One must understand them

So often we hear about Israeli "atrocities," about all the evil they supposedly do and these "poor Palestinians" (though one must admit, they are in poverty) who are sitting right under their thumb. In this narrative, Israel was taken from "peaceloving" Arabs.

The reality though is that the people who say these things have never once tried to understand Israels actions. Never once have they put themselves in Israels shoes before they judge. Instead, they use their own European mores, made from a totally different history and social fabric, while judging a nation that they could not possibly understand in a time and place they could not possibly know.

Not once but three times since 1945 have the Arab states tried to squish Israel, and two of those were when they were staying within "appropriate borders." In 1968, after yet another attempt on them, Israel went ahead and took the "lands of others" that had been used as bases and fortresses for the attack on them.

Since 1973 however, the Arabs have realized that attacking Israel militarily is not the way to get anywhere, so instead of attacking straight on, they amass tremendous monetary funds for the families of suicide bombers so they may encourage one of their starving children to blow himself up to continue the war against Israel, without endangering themselves. The result being that because their least favorite child has blown himself up and taken Jews with him, the rest of the family can eat.

With the exception of Jordan, their previous overlord, none of the Arab states have allowed Palestinians to immigrate to their soils and away from the violence. Yet they will rant on and on about the suffering of these Palestinians at the hands of Israelis.

The Jews, meanwhile, are left in a world where nothing is certain, where behind every streetcorner is a bomb waiting to destroy them, and in this world, the rest of the Earth demands that they behave normally. They are left in a world where, because of constant threat of attack from many nations at once, they must resort to a conscription army, which has never led to low civilian casualties (including when America did it in Vietnam) and causes anger against them to rise as a result. Meanwhile, the obvious solution is rejected, simply because the rest of the world wants to fell "good about it self." The obvious solution, of course, is removing the Palestinians to somewhere far away.

On their own land, the Jews have created one of the most brilliant, prosperous shining lights of civilization the world has ever seen in the middle of a desert. Here in their small desert homeland, they have excelled in Agricultural Genetics, built a tremendous education system that Microsoft trusts as one of only three sites worldwide (Tel Aviv) for coding, created a huge middle class, and, perhaps most importantly, a democratic government that protects the rights of all those involved. They've done all this while the Arabs have been shooting at them from every direction and every way, every day of the year. The Isrealis are a true blessing to humanity, while Palestine continues to stagger in non-development, even with its generous gifts of land that they certainly did not deserve for pursuing a constant, unending war with Israel, and ever more bitter poverty.

I do believe that the Palestinians should have a homeland, but it should not be anywhere near Israel. Perhaps Canada or Amazonas can accommodate them? The Sea of Ohktosk is a possibility, even has rich grounds for fishing, and certainly more land then they presently have. The proof is in the pudding, a very bloody pudding filled with the blown off parts of human beings, whole lives snuffed out for no purpose besides Arab greed.

Tattered battle flag of Jerusalem, photo by David Shankbone, license c.c. a.s.a. 3.0 unported

The Great Confusion - a critique of "socially-conscious" enterprise

Wind farm in the Techape Mountains, CA, by Stan Shebs, license c.c. a.s.a 3.0 unported

Whether its renewable energy, microlending in Asia, or low-income housing, we end up hearing "socially-conscious" or "social entrepreneurship" frequently enough to nauseate. As I look through the news, at "socially minded entrepreneurs," I cannot help but notice just how insignificant they really are. For all of their "changing the world," only microlending appears to have changed much, and microlending was not started as "social entrepreneurship" but rather adopted by the figurative guild of "social entrepreneurs" later.

One of the great dangers of social entrepreneurship is the tendency to treat profit as a hurdle instead of an objective. Whereas standard business aims to sell enough at a good enough price to justify its existence, expand and attract others to compete, social entrepreneurship does just barely well enough to exist. Worse, sometimes it doesn't even do that, but rather siphons off funds from the taxpayers through government edict that could be put to better use. In the end, this destabilizes governments and entire economies, as America is only now finding out.

Sometimes people claim that social entrepreneurship can fulfill aspects of true progress that standard entrepreneurship could not. This, simply, is a lie. Take green energy for example. The claim is that we cannot create carbon-free/pollution-free energy without some kind of government investment, but the reality is that we already have such things. We have at least two extremely profitable carbon-free power sources: hydroelectric and uranium-based fission nuclear. We also have a moderately profitable one called Geothermal. Detractors will argue that uranium creates nuclear waste, hydroelectric floods land and threatens biodiveristy, and geothermal takes land in natural areas like the Valles Caldera. And yet they advance wind, which takes up far more land in natural areas then geothermal ever would, and hydro would in some cases, and harms biodiversity by destroying migratory birds, and solar, which, like all semiconductors, requires dangerous chemicals and chemical wastes in the production of solar panels, or else, in the form of solar-thermal, takes up vast land and destroys entire habitats like wind, while taking astronomical costs to build and in the end not being sustainable for the simple and basic reason that nothing built can last forever.

Another claim is bringing third-world countries out of poverty, but alas, every first-world nation was once a third-world nation, and every one of them was brought out of this condition by the expansion of private business. And today, in India, Brazil, Russia, Rwanda, Uganda and China, private business is bringing a few more home. Does this mean there is no role for government or charity? Hardly, this is all collectivist we have not even looked at taking care of individuals yet, but it does mean that your "social entrepreneuers" are wrong about precisely what that role is.

And then there's the matter of precisely what profit is. When most people here the word, they think of some fat guy in a suit who already has too much money (in this day and age, that more accurately describes politicians.) Most business today is done by a combination of ma and pa business and joint stock ventures, depending upon the sector. Indeed, "fat suit guy sole proprietor" has not been the dominant model since the late 1800's.

Joint stock ventures are made up of 1,000's of investors of every social status, both wealthy seeking more wealth and workers seeking a retirement through 401K's, putting money towards a limited liability venture that they are not in control of but still suffer the gains and losses of through stock price and dividend. When you create profit for your joint stock venture, that's a larger 401K for a soon to be old man as well as a larger portfolio for a serious investor (who is not always, but usually is, rich.)

But that's not all profit does! Profit also means that a large enough number of people will contribute a large enough sum to your product to make it more then worthwhile to produce. It also creates new investor groups, both ma and pa and joint stock, to create more production of the desired thing. This virtuous cycle puts out WHAT PEOPLE WANT IN THE GREATEST SENSE, instead of what is desired by a small "ecologically friendly" elite. Indeed, it is far more democratic then democracy, as democracy only considers yes or no and not the degree to which something is desired. Democracy is like a net of thick rope with 4 inch gaps and the free market is like the finest of satins - its holes nearly invisible.

Profit too prevents the waste of resources - if building space, workers and raw materials are demanded by a more profitable enterprise, the price will increase until finally the less profitable either go out of business or rearrange their assets, freeing up the building space, workers and raw materials. As our society decided "getting off of foreign oil" was the highest of all goals, E85 drove up the price of food to cause many of our poor to starve by taking tons of corn and turning it in to small quantities of motor oil. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise astronomically, and a few foolish legislators suggested increasing Ethanol content beyond what engines can take without corrosion.

The reality is that profit is a very lofty and socially honorable thing, that very much does empower all of society, and create the best world the given conditions can create for the common man. Treating it as a problem, instead of a solution, will lead to hubris and a small elite dictating things as "the right thing to do" instead of allowing nature and the common man to decide amongst themselves. There is no one so ignorant as one who thinks he knows what's good for his neighbor, and so much of the 20th century has been ruled and ruined by such men.

Full Extent of the Pacific Electric Railway, circa 1920. Public domain work of US Federal Gov't.

Guest Post - Jamie B Musing

With all that's been happening in the news in politics lately, it's been a while since this blog hosted a true culture article. In the spirit of both this and advancing the blogosphere, I present you a guest post from the esteemed Jamie B Musings of "Culture Shock: Everything Pop Culture 5 Days a Week." The above blogger image is authorized for use on this blog only.

Back in college, I was listening to the radio when I heard a story that disgusted and irritated me. It was about two boys, ages 15 and 13, who were molesting their 8-year-old half sister. The mother had left the girl in her brothers’ care while she was at work, and the child reported it to a teacher at her school. The boys claim they got the idea from watching Jerry Springer. It wasn’t just the molestation of a child that bothered me. It was also the fact that, once again, someone is blaming their own actions on media and this case would more then likely stir yet another debate on the effects of media of small children.

This is not the first time this has happened. Different forms of media have been blamed for everything from rape to armed robbery. Different songs by artists such as Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne have been blamed for suicides. Not only that, but the artists have been sued because of it as well. Then there was "The Catcher in the Rye", which has been linked to several celebrity stalkings, including the death of John Lennon and the attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan. Once, Christopher Pike, an author of young adult horror novels was asked if he felt responsible for the suicide of a kid who had read some of his books, even though he never promoted suicide in his work. In fact, he portrayed negative consequences for the act in his "Remember Me" Trilogy. What is even worse, many conservative groups use these cases as ammunition to censor certain materials which is not the answer and one step towards creating the world Ray Bradbury wrote about of Fahrenheit 451. What it all comes down to is too many people are trying to use the media to make excuses for the crimes they commit.

I find it hard to believe any sane and rational person would commit a crime just because they saw it in the media. It is time for people to stop searching for the easy answer. Let's face it... there are no easy answers in life. The human mind is a complex machine and I believe when someone commits violent acts, we need to look much deeper than the media to understand them. We also need to be more aware of what's going on around us and act accordingly instead of burying our heads in the sand. Look at the Virginia Tech shooting, for example. The shooter was known to be a problem on campus and had scared more than a couple of students and teachers and that wasn't the first time something that that had happened somewhere. Nothing will ever stop all violence, but I really do believe that we can only make it better if we're willing to look deeper than media to solve the problem.

Operation Northwoods - 49 years later

Joint Chiefs of Staff 1962. Public domain work of US government.

Beginning with the title “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba”, the Joint Chiefs of Staff set out to produce evidence of a phony attack to justify an invasion of Cuba in 1962. Among the "evidence," shooting down a civilian airliner, burning crops, and carrying out a terrorism campaign throughout Florida and even up to Washingotn DC are considered par for the course, acceptable prey for the beast. In a nation founded "For the people, by the people," a small intelligence elite contemplates killing thousands and blaming it on someone else to kill thousands more and gain influence with the grimmest of sobriety. Even law it seems is worthless to them. In typical bureaucratic fashion, the majority of the concern on the first page is with whose agency will be assigned responsibility for doing it.

Prior to the Freedom of Information Act, both this operation and an experimentation with human mind control known as MKULTRA were totally classified, with no clear timeline for the information to eventually be released. Even with such an act, many executive level documents can remain classified with a proper judicial review. However, in 1976, less then 9 years after the law had come in to effect that revealed these horrifying actions of our government, the "Government in the Sunshine Act" created the following exemptions:

1. Information relating to national defense,
2. Related solely to internal personnel rules and practices,
3. Related to accusing a person of a crime,
4. Related to information where disclosure would constitute a breach of privacy,
5. Related to investigatory records where the information would harm the proceedings,
6. Related to information which would lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution, and
7. Related to the agency's participation in legal proceedings.

That "protects" nearly all documents worth declassifying. As if this wasn't enough, further legislative and other actions have extended exemption 1 (Reagan, executive order 12356), created a new exemption for law enforcement (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), increased response time deadlines to act requests (20 days instead of 10, Electronic Freedom of Information Act of 1996) and restricted access to presidential records (Bush, executive order 13223). Later, a ban on foreign requests (Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002), further extending the deadline to 30 days (Open Government Act of 2007), and allowing reclassification of previously declassified work (Obama, executive order 13526) after undesirable requests were added to the bill. Later executive orders revoked some extent of 12356 and 13223, while the OPEN act also required extensive paper trails on redactions or deletions from declassified documents, but the fact that IT CAN BE DONE remains troubling.

Now it is true that some military materials really must be protected, but surely we can find a better, more legally protective phrasing then "Information relating to national defense"! What does that even mean? And why does law enforcement get a free pass, except for the case of harming a judicial proceeding? Wasn't law enforcements protection in clause (5) more then enough without this additional "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986" thingamajigger? And what, precisely, would "lead to financial speculation or endanger the stability of any financial institution"? Just how much would that cover, when one considers how many actions have an effect on the economy? And why do executive orders get to extend the act, should that not be the responsibility of congress?

The reality is that government will always be up to evil deeds, and the only thing that stands against them is the common people and interested parties. We must learn to "counter ambition with ambition" as James Madison phrased it. Secrecy except when 100% necessary is the best way government can thwart that process, and the best way that government can eventually take all power for itself. Even when it is necessary, it is a tragedy, and still harms our nation.

John F. Kennedy eventually rejected Operation Northwoods, but it was at his desk, ready to sign, and with the stroke of one pen thousands of innocent people would've died to start a pointless war with a nation that did not attack us. Since then, the act that released the information about Northwoods has been curtailed and limited by amendment after amendment from bill after bill and many executive orders. The court system would also be subverted to frame innocent men and women of bombings and murders. In the foulest of all corruptions, government would shatter law.

Northwoods showed once again, along with what Congress has done since, that the only one you can count on to look out for you is you, and that there are no limits to the cruelty and lies of an over-expanded government. There is no reason to believe that a Northwoods could not occur today, and even less reason to believe that man like Obama, unlike Kennedy, would sign it. Indeed, it is even possible that "Fast and Furious" may be part of such an operation, a thought that occurred to me immediately after it happened. Though I am not personally of the opinion that 9/11 was such an operation, and part of my reason for this comes from my own examination of Al Qaidas apparent game plan, it is easy to understand from whence the paranoia came. Truth is, we have much reason to be afraid, and more reason to act to end the tyranny of an oversecretive, overextended, legally subversive government, and to end this tyranny in the most law-abiding, peaceful way possible: at the polls. Just as the British did with HM James of York, so we can do with our own corrupt elites.

Leading the Party - How Romney would be a disaster for the GOP

The Black highlights significant dips in the Generic Congressional Vote relative to the democrats, while the red lines and green lines indicate where Romneys vote has rapidly increased (red) or staggered to gradual decline (green). Screenshots from RCP Polling Averages, Fair Use, with a few basic visual annotations. I apologize for the hazy quality - Blogger could not fully handle the image.

The RCP Polling average, at realclearpolitics.com, averages a whole series of generally accepted polls while discluding major outliers to form a scientific estimation of the actual vote. Mitt Romneys slip in the polls in June corresponded with an improvement in the Generic Congressional Vote. Later, when Perry also appeared to have many of the same problems to Conservatives and, given the evidence above, others, the Congressional Vote slipped once again. In short, Romney, though popular himself, as a standard-bearer for the greater Republican Party is a disaster, and the fruits of this disaster would show itself in (at best) stagnation in the congressional races of 2012 should he be the nominee. At worse, the Republicans could end up not only failing to take the Senate, but losing the House, as their generic congressional ballot is often underperforming the Democrats.

Most reasonable Republicans agree that getting rid of the Reidosi dominated congress is as important as getting rid of Obama. Romney looks presidential, talks soberly (though I wouldn't say well, as that requires that you actually say something), has a nice suit and nice hair, and isn't Obama. Because of this, a lot of people are willing to vote for him for President. But a lot of those people will also see him as the representative of the Republican Party, and will conclude that it is every bit as corrupt, unethical, lukewarm and openly fat cat Wall Street elitist as it was in 2008. They'll still vote for Romney, because he's not Obama and looks like a President regardless of what he does, but they won't vote for Republican candidates outside of Romney. It will also prevent the discussion of ideas that leads to congressional majorities, instead having a presidential race focused entirely on personalities and handing the congressional races directly over to California Environmentalists and Wisconsin Public Sector Unions.

And why would it be any different? Most Americans, outside of the most venom-filled, unthinking and partisan branches of the Republican party, know that George W. Bush is just as responsible for our nations current situation as Barrack Obama. Romney represents the Republican party of Bush. Romney represents Republicans with no principles, who will do anything to get elected, will accept bribes like Ted Stevens, know nothing about Main Street or the physical economy (Romney is, after all, the quintessential Wall Street number cruncher who thinks that the economy is a math equation) and have no trouble trampling on the rights of ordinary Americans or casting all good economic sense to the wind (including what he actually knows) simply to be "popular."

Romney represents the kind of thinking that forces Americans to buy a private good and favors a gradual government takeover of the economy - something which he has not only done, but seems rather proud of. Romney, frankly, should move to the countries that follow his way of thinking, putting everything in the hands of corrupt elites, namely the Sudan, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Chad, the Central African Republic or any number of other African Kleptocracies. Maybe then he would realize why an Ivy-Leagueized America is not a good idea and that public-private collusion is not a virtue.

And should we elect him, just what will he do? Will the man who inspired Obamas entire economics agenda really depart from them substantially? Will he kowtow and get along well with the Democrat Congress that he helped elect? Just what will he do?

Update 10/9/11 - As Mr. Presidents approval ratings continue to drop in the RCP average to their lowest point ever this week, now approaching that crucial 40% mark, it seems that more and more the legitimate interest of the Republican Party needs to be selecting a man who can lead the entire party to victory in all 50 states. Winning the electoral college by more votes is not going to help the Conservatives govern. Winning the electoral college, and then winning the Senate and House by more, will.

Mannies wanted

Eugen Keler with his black nanny, 1874. Public domain by copyright expiration.

Not long ago, really only a matter of decades, entire generations of wealthy Southern males and females were raised not by their mothers, but by, usually black, servant ladies who went by names like "Miss Marcy" and "Miss Denise" and who were given the important job of raising the next generation of a wealthy, Southern family. When these men came in to town, the first person they visited was not their parents, it was who raised them.

It was a good deal for the Mannies too. The pay may not have been much, but their erstwhile "masters" were often very generous in the form of gifts and benefits, and this member of the family was taken care of exactly like that - a member of the family. And they could live in a nice room in a nice mansion, and when the family got Filet Mignon or ate out, so more often then not did they.

Today, wealthy, intelligent women with hard careers aren't having children. Now it is true that there is the little matter of passing a bowling ball through a tiny hole (it may be hard to "put a camel through the eye of a needle" in the words of scripture, but women do it on a regular basis), and no one can really help you with that, besides the obvious possibility of cutting you open, but we as a society can help you with what comes after. We can provide Mannies, people to take care of the child you are too busy for, and he will still be yours, and family, but if you are too busy with your career what is not neccesary need not be minded.

It seems that today we have a resistance or hate or even unnegotiableness to the notion of Mannies, to the notion of someone else raising our children, but we shouldn't. Why shouldn't someone who has time look after our kids? Is it better if no one is there for them just because you can't be? Is it better to simply never have children, and never experience any of it, just because you can't handle all of it? And obviously this solution only works for the wealthy. But why shouldn't it work for who it does?

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Chapter 5: The Parable of the Green Fool

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"Someone in the crowd said to him, “Liberal, tell my brother to divide the tax money with my solar power company.”

"¹⁴ Comrade Stalin replied, “Individuals, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you? Can't you tell I have the general will to look out for...” ¹⁵ Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; you might turn in to a conservative! But for now you're just a useful idiot...”

¹⁶ And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain country yielded an abundant economic harvest. ¹⁷ He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no way to prevent the world from changing.’

¹⁸ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my coal power plants and build bigger solar panels across miles of beautiful, open Desert, and there I will have my electricity. ¹⁹ And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of power laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

²⁰ “But the general will, now extended to include the cute, furry creatures of the forest, said to him, ‘You fool! Yellowstone will erupt this very night, cover the Western United States with lava and block the sun for 50 years. Then where will this stable world you have prepared for yourself go to?’

²¹ “This is how it will be with whosoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich towards the general will."

Meet the Proles

Public Domain image by Pearson Scott Foreman

One thing that never ceases to shock me is the tendency of the electorate to hold on to oft repeated lies, even resfuse to hear statements to the contrary of them, and with no candidate has this been more true then Sarah Palin. What do people get out of speaking venom and lies against her? What is it about Palin that makes people not only swallow the lies about her hook, line and sniker, but then dismiss any challenge to those lies as unworthy of their hearing?

In "1984", there were some, shall we say, non-characters called the Proles. They are humans who are non-people, are so lost in their hate, anger, fear and willful ignorance that they will simply hate upon without question whoever the small elite decides as a target, not even quoting their own memories against it. They can be controlled by a single broadcast of the radio.

I don't know what brought America to the brink of becoming Oceania, but something did. Something made us so thoroughly lose ourselves in hate, anger and political parties that we will ignore all reasoning thereafter. Something made us that lazy, that cowardly, that inhuman. I'll leave you to figure out what it was, but when was the last time that someone attacking Sarah Palin gave a good reason why?

Any particular lies you would like addressed will be handled in the comment section.

UPDATE 10/5/2011: Sarah Palin will not be seeking the highest office in the land. She announced that family concerns have simply become too great. The only person in the world who can defeat Sarahcuda is her own daughter, and it seems that she has proved this adage once again.