More Morons
Posted on June 15, 2009
Media, Politics, Reason
Is it just me, or is the country filling with an ever-increasing supply of morons, most of which are coming from the younger generations?
Case in point, try watcing anything on the ABC Family Channel and take note of the caliber of programming they are featuring. You know, brilliant shows like Greek and The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Shows that are so *totally* realistic and “just like life.” Yeah, because every teenager goes through the challenges of not keeping your pants on and having to “miss out on everything,” like proms and such, because, apparently, sex = babies!
It’s moronic. The characters act as though they are so angry that having sex should lead to pregnancy, as if it’s not fair or something.
And don’t even get me started on Geek…uh…Greek. Do the producers honestly believe that anyone is dumb enough to buy into that doofy dork with the stupid hair as being the “hot bad boy?” Oh wait…people ARE dumb enough to buy that, apparently. That’s the point of this little rant.
Ok, get this through your heads, idiots: Hollywood only sells what people are buying. So stop watching this crap and demand better, more substantial and actually interesting content from them.
The moral of the story is, if you watch any of those shows, or if you think Adam Lambert was actually talented or “hot,” you’re an idiot. You need to turn off your TV and read a book or something. You’re the same people who voted for Obama. What a gem he’s turning out to be.
Morons.
The New World Order
Posted on February 20, 2009
Economy, Liberalism
Mark my words, this is a more important story than it looks.
On the surface, this is a big story because it potentially hails the end of the lengendary privacy of Swiss banking. That would be fairly big news in and of itself; but when you consider the other alarming trends in the world, a more dangerous shadow movement is shown in its proper light.
Consider this: If prevailing world circumstances can be sufficiently manipulated to effectively force UBS to bail on the defining characteristic of Swiss banking–secrecy–it serves to place one more arrow in the quiver of those who have as their grand design the collapse of all world goverments and institutions and the birth of a new “one world” order of government, which of course, places at the top of that government those who delivered it. This particular arrow is that of accountability.
In this particular case, UBS employees have been accused of (and in some cases have admitted to) aiding wealthy Americans in hiding money in UBS accounts for the purpose of avoiding the requisite tax on said money. Had this been an American bank, with American customers only–entirely on-shore–this would not have been so problematic. But considering the state of the American economy at present, and considering that this scandal leaves the American shores and involves a Swiss bank, the only way accountabilty can be enforced is to threaten UBS to comply with the demands of American law makers and enforcers by providing detailed account information about these American customers, which flies completely in the face of the self-appointed mandate of Swiss banking.
You can see, then, that the obvious next step for the one-worlders–who have infiltrated to the highest levels of American and foreign governments (don’t kid yourself into thinking they haven’t…Obama)–is to propose a preventative measure for this kind of fraud by unifying the banking systems of the world into a single bank, on a single monetary currency, in order to be able to “watchdog” this kind of tax evasion and prevent it from happening.
Sounds crazy, eh? Watch it happen.
Now, the real moral of this story is this: Accountability is a constant. It will be enforced regardless of the measures we take to avoid it. Sooner or later, the piper will be paid. We can see by this example that when people stop taking accountability for themselves (avoiding taxes), the end result is the loss of liberty for everyone. So while people are responsible and accountable, the banking instruments that allow for privacy remain in place because the trust that those instruments will not be abused remains unbroken; however, once that trust is broken in attempt to hide from accountability, accountability will find a new angle from which to exact its due–loss of privacy in banking.
Funny how the ones griping about loss of privacy and civil liberties are also the same ones who are implicated in these kinds of liberty-stealing endeavors (see Tom Daschle).
Yeah, yeah…it’s a conspiracy theory. Maybe a stretch. But watch…it will happen.
Socialism: The Engine of Economic Entropy
Posted on November 9, 2008
Politics, Reason, Religion, Science, Socialism
Even by my grossly over-simplified definition, entropy is the measure of the useless energy found in a system, useless energy being energy that is not available for doing work.
One of the great contributions that Newton provided for the world of science–the world in general, really–was the presentation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. The second of these laws deals with entropy, specifically stating that the amount of entropy of systems tends to increase over time, and that the more complex a system is, the stronger this tendency is, due to the amount of useful energy required to maintain the complexity of the system. In other words, the longer a system operates, the more it tends to break down, and the more complex the system is, the faster it will tend to break down.
Entropy increase is caused by the tendency of heat (energy) to disperse, spreading from the point of origin out to the cold regions surrounding it, thereby warming the colder regions, and cooling the warmer regions until the system reaches a point of energetic equilibrium, or in effect, status quo. At this point, the system still has energy (see the first Law of Thermodynamics dealing with the conservation of energy), but absent the dynamic tension provided by the disparate temperatures (hot and cold), the energy of the system becomes increasingly useless, that is, not useful for actual production (work). The system becomes stagnant and begins to decay and die.
The concept of entropy is not unique to physics. Information theory, mathematics, medicine, and sociology all identify the phenomenon of entropy within the context of their respective disciplines. It’s reasonable to deduce that entropy is not simply a characteristic of physical or social systems, but is the description of a characteristic of immutable natural law that applies to all levels of organization.
Given that sociology recognizes the inevitability of social entropy, we should examine all social constructs to understand the energies that power them, and thereby be prepared and able to overcome the inevitability of entropic decay. One such social construct is economics.
Economics has as its “fundamental concern…the material standard of living of society as a whole and how that is affected by particular decisions made by individuals and institutions” (Sowell, 2007). So, if we are to understand what makes economies strong or weak, grow or recede, work or not work, we have to examine the decisions being made by those in positions of economic influence, bearing the tendecies of systemic decay–entropy–always in mind.
So, how does entropy apply to economy? First, we have to identify the systems involved.
Despite the foul-crying of liberals and socialists (which cries are deceptions meant only to hide their true intent, but we’ll come back to that), the systems of economy are the classes of society. Much debate can be waged over definitions of classes and the thresholds that separate one class from another, but for the purposes of this argument, we’ll identify only two, separated by an age-old standard: the haves, and the have-nots. Obviously this is also grossly oversimplified, because depending on perspective and the specifics of what (i.e. have what, or have not what), anyone could rightly be identified in either class. That being understood and conceded, regardless of the what, there is in human society always a division between those who have and those who have not.
Now, given these two classes, lets examine the decisions that might be made by those in governing positions relative to each of these classes.
In the first case, we’ll look at socialism, which has as one of its defining characteristics the redistribution of wealth. In other words, socialists believe that the natural separation between haves and have-nots is actually not natural, or if it is natural, that it is not fair to the have-nots. So, in the interest of balancing this inequity, they feel they are justified in taking some portion of the what from those who have and giving it freely to the have-nots. Now, no matter how much of the what is given to the have-nots, there will always be something that they have not : they have not earned that which they now have. They did not work to produce it, it was simply taken from those who have and given to them.
And thus begins the decay.
Economic energy–heat–originates with those who produce. Their having is directly correspondent to their production. Given that any individual, no matter how productive, is still only one person, there is an inherent physical limit on that person’s productivity, and therefore a cap on how much they can earn (have). If the person hopes to break beyond that limit, he/she must involve others who are also productive, and hopefully create a synergy, in which the output of their combined productivity is greater than the sum of the parts, and they can all share in the fruits of their production and have together. All are benefited, their productivity (work or useful energy) grows, and with it increases the “material standard of living” of those involved. As long as they remain productive, and continue to increase productivity, they will remain a source of economic energy, an economic “hot spot,” so to speak.
If, however, socialist policy is in place, this growth cannot take place. In these circumstances, as soon as the haves have grown beyond a certain threshold (as defined by the socialists, of course), the fruits of their productivity are no longer their reward, but are removed from them and become the reward of those who are not producing on their own, i.e. those in economic freeze. The socialist belief (so they say) is that by “spreading the wealth around,” those who are in economic freeze will thaw and become productive and begin to create their own warmth. This may be true in some cases, but only on the smallest of scales. The new-found what that the have-nots have been given may provide means for them to acquire goods that they would not have had if left to their own ambitions (or lack thereof), and that infusion of capital into the market may provide some small measure of warmth; but as with the ice melting in a glass in a warm room, the cold of the ice does emanate outwards from the glass, but only for a matter of moments and centimeters–an imperceptible amount in a room even as small as a few square feet.
Economic entropy increases.
Heat is removed from its place of origin and infused into the cold regions, slightly warming the cold and cooling the hot until the entire system is “equal” (the proclaimed but fraudulent goal of socialism). Never mind that the system which was once hot and dynamic and growing is now stagnant, useless and at best, lukewarm…and gradually cooling.
This won’t matter to the socialist governors who were the originators of this decay to begin with, because they will now be at the top of the social food chain as they reap the fruits of what they have sown, extracting increasingly more in “administrative fees” (i.e. taxes) for distributing the wealth of an ever decreasing productivity base.
This is the socialist agenda, and this is the inevitable result. It matters little if the socialist is truly motivated by power-greed, laziness, or is simply misled by hyper-emotional blindness, the end is the same. The only difference being that the lazy and misled ultimately end up under the thumb of the power-greedy that they voted for. The division between the haves and have-nots is still intact, only now its insurmountable–a formidable wall of concrete and barbed wire. Some might call it an Iron Curtain.
One need only study the socialist societies of the past to see that the result is always the same. There has never been a socialist regime in any form that has endured. They have either stagnated and died, been overthrown by revolution, or degenerated into fascism, totalitarianism and ultimately, destruction. In point of fact, they are all on this same continuum, only differing in the measure of their decay, which as we now know, even in economics, has a name:
Entropy.
References
Sowell, Thomas. (2007). Basic Economics: A common sense guide to the economy (third edition). New York:Basic Books
Friggin’ Islam
Posted on October 28, 2008
Abortion, Islam, Liberalism, Media, Reason, Religion
The fruits of the “grossly misunderstood and misrepresented religion of peace”* that is Islam sure bears some pretty rotten and corrupt fruit.
This is what happens when a culture of people are conditioned, by religion or politics or other, to devalue human life on a regular and systematic basis. In this case, and the case of Islam as a whole (and don’t kid yourself for a second that this has nothing to do with religion), Sharia Law allows for and even demands the complete disregard for the sanctity of human life to the point that men are expected, excused and even extolled for murdering their own wives and daughters if they should break faith in any way (to be judged, of course, by the same primitive cowards that throw the stones and light the fires).
Unbelievable…because the kid didn’t finish his homework.
P.S. What other group devalues human life on a regular and systematic basis? Liberals. (See abortion)
* I’m not actually quoting a specific source, just the general apologetic commentary that we keep hearing from media and cowardly political leaders who won’t call a spade a spade for fear of escalation or (worse for them) vote loss.
Compelled Compassion
Posted on October 28, 2008
Politics, Reason, Religion, Socialism
I’m back.
The recent comments by Barack Obama have been sufficient to wake me from a long hibernation in order that I may address the issue of distribution of wealth—i.e. socialism—that he espouses.
Recently I was involved in a conversation with a co-worker who is a legal citizen of America, but is originally from El Salvador. The man is of my same religion, so on principle, we agree about how America should be run, the expectations of and for government, as well as the intended limitations thereof; however, on this particular issue—wealth redistribution—he disagreed with me, stating that in matters of helping to aid the less fortunate, government can help.
My contention was and remains that the government has no place inserting itself into the personal charitable relationship between giver and receiver. By what right does government determine how much charity I have, how much benefit my beneficiary will receive, or how much it can hold in reserve for facilitating (i.e. compelling) the transaction? There is no such stated law in the Constitution, and the only implication of such was illicitly sold to the desperate masses by FDR in what is known as the New Deal (which could just as well be called the Raw Deal).
To better understand this necessary limitation of government, we have to understand the origin of charitable action, or at least the predominant philosophy that has been so successful in making charity such an ingrained part of our collective conscience—Christianity, or more specifically, the teachings of Jesus Christ.
(It’s important for me to make that distinction between Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ because the confused, self-contradictory and often perverted mess that carries the umbrella of “Christianity” these days is, sadly, a far cry from the intents and purity of the teachings of Christ.)
It may not have originally been Jesus who taught that men (referring to mankind) should take care of one another and help each other to provide for every needful thing, at least not by the name of Jesus Christ, but there is no question that the origin of the teaching is one and the same. All moral teaching and tradition can trace its roots to one common source, no matter what form it may have taken over the years of human (mis)interpretation, usurpation and bastardization. Humanity has a common origin and a common destiny, and as hard as we try to screw things up (some more intentionally than others), our moral compass is still collectively attracted to the same heavenly body: God.
So whether it was first taught by Christ known as Jesus, or Christ known as Jehovah—who, for those of you who may not have known this, are the same being—the origin of charity is still Christ. Therefore, if we are to understand what Christ intended by His teaching, we have to look to the most obvious place, i.e. his collection of teachings (the entire collection, not just the incomplete and somewhat tainted record of the Jews).
Nowhere in any of Christ’s teachings does He command, insinuate or suggest that there should be any form of mediator for man’s humanity to man except Christ Himself. No person or collection of people is justified in compelling one person of means to be charitable to another person of lesser means. The consequences of such compulsion are not only instability, they result in the condemnation of all parties involved.
The instability in such a system comes thanks to the lawyers. You see, in order for a mediator to take from one and give to another, appropriate definitions of “means” and “lesser means” must be agreed upon. That alone opens the transaction up to an unending game of lawyer-ball with both sides squabbling eternally over definitions of words like “is” and other such complexities. What one person or group considers to be “means” may just as well be considered by another to be “lesser means.” Without some absolute definition of both, how can either litigant claim to be right? When the boundaries are forever subject to slippage, the structure is forever in danger of corrosion and collapse.
Worse still, compelled charity results in the condemnation of all of the parties involved. While the instability of such charitable “nannyism” will ultimately result in the failure of the nanny system, the spiritual implications are far graver, but only when one understands the intent of the instruction to begin with.
As stated previously, humanity shares a common destiny, which in a nutshell, is to become God. Not to live with God in a state of endless praise to God, or to somehow mysteriously become a part of God, but literally, to become as God is: an independent, perfect and eternal republic—another link in an eternal chain of such exalted beings that have existed, not since the beginning of time, but even since before time was reckoned, and will continue with equal indefinity. We have to understand that; it’s a basic and fundamental truth that to arrive at a desired destination, we have to have a clear vision of what that destination is. So let’s be clear about it with no apologies or equivocation.
Unfortunately for us, there will be no magic words or ceremonies that will transform us from our current flawed state to a state of exalted perfection. We have to earn it. We have to become it, which like it or not, is a function of our choices. This is why Lucifer was cast out of heaven for rebellion—he sought to take away the agency of man, and by so doing, proved that he did not or could not confirm and execute the laws of the universe. In that moment, his destruction was assured because nothing can exist in violation of the laws of the universe, at least not for long.
Likewise, when Christ teaches us that we should be charitable to one another, it is with the intent that we choose to follow and be sanctified in selflessness, taking one more step closer to Him. When any person or people steps in the way of that sanctification, it is only to their own condemnation. Government has no right or rule in this domain and when it tries to interfere, it makes of itself a thief, stealing that which belongs to one and giving to another based on its own definitions and determinations. It effectively places itself above God, not in the role of God, but exactly in the role of God’s enemy (Satan) by compelling the obedience of man in violation of the universal law of agency.
You may argue that it’s for a greater good; that were it not for government intervention, many of the less fortunate would be lost and forgotten, forced to suffer and die in poverty. It’s a harsh reality, but that’s true; however, that suffering will be answered on the heads of the people of means who know who they are, who are within reach of those who suffer, and choose to do nothing. Even with the intervention of government on behalf of the down-trodden, the individual is not guiltless. Allowing violation of the laws of agency to be perpetrated against anyone, even yourself, is to become party to the offense and to share in the same condemnation that befalls the perpetrator. Man’s responsibility is to fight, even to the death, to preserve the laws that have been established and sustained by eternity, of which the agency of man is one. Failure to engage in the war does not excuse the warrior, but only serves to condemn them further.
Finally, the third party involved is the beneficiary. It’s easy to allow our emotions to get the better of us and think that this person is the innocent victim. Again, it’s a harsh reality, but the guilt lies with this person as well. It is better to die and enter into the rest of the Lord than to allow our temporary sufferings to make us party to the violation of the law. Admittedly, it’s easy to sit here and write this in the comfort of a warm home and full stomach; but the immediacy of circumstances is hardly justification for ignorance or rebellion against the laws by which we are created and have our being, and is certainly powerless to remove the condemnation coincident to such rebellion.
See, Christ taught us charity to make us charitable, to make us better than we are. If we are compelled to charity by government or any entity, we lose all benefit to be gained in the sacrifice. We lose all claim to the blessings promised to the charitable. In other words, we learn nothing, we gain nothing.
We have to stop seeing this world and the universe that surrounds it with such myopic vision.
So when Barack Obama speaks of redistribution of wealth, wearing the mantle of savior that he has so willingly accepted from his supporters, he is speaking with the beguiling forked tongue of that age-old serpent; the same who has represented himself as Christ to generation after generation, from the Garden of Eden to the Halls of Congress.
Listen to him if you want. Be flattered by him if you want. Believe him if you want. That’s the price of agency.
Just remember: the law holds guilty the participant as well as the perpetrator.
More Liberal Consistency
Posted on October 5, 2008
Liberalism, Politics, Reason
Liberals argue that the second amendment should be done away because it puts too much dangerous power (i.e. firearms) in the hands of the public. In other words, where they normally like to try to pretend that they are the champions of civil liberties and the protection of freedom, even at the expense of safety and security (at least when it suits their agenda), in this case they argue just the opposite: safety and security is a more compelling master and should mandate the loss of a constitutional liberty.
The Convenience of Liberal Opinion
Posted on June 19, 2008
Liberalism, Politics, Reason
In America, liberals complain that civil liberties are being taken away in the name of security, using the oft cited Benjamin Franklin quote, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Those same liberals, consistent as they always are on the issues, complain that the American involvement in Iraq causes greater security problems than they had under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. The say the same generally of American presence in the Middle East.
So I guess for liberals, civil liberties are more important than security here in America, but elsewhere in the world, security is more important than civil liberties. How convenient that their very strong and very loud opinions would change so readily from one continental context to the next as long as it appears (on the surface) to suit their liberal, anti-American agendas.
Reason, Passion, and the Law
Posted on May 12, 2008
Intelligent Design, Reason, Religion, Science
This blog is based on the notion that reason, free from passion, is dead. In other words, reason has no longevity in the search for truth without the motivating force of passion. It’s passion that drives, reason that guides. Contrary to Aristotle’s assertion that the law is “reason free from passion,” reason and passion are the two halves of one great whole, equally yoked in the labor of discovering and obeying the law.
I do understand the intent of Aristotle’s assertion, however: simply that law is not prejudiced, or at least is not intended to be, and should not be subject to the erratic mood swings of unbridled passion. In that sense, he is correct, though he did not go far enough in his commitment to his own idea. Law is beyond passion, and by that same notion is also beyond reason. Law is truth, and truth is constant and universal and exists regardless of any human reasoning however passionate or dispassionate. Instead, our reasoning, driven by our passion for truth, should lead us to understand, accept and ultimately obey truth as it is–law–and not to try to shape law to fit our present passions. Given sufficient time and honest pursuit, with passion that burns ever hotter on a course constantly corrected by reason, we eventually learn to live in harmony with all truth, thereby becoming one with truth. In essence, we become truth. We become the law. The law does not bend to us, but rather we take on its characteristics and nature.
So where Aristotle claimed that law is “reason free from passion,” the truth is that law is reason eternally joined with passion in perfect balance and harmony.
Obviously such a state of existence does not occur in the span of mortality. Thankfully, there is a perfectly designed, perfectly reasonable path that arrives at just such a state.
Speaking of Ockham’s Razor…
Posted on May 5, 2008
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Liberalism, Reason, Science
Which is the simpler explanation?
On one hand we have Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection. I need not get into specifics about this theory; it has been posited in schools world wide for decades, so I’ll assume that most are generally familiar with it. A summary of the theory will suffice for our purposes here.
Darwinism is built on the assumption that, due to apparent similarities among the species of Earth, the origins of species can be traced back to a single ancestor, specifically a single-celled organism that spontaneously sprung to life through some unknown process in some sort of indefinable “primordial soup.” Over the course of millions of years, and for no apparent reason given thus far by “science,” this single-celled organism evolved into increasingly more developed and complex organisms, eventually finding its way out of the soup and onto land, through amphibious and reptilian stages and finally into its primate stage. In simplistic terms, according to evolutionary theory, man is the highest form of primate, having evolved from apes.
The evidence to support this theory is weak at best. There is certainly scientific evidence of evolution over time within a given species; but, after all the years of evolutionary study, there is yet to be uncovered even a single shred of scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution across species, that is, evolution from one species into another.
The genesis of life is still unknown to evolutionary biologists, theorists and other scientists. Also unknown is any reason why our supposed single-celled ancestor would have needed to evolve at all. What was the impetus for evolution? As far as the pro-Darwinist scientific community can explain, our single-celled parent sparked to life with a serious java jones and began evolving in hopeful anticipation of getting to the nearest Starbuck’s a few short millions of years down the road.
Equally unknown is how one species evolves into another. With no evidence to examine, science doesn’t have any idea how one species knows what to evolve into or how to evolve into it. Development of tissues, organs, etc. is all based on instructions provided by DNA. So how a species knows to overcome its own DNA and instruct its own development is as yet unexplained.
All of this says nothing about the collection of conditions required to create, support and sustain life, whether or not it evolves as Darwin purports. The best explanation that science can come up with, so far, is randomness. (Don’t get me started on the impossibility of randomness, that’s for another post).
On the other hand we have God. Not God as defined by most religions–i.e. the unknowable, nebulous super-being whose relationship to man is the subject of endless speculation and debate–but God as He really is. A perfectly evolved being who was once as man is now.
Is this definition of God so hard to swallow? Look at it this way: Man has existed for generations spanning at least thousands of years. During that time–a relatively short span relative to the age of the universe–man has progressed in discovery and innovation in tremendous, even miraculous ways, and this with limited resources and brain function (which science still can’t explain, by the way). Now project man a hundred million years into the future. Is it not reasonable to assume that such progress would continue? Is it not reasonable to assume that man’s understanding of the laws of nature and universe would continue to purify, allowing him to overcome many of the limitations that we now face? Now suppose that progress continued eternally. Suppose that man’s intelligence and identity continued eternally, not only man’s, but a man’s, each human’s intelligence and identity. Suppose life continues in some form or another after the life that we understand and observe as mortal life. If each individual’s life continued for eternity, would it not be reasonable to assume that, given an endless amount of time to continue learning and progressing, man would achieve a state of existence so elevated that to humans such as us, such a being would appear in every way divine?
How is this difficult to accept? On the first hand we are expected to accept the notion of cross-species evolution. Why, then, would not the end (or at least the future) of that evolution for mankind be something akin to godhood?
Ockham’s Razor and Darwinism
Posted on May 4, 2008
Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Liberalism, Reason, Religion, Science
Ockham’s Razor is a generally accepted scientific principle that states, in essence, that all things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be right one. That scientists rely on this principle heavily during scientific research to make assumptions and assertions suggests that, by scientific estimation, simple is better than complex.
If, then, it is true that the simple answer is better or more reliable than the alternatives, why would science be more than happy to jump to the conclusion that man has evolved from an ultra simple single-celled organism into a highly complex species? If nature tends towards simplicity, why would natural selection and evolution move a species from super simple high efficiency to super complicated high maintenance?
Further, why would life have evolved into separate sexes, male and female, if certainly the simplest and most efficient method of reproduction is asexual? It could be fairly argued that the dynamics of human male-female interrelations are among the most complicated in nature, and yet that is how “nature” has designed the species, and according to Darwinists, per natural selection and evolution, this complicated way is superior to the alternatives; otherwise it would not have survived the generations of evolution, much less been the result of the generations of evolution.
So either science is completely wrong about the principle of Ockham’s Razor and they cling to it out of complete lack of anything else of substance from which to base observational conclusions; or science is completely wrong about evolution.
Don’t get me wrong: Science is not bad or inherently evil. But the science being pimped in the press and institutions of the world is obviously grossly lacking in power and substance.
Maybe it’s finally time to admit that science as the solitary pursuer and provider of truth is not, as they say, a perfect science.
keep looking »