should believe he already knows enough from what he’s picked up on the streets.
    4. Be flexible and, in particular, prepare to be wrong. In the Village Path murders in Britain, the interrogators were certain they’d nailed the man who’d killed two young girls, but they were wrong. It’s possible that their misplaced confidence influenced this suspect’s false confession. DNA analysis exonerated him and pointed to another man, but had this case happened only two years earlier, an innocent man would have gone to prison.
    5. Be persistent. With cold cases, go over old ground and get a fresh perspective from others not familiar with the crime. Blind spots can trip up investigators who won’t let go. No investigation belongs to a single cop; it’s always a coordinated effort and others might contribute in surprising ways.
    6. Be meticulous. Perhaps no case was more painstaking than the Pickton investigation, with all the forensic personnel sifting through piles of dirt and manure and underneath every building to locate fragments of human remains that would yield DNA.
    7. Anticipate the future. Future investigations will involve cooperation among seemingly unrelated fields, especially the fields of technology and informatics.

    Source: The Devil’s Dozen. How Cutting Edge Forensics Took Down 12 Notorious Serial Killers (2009) by Katherine Ramsland, Ph. D.

    Good advice. The boldface highlights are mine.

    Tuesday, April 26, 2016

    19 Signs That American Families Are Being Economically Destroyed

    From Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge.com:

    Even as we stand at the precipice of the next great economic crisis, we continue to make the same mistakes.  In the end, all of us are going to pay a very great price for decades of incredibly foolish decisions.  Of course a tremendous amount of damage has already been done.  The numbers that I am about to share with you are staggering.  The following are 19 signs that American families are being economically destroyed…

    1. The poorest 40 percent of all Americans now spend more than 50 percent of their incomes just on food and housing.
    2. For those Americans that don’t own a home, 50 percent of them spend more than a third of their incomes just on rent.
    3. The price of school lunches has risen to the 3 dollar mark at many public schools across the nation.
    4. McDonald’s “Dollar Menu & More” now includes items that cost as much as 5 dollars.
    5. The price of ground beef has doubled since 2009.
    6. In 1986, child care expenses for families with employed mothers used up 6.3 percent of all income.  Today, that figure is up to 7.2 percent.
    7. Incomes fell for the bottom 80 percent of all income earners in the United States during the 12 months leading up to June 2014.
    8. At this point, more than 50 percent of all American workers bring home less than $30,000 a year in wages.
    9. After adjusting for inflation, median household income has fallen by nearly $5,000 since 2007.
    10. According to the New York Times, the “typical American household” is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

    [read more]

    Not good at all. Thank you powers-that-be!

    Monday, April 25, 2016

    ISIS Wants To Attack With WMDs

    From Washington Times.com (April 19):

    EU and NATO officials confirmed today there is evidence that the Islamic State is plotting nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) attacks on the European continent and the United Kingdom. Jorge Berto Silva, deputy head of counterterrorism for the European Commission, said at a conference in London that ISIS is constantly evading established security measures and looking for new ways to get explosive and dangerous material into European cities, such as implanting the bombs in human bodies and using driverless cars to ram crowds. There is even evidence ISIS has obtained Iraqi short-range missiles and rockets to attack cities from outside the center.

    Dr. Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security threats at Nato, reportedly added regarding NBC materials: “We know terrorists are trying to acquire these substances,” reported the Mirror. [read more]

    Thank you Obama for making the world unsafer! If IS thugs wants to attack Europe then America is next on their hit list.

    Friday, April 22, 2016

    Rachel Carson and DDT

    The most important day of the entire year is upon us — Earth Day on April 22nd. It’s a day in which environmentalists will overlook and dismiss earth’s inhabitants and literally choose to celebrate the dirt beneath our feet.

    Earth Day isn’t really about picking trash in your local park or remembering to recycle your soda can. It isn’t even about hugging a tree. It has never been that innocent. Earth Day is a yearly reminder that humanity must be controlled, manipulated and even destroyed for the good of the planet.

    …………………………..

    In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book credited with igniting environmentalists in the United States. One hundred fifty thousand copies of “Silent Spring” were mailed to Book of the Month members and made their way into suburban America. With chapter titles such as “Elixirs of Death” and “Rivers of Death,” Carson successfully mixed eloquence and horror to instill fear about the popular insecticide Dichloride Diphenyl Triclorethane, better known as DDT.

    DDT was considered to be a miracle powder that played an extraordinary role in winning World War II. During the Second World War, DDT was used to protect allied troops and civilians from malaria, typhus and other insect-born diseases.

    …………………………….

    Rachel Carson’s narrative that DDT was detrimental to both nature and human health was hungrily gobbled up by the public and government officials alike. Within eight years of its publication, Silent Spring was directly credited with the creation of the EPA.

    In 1972, only ten years after Silent Spring was published, the U.S. banned DDT and other countries quickly followed suit. Once countries started falling prey to Carson’ misinformation about DDT, malaria ran rampant. The devastating insect-born disease once again ravaged South Africa and South American countries.

    Robert Watts of the National Institutes of Health once remarked, “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”

    Source: Environmentalism Part I: The EPA, Silent Spring and DDT

    Wednesday, April 20, 2016

    10 Things Leaders Should Never Do

    These are behaviors that executives and business leaders should always avoid. They don't just diminish your leadership ability, your presence, your credibility, your reputation. They will come back to haunt you and, ultimately, be your undoing.

    1. Kowtow to the status quo.
    2. Whine.
    3. Deceive.
    4. Act like a dictator.
    5. Make empty threats.
    6. Crave power.
    7. Ignore the truth.
    8. Make commitments you don't intend to keep.
    9. Be grandiose.
    10. Do what you know is wrong.

    Source: 10 Things Leaders Should Never Do from Inc.com.

    Good advice not only for the private sector but for presidents and potential presidents. Obama does 2, 3, 4, and 6. Trump has to watch 2, 4, 6, and 9. When your narcisstic or egotistical 4, 6, 7, and 9 come into play.

    Tuesday, April 19, 2016

    Milton Friedman on the Great Depression

    Milton Friedman at a conference of bankers:

    There is hardly any view that is more widespread than the view that somehow or another the Great Depression was produced by a failure of private business. That view is held, not only by those who are in favor of greater role of government, it is held by almost everybody. I venture to suggest you that if you go to any bankers, the people who are here today at this banking conference, and if you talk to them, I’d venture to say, nine out of ten of them, if they didn’t, hadn’t heard what I’m going to say, that nine out of ten of them would say, “Well, of course, the Great Depression was a failure of private business. It was due to an overextension. Over speculation of the 1920s. Or it was due to an excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in the 1920s. Or it was due to speculative investment abroad or whatever. But it was a failure of private business. And government had to step in in order to rescue private business from its own failure.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. …The Great Depression was not [my emphasis] produced by a failure of business. On the contrary, it was [my emphasis]produced by a failure of government and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to governments since the founding of this country. The Constitution of the United States, it gives Congress the power to coin money and set the value thereof. And it was in the management of this fundamental function of government that governments failed and produced the Great Depression.

    Source: Milton Friedman Part IV: Unapologetic & Unafraid

    Mr. Friedman got it exactly right. The reader might want to refer to my blog entry “FDR, The Great Depression and The New Deal.”

    Monday, April 18, 2016

    A Peek Inside the IRS and Other Tax Stuff

    sbr041316dAPR20160413124513

    The Four Protocols:

    1. Find where they [the taxpayers] are.
    2. Track what they do.
    3. Learn what they have.
    4. Execute what they fear.

    The three Cs in ‘collection’:

    • Cause- What did the TP [taxpayer] do—or not do—to fall behind or not file?
    • Cure- What can the TP do—or not do—to bring the taxpayer back into compliance?
    • Compliance- Is the TP current? If it’s a business, are the owners current? Is every entity they have an interest in current? Check everything, across the board.

    Nine simple rules for not getting yourself killed [by a TP]:

    1. Treat all taxpayers fairly and courteous.
    2. Do not personalize collection efforts.
    3. Listen carefully.
    4. Do not threaten, scold, or patronize.
    5. Recognize your own attitudes and eliminate those that are counterproductive.
    6. Treat taxpayers as you would want to be treated.
    7. Know where the exits are.
    8. Avoid getting trapped.
    9. Use force only sufficient to disengage.

    Source: Confessions of a Tax Collector. One Man’s Tour of Duty Inside the IRS (2004) by Richard Yancey.

    Taxpayer Bill of Rights:

    1. The Right to Be Informed.
    2. The Right to Quality Service.
    3. The Right to Pay No More than the Correct Amount of Tax.
    4. The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard.
    5. The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum
    6. The Right to Finality.
    7. The Right to Privacy.
    8. The Right to Confidentiality.
    9. The Right to Retain Representation.
    10. The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System.

    No taxation without respiration. –  Senator George Allen

    Consider this, for starters. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which has defined the character of the nation, is all of 268 words. The Declaration of Independence runs about 1,300 words. The Constitution, which has served us for more than two centuries, comes to some 5,000 words. The Holy Bible has 773,000 words. The federal income tax code and all of its attendant rules and regulations: 9 million words and rising.  -- Steve Forbes

    Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. - Gerald Barzan

    Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – Calvin Coolidge

    The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine. - Lao-Tzu

    Capital punishment is when Washington comes up with a new tax. - Van Panopoulos

    Here’s a summary of the history of the tax rate:

    • 1862-1863: The start of the national income tax. Two tier system. Upper tax rate 5%.
    • 1864-1866: Three tier system. Upper tax rate 10%.  Tax rate still not too bad.
    • 1867-1869: One tier system. Upper tax rate 5%. By one tier I mean if the income is over a certain amount the taxpayer pays a certain rate. Otherwise the taxpayer pays nothing.  Even better yet.
    • 1870-1872: One tier system. Upper tax rate 2.5%. Nice.
    • 1873-1893, 1895-1912. No national income tax. This is called the good old days. How did America ever survive? You mean the world for the average American didn’t stop?
    • 1894: One tier system. Upper tax rate: 2%.
    • 1913-1915: Seven tier system! Upper tax rate: 7%.
    • 1916: 14 tier system!! WTF? Upper tax rate: 15%.
    • 1917: 21 tier system!!! Upper tax rate: 67%! Sad smile
    • 1918-1921: 56 tier system!!!!  Surprised smileUpper tax rates: 77% and73%

    I would go on but you get the idea. The tier system went somewhat down then in 1932 it went to 55. The highest tax rate overall was 94% in 1944. It wasn’t until 1987 the tier system went back to a smaller five tier system with the upper tax rate at 38.5%. The next year the the tax code was a two tier system with upper tax rate set at 28%. The two tier system only lasted until 1991. The upper tax rate went up too. Everyone paid the same rates regardless of marriage status until 1949 where single and head of household paid the same rates as married filing separately. Married filling jointly incomes was split to compare against the brackets. In 1971, every marriage status had different brackets.

    It’s interesting to note that througout America’s tax code history there never has been one single flat rate for everyone regardless of income. Probably because if everyone pays the same rate it would be harder for Washington to raise the rate too high otherwise the poor would feel the effect.

    I believe the reason the progressive tax system got created is because the progressives believed the more you earn, the more you should be taxed. In other words, they think they were following a law of economics that says “if a seller thinks a buyer has a lot of money to spend then he will raise the price of his product or service.” This is an actual economic law. The problem is when you apply this law to taxing someone they don’t have a choice. They have to pay the tax rate. Or got to jail. Unlike the free-market system where the buyer can choose to pay the price or go on to another seller. But the progs don’t care. They think the rich has an endless supply of money or they hoard all the money.

    Glenn Beck series “History of Taxation”:

    A Tax on Income Attacks Life Itself

    9 Charts You Need to See for Tax Day

    Some news:

    Daily Signal.com (Mar. 18): H&R block Wants to Make It Harder for You to File Taxes. Can you say chrony capitalist?

    content