Tipping Point

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing.        ~Walter H. Judd

Have we reached a point where the average citizen cannot be trusted to vote in the best interest of the survival of the United States as envisioned by our founders and as built over the first 200 years or so? Could the popular vote lead us down a path to ruin? Has the Left created and conditioned a populace to vote for all the wrong things and for all the wrong reasons? There is no question at all that through bad immigration policies, intentional race hustling and class justice distortion we now have a public all too willing to lead us further away from the hard working, capitalist nation so wisely crafted by our founding fathers. The Left contorts our best freedoms into our worst excuses for compromise, intrusion, and pursuit of all kinds of ruinous policy in the name of “social justice”.

Today the Left tries to position an obvious spending problem as a revenue generation problem. We’ve spent tax revenues on an endless array of bottomless government programs for decades. Our current administration is making that legacy problem disappear, not through the abolishment of fruitless programs, but by creating such an enormous budgetary crisis over the last 2 years that we will all soon forget about the comparatively minor debt issues of the recent past. Blaming our alarming national debt on lack of revenue is like blaming your employer for your gambling problem and insisting on a raise as the only way to maintain your downward debt spiral and feed your fun recreational pursuits.

Spending escalation predictably put us in a position where, finally, maybe we are nearing a point when enough productive Americans will no longer be willing to foot the bill. According to the Committee on Joint Taxation, 51 percent -- that is, a majority of American households pay no income tax. What’s more, things have gotten so askew that 30 percent of American households actually make money from the tax system through tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit. Think about that for a second. The Obama administration’s social engineering approach is bringing us nearer to socialism, or at least to a point where people can become comfortable with accepting that those that contribute are no different than those that simply consume. With 51 percent on the consuming only side today, I fear we have passed a frightful milestone where average Americans can no longer be expected to take pride in their own growth and accomplishment instead, but seem more interested in what other Americans should provide for them with no strings attached. This imbalance cannot be sustained for very long. There are no government models, or, more importantly, human behavior models that allow for this imbalance to go uncorrected.

Even though I’m busy for 10-12 hours every day generating significant revenue for the IRS, I do get occasion to watch TV news, visit internet sites and experience for myself how the other half lives. In the last year or so I began watching the show Pawn Stars on the History Channel. This is a reality show where we get to peek into the business of a Las Vegas based pawn shop. The show can be interesting from a historical/educational perspective as well as a business perspective. Supply and demand are both in full effect in the pawn business. This show led me to another show called Hard Core Pawn. This one is based in a tough neighborhood in Detroit and instead of focus on the historical angle; we get a view of the human side, the tougher side of the pawn business. I tuned into this show with no expectations, except perhaps I thought that I would see interesting items being brought in sale, like the Las Vegas show. After watching only a single show I was surprised by one thing in particular. Very commonly the destitute, inner city, pawn shop patrons literally DEMAND a certain amount of money for their usually worthless jewelry, electronics or other similar items. The scenario too often goes like this---A patron wants to sell to the store a gold chain or watch. Very often the item is of much lower quality and value than the patron believes or claims. The pawn show owner or employee offers, say, $30 for the item. The patron wants more money, perhaps $150, and says “you can’t offer me $30, you will give me $150.” The employee responds that it is not worth that much and that the offer of $30 is more than fair. The angry customer quickly escalates by pointing out how unfair it is that this business is in their neighborhood and needs to “help” out the customers whether or not it is good for business. Time and time again the belligerent patrons insinuate or flat out say that this pawn shop is not in fact a business but a public service. I can’t help but wonder if these people even realize the absurdity of asking a family business, based on the hard realities of profit & loss, to forgo its own interests and instead give money to a stranger. I am convinced that these customers simply do not understand the basics of running a business or even personal financial management.

I can only guess as to why so many people from a central American city (like me) and likely from the public school system (like me) fail to recognize something so obvious and crucial to survival in our country. I have to think that they don’t see much capitalism at home in their formative years. High unemployment and higher public program dependence teaches children at a very early age that it is very normal to have a paycheck, food and shelter without having a job. I also suspect the highly unionized and failing inner city schools are missing the point too.

Now, I know that a TV show doesn’t speak for an entire nation, but these behaviors are hard to ignore, and are hardly surprising. I somehow doubt that they are isolated to a small business in Detroit too. I see similar behavior throughout the United

States from picket lines to corporate hallways where many employees act as though employment is a right instead of a means to generate capital for a business and oneself. Even if this sense of entitlement has not yet reached a majority of Americans it can certainly be defined as “normal”. Normal in the sense that it is a common enough occurrence that we all recognize. Have we reached a tipping point where the direction of our nation consistent with the constitution cannot be trusted to the average voter? This is scary to even think about. Some of the possible solutions, like limiting who can vote, don’t seem very American either. Nations reaching such a precipice often have serious civil instability and this can often lead to civil war. Exercising the right to vote is a very serious responsibility, one that not all people approach with the same care. As the next presidential election approaches we are all faced with what could very likely be a decision of epic importance. Indeed, I can only hope that we aren’t reaching a point where those trusted with the keys to our future don’t drive us over the cliff.

Imaginary World

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.

        ~T.S. Eliot



I can imagine a world occupied by an imagined humanity. In this world we would all be better off. There would be no wars.

We would all be better off without humans contending for their share of life’s essentials. Unfortunately, humans are not born into a world providing for them a lifetime supply of the essentials at no cost.

We would all be better off if all geographies contained natural resources sufficiently abundant to sustain any and all populations of humans we wish to produce. Unfortunately, our globe is a very diverse mix of terrain, climate, flora, and fauna. Location, location and location prove to be three of the most critical aspects of happiness and even survival. Not the only three.

The world would be better off without extreme wills to power. Unfortunately, like all social species, we are naturally and therefore necessarily hierarchical. This order has allowed for our survival as a species. Throughout history, as human populations grew larger, someone had to rise to solve complex problems and help guide the group to decisions on survival and prosperity. There are those that lead and are looked to for leadership. There are those that follow and find comfort or self-preservation in being guided. Extremes of both kinds, leaders and followers, exist.

We would all be better off without a natural tendency to push populations to maximum sustainment levels. Unfortunately, we are an evolved species bound to the same history of all evolved species. Organism survival is first and foremost dependant upon opportunistic reproduction—the “selfish gene” if you will. We are programmed for reproductive success. Propagate your numbers when you can for life is a numbers game. This results in boundary breaches as resources ebb and flow and even run dry.

We would all be better off if each was equally endowed with sufficient initiative to arise each morning, achieve for themselves and family, and endeavor for something better. Unfortunately, some struggle to even arise, others to sustain, and others to improve. Some drive the world forward while others come along for the ride or even apply opposing force.

We would all be better off if we all shared an equal and high intelligence (I think). Understanding one another would be much easier. There would still be squabbles over position based upon experience and perspective, but the long term possibilities of reaching similar positions and desiring similar outcomes would be enhanced.

If only the realities and destinies of mankind were not largely predicated on abilities and resultant behaviors programmed for us long ago by the invisible hand of natural selection. Like the storied beauty pageant contestant, I want world peace. Our unique human brains afford us a glimpse of the imagined and often of the impossible. Our frustration, both understandable and commendable, will continue as some use the evolved brain to consider societies that collections of brains appear incapable of sustaining. Imagination and ideations are liberators of humanity. At the same time, today they have become yet another means to divide us.

My son graduated U.S. Army Infantry Advanced Individual Training at Fort Benning in Georgia last week. Unlike such milestone events when I served in the U.S. Air Force, there were some beautiful, tasteful and honorable ceremonies. These new infantry soldiers have just undergone an immersion and transformation most will never appreciate. To use words taken from the graduation ceremony, these are the “better men” brave enough to take action. They do not merely sit in coffee shops and university halls talking ill-informed theory—these are men of action. Better men that understand what makes this the greatest nation ever realized and strong enough to volunteer to preserve what’s best.--during time of war, no less. These men, now more than ever, appreciate what exactly this preservation involves. Over the coming months they know too that they will learn yet more through unimaginable hard work, dedication and sacrifice; perhaps the ultimate sacrifice. My son left this morning for his duty assignment to his unit in Virginia. For him and his fellow soldiers the coming months and years could very possibly present to them the defining moments of their lives. I am a military man myself. I am the son of a military man, he the son of a military man as well. My son is at least the fourth concurrent generation in my family willing to take personal action. I am assured there were more that became young men of action instead of pontificators of rhetoric. For this lineage I could not be more grateful or more proud.

While we would all be better off in an imaginary world not yet realized by carbon based life as we know it, we do not live in such a place. Our reality is one of great achievement and cooperation, but sadly also great differences and conflict. We would all be better off recognizing reality and encouraging our young to serve and protect what is good and right for humanity.

Populations. The Bigger They Are…

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.

~George William Curtis

I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him.

~Abraham Lincoln

America is much more than a geographical fact. It is a political and moral fact - the first community in which men set out in principle to institutionalize freedom, responsible government, and human equality.

~Adlai Stevenson

Ours is the only country deliberately founded on a good idea.

~John Gunther

Places I used to go as a kid seem much more crowded these days. The roads, the stores, the expansive neighborhoods where corn fields once stood. How much more can my neck of the woods take? For that matter, I don’t think that it is only in my neck of he woods where this is happening. We have lots more people in this country and the world today than we have ever had. I have been giving some attention to population studies for the last month or so. I recently wrote a piece on world population sustainability. Thinking about how many people our planet can sustain on a global scale got me to thinking further about how the little old United States of America is doing.

We’re only a little more than 200 years old. We have many government social programs that are getting us into deep budget trouble and some people want to see even more. We’ve got a Social Security program that is functionally bankrupt. Incidentally, I recently learned that our Social Security program was instituted in 1935, with a very important assumption that is not the case today. At that time life expectancy in the U.S. was 61 years. Social Security payments weren’t expected to support a majority of our population while they lived well into their 70s and 80s. I point this out about our Social Security program as more than a mere footnote. This is great evidence of how government programs outlive and indeed evolve well beyond their intended originations. Unemployment rates are a few percent higher than we normally like to live with. Of course, we have the current healthcare debate centering, at least for the Democrats, on the uninsured. Depending on who you are the change we are seeing in our government is either cause or effect. Clearly we are a society that is very concerned with either spending too much on government or spending too little.

Faced with this dilemma, I did what I find myself doing more and more lately—I looked for historical or current examples that may shed help some light on the situation. Are there any examples out there for us to analyze? Are any of these social ills entirely unexpected in a country whose population has grown as quickly as the United States over the last 50 years (or whatever time period)? How about when you consider our very diverse demographics and influx of illegal aliens flying under the radar, or our democratic version of government? These questions and many others all seem to me to be within a scope of my population interest.

What are the facts about how we built to our current population? It took about 200 years, between 1700 and 1900, to get the first 100,000,000 people in the U.S. It took only another 68 years to double that and reach 200,000,000. It took less than 40 years to add another 100,000,000 for a total now of more than 300,000,000 people. The pending census may prove us to be substantially higher.

Has the U.S. population grown more over the last 50 years than anyplace else? Has it grown quicker than in the immigration heyday (Ellis Island)? Are those that immigrate now assimilating differently than previous waves of immigrants? How about the demographic change from European to other? Are these problems to be expected no matter the good intentions of immigrants because such a spike in population is hard to absorb? Could we expect to be able to sustain our standard of living with such growth? Is this growth unprecedented in history? Questions, questions.

Immigration numbers for each of the last 2 decades are higher than any single decade in our history. People are coming here in never before seen numbers. This is difficult enough to absorb, but today’s immigrants present another problem. They are not as interested in assimilation as the immigrants in previous decades, especially before WWII. The countries currently supplying us with the most immigrants are Mexico, India, Philippines, China, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Cuba, Korea, and Columbia. Maybe when I say that our modern immigrants are not as interested in assimilation as historical immigrants I am being a bit unfair. Perhaps the problem is not them at all. The real problem is that we no longer demand assimilation. Thomas Paine, in his great work, Common Sense, said “Emigrants of property will not chose to come to a country whose form of government hangs but by a thread and is every day tottering on the brink of commotion and disturbance…”(emphasis mine). This statement is telling in more than one way, but notice the not so subtle interest in attracting “Emigrants of property”. Paine understood then, as we all should today, that this nation is best served by an influx of foreign immigrants with some existent financial worth and the accompanying interest in maintenance and growth of good fortune. We have gotten to a point where our founding fathers’ vision of a single nation united around core values is so diluted by cultural relativists that we have completely lost the reason we sought national independence in the first place. Where once people came to America to unify and prosper, they now come to America to differentiate, diversify and deplete government money. The first great immigration wave was from Ireland and Germany in the 1820s. For the next 100+ years our immigrants were mainly European. Of course, the founders of the United States were of European ancestry as well, so the reasons for immigration were very similar to that of the early settlers. Also similar were the willingness and ability to assimilate. Groups treasured and maintained their heritage while understanding the importance of assimilation as a key aspect of success in the land they deemed gave them unparalleled opportunity. As a nation we are losing sight of what made us great. Pandering to one another’s differences did not build this nation—celebrating forming one team to achieve common goals did.

Some brilliant people facing problematic governments in Europe found a relatively unsettled land across a vast ocean. Here they came and settled with no small amount of difficulty. Once established and independent they designed a new form of government as a solution to the problems they knew only too well in their varied yet similar homelands. The U.S. Constitution was created as the law of the land. Certainly some very important revisions were made, but we lived true to this Constitution for the better part of 2 centuries. Then something happened. Somehow our population came not to appreciate the great country that this great document created. As our population grew and diversified there came ideas for utopian change. Not change founded on any reality or any experience, but change founded on ideals proven unrealistic. Our mistake was in moving away from the letter and spirit of the great document. Instead of holding firm to the tenets that we knew were effective, we sought to accommodate. We should have treated our new inhabitants, native born and immigrant, as new employees to the world’s most successful company. “We don’t care how you did it at your old company, you’re with our company now and we have a model here that is proven and effective.” But our own pursuit of freedom, equality and innovation has left us susceptible to change not always in the best interests of our country. Seemingly overnight the concept of limited government “by the people and for the people” was being replaced with government intervention in places once unimaginable. We set out on a path to recreate our nation in the image of the nations we left behind.

Still, we’re not doing too badly when you compare us to some other examples in the world. Has any other country grown by 300,000,000 people in 300 years? Well, there are only 2 countries, India and China, which have 300,000,000 or more people. It goes without saying (or does it?) that these two countries are not societal examples to strive for. Their governments are completely different than ours. There is not nearly the opportunity in those nations nor is there anything approaching our standard of living. Indonesia is running in 4th position, but has nearly 100,000,000 people fewer than the United States. That said, it is a pretty screwed up place too. It is safe to say that no other country even approaching our size is a model worthy of copying. Ours is an experiment never before seen. To maintain such a high standard of living, with unsurpassed human rights and individual freedom, it appears, is not an easy thing to do. Nobody else has done it.

We’ve got a good thing going. Our fortune is based on a societal model we literally invented from a grand vision rooted in Western experience. The model proved out to be everything our founders envisioned. The greatest, most equitable, richest, strongest, least imperialistic nation ever conceived came to be and grew strong for 200 years. Why would anyone want to change from the most successful fruit bearing societal model ever to one that is at best proven less successful or at worst proven fatal? Those old models--dictatorships, monarchies, socialist, Marxist and communist haven’t worked under any conditions, let alone the conditions present in the United States. I guess my point is, why try rebuilding this nation in image of anything we’ve seen before? That we have the greatest nation ever and have grown peacefully to our current level is no accident. Our strength began with the uniqueness of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. We cannot be swayed further by newcomers and idealists that do not recognize their own great fortune. Any movement away from the intent of those 2 revolutionary and foundational documents is movement intent on destroying the greatest nation ever. To what end?

Many have contemplated these same thoughts. I began this piece with more quotes than usual--I end it with a couple more.

Of all the supervised conditions for life offered man, those under USA's constitution have proved the best. Wherefore, be sure when you start modifying, corrupting or abrogating it.

~Martin H. Fischer

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.

~Adolf Hitler

Long Live Poverty

You can never get enough of what you don't need to make you happy.

~Eric Hoffer


Political coups, large or small, swift or slow, overt or covert, all need a central cause. This foundation serves to anchor each message and unite a front. At times, the foundation is in plain sight for even the least experienced political observers to see. Other times it takes a little digging to unearth. Until several years ago, inattentive as I was, I did not clearly see the socialist/redistributionist foundation of the Democratic Left. The uncovering of this foundation has been slow and steady since my “discovery”. I have no delusions that I actually did discover it. Historical studies now show me that it had been laid decades before, only to see episodes of repeated decay and repair. Marxism is the modern champion of class struggle. Marxists see capitalism as a certain if not primary trigger for class division. Capitalism is thine enemy.

Mention of a liberal socialist agenda in the U.S. government only a decade ago was considered a little paranoid and sensationalistic. Now it is widely recognized by the mainstream media. Conservatives have no shame in making the accusations, and it appears that many liberals have no shame in admitting the truth to the allegation. Today fully half of U.S. government spending goes to entitlement programs. This disgusts conservatives and shows a glimmer of promise to liberals. Conservatives love this nation for the opportunity it encourages and liberals hate this nation for the disparities they see in outcomes.

In my lifetime, class warfare or class conflict has been the foundational cause of the Left. The former European communist, socialist and Marxist movements have taken root in the United States. Neighbor vs. neighbor in a mythical zero-sum, “haves” vs. “have nots” is the power that binds a political movement and divides a nation. I think and hope that the agenda once well hidden is now fully exposed. Each Democratic Party regime over the past 30 years has taken the socialist agenda, fueled by class struggle, one step at a time further. None in such plain view as the Obama administration. If you didn’t see it or didn’t believe it during the campaign, it must be painfully obvious now. If you still don’t see it, you must not want to.

Barack Hussein Obama and his not-so-gentle administration have a sure fire way to keep the struggle alive. Our leader has just announced change in the way we measure and define poverty in the United States. I do not know exactly how a definition change takes place, but I think it is relatively easy for a president and does not involve congressional vote.

Under the new measurement criteria, the poor will still be defined partially by a minimum income level. No change there. The infuriating part is the proposed supplement to that definition. BHO has cleverly decided that minimum income level threshold will rise with any raise in average American income. So, no matter how comfortable your standard of living, if you earn some percentage less than the average American wage earner deemed unfair by redistributionists, you are judged poor. A nice home, a fat belly and two automobiles in your garage wouldn’t matter. What does matter is where you are in comparison with everyone else. Living in poverty would not necessarily mean that you are unable sustain yourself and your family. The new measure is in no way related to sustainment.

If everyone in the country were handed a $75,000 per year job tomorrow (and assuming that the money still had the buying power that it does today), we would still have poverty because poverty would now be relative not to what you need to survive, but to the average income in the nation. This means no matter how well our country is doing, we will always have a group that we can label a distressed, suppressed, oppressed and depressed minority. These “poor” folks would still be eligible to enjoy the redistribution programs aimed at leveling the financial worth of individuals. I presume this underclass would still continue to vote for further redistribution, for it certainly wouldn’t seem fair to remain relatively behind.

It really makes you think about poverty as defined in America, even today. Our poor are fat. Our poor have iPods. Our poor wear expensive clothing. Our poor drive automobiles. Our poor have flat screen TVs and 200 channels. Our poor drive on well-maintained roads. Our poor have access to free medical care. Our poor can count on state, county and local police protection. Our poor have world class educational opportunities. Really, the relativist approach is already thriving well. Middle and above classes, let alone the poor, in many parts of the world can only dream of such niceties.

It is shameful that we can count our poor amongst the world’s poor. In fact, there is already a sliding scale used in the measurement of poverty around the world. Each nation establishes a different poverty level. We’re not talking absolutes here. When people around the world hear how outrageous it is that there are “poor” people living in the United States, the richest country ever, it sounds quite damning. Even our own “poor” people have a huge misunderstanding of what it means to be poor in the rest of the world and how, in a way, they are very lucky to be poor in America. The problem is that the world’s understanding of “poor” is very, very different than our understanding of poor (see above…cars, homes, iPods, high caloric intake, etc.). Imagine the disgust felt by the rest of the world when they listen to the rhetoric about what a classist and unfair system capitalism and democracy promotes. If they only knew the truth.

Somewhere the truth still prevails. The world’s poor are clamoring to come to our shores only to get a chance to be poor in the United States of America. For example, the poverty line for an individual in the United States in 2008 was $11,201 per year. In rural India the poverty line was $7.50 per month or $90 per year. These are people struggling for mere existence.

There is a term called absolute poverty that refers to a level below which someone lacks the resources to attain the necessities for life. This measurement comes out to about 1 U.S. dollar per day. Not surprisingly, when you use the socialist friendly relative poverty rate calculations, the United States looks worse than Europe. However, when you use the absolute poverty calculations, the United States comes out better in the comparison. So, we have fewer people lacking what it takes to survive, but we have more disparity. This is not surprising. There is great opportunity for Americans to earn tons of money, but not such opportunity in places like Norway or Sweden, the poster children for equality. Even this absolute poverty statistic can be misleading. See, in the United States we have many, many people who earn $0 dollars per day, well below sustainment level. However, they do not typically starve to death in the streets. In the United States, you can live a long life with zero income by relying on government and private assistance. Picture in your mind’s eye what happens to those below the sustainment level in destitute regions of Africa, South America and Asia. The literal possibility of falling below sustainment level in the United States is all but nonexistent. We have safety nets where others have none, and for this, we are fortunate.

To summarize, under the new poverty measurement, no matter how far above the absolute poverty level we are currently or we ever become, the only way to decrease our relative poverty rate is to eliminate income differences among Americans. This would hold true even if we actually moved the entire country closer to absolute poverty, which is the certain outcome if we pursue income equity. Our socialist president Obama will continue to demonize the land of opportunity by appealing to the emotions of American citizens who are not getting the whole picture. Our poor don’t know what poverty really is. This is the message our president should send along with words of encouragement to seize the great opportunity awaiting them.

For a very well researched perspective see the outstanding article, Understanding Poverty in America, by Kirk Johnson, PH.D. and Robert Rector on Heritage.org.

Frank's Wager

There are truths on this side of the Pyranees, which are falsehoods on the other.

~Blaise Pascal

It is with no small bit of irony that Blaise Pascal’s quote above illustrates so perfectly my argument against his own famous wager. Pascal’s Wager is, concisely, an argument to abandon reason and wager as though god does exist and that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain to suppose so. Essentially, he asks “what harm is there in believing in a god?”

Frank’s wager is exactly the opposite. My wager asks you to fully apply reason in asking yourself the same question—“what harm is there in believing in a god?” My point is that much of our humanity has been lost betting their all on Pascal’s Wager.

2,973 victims and the 19 hijackers died as a result of an event we rather sanitarily refer to as “9/11”. In the name of a god.

From about 1100AD through about 1300AD at least 1,000,000 humans died in what we call the “Crusades”. In the name of a god.

The Mayan theocracies between the 11th and 16th centuries killed thousands of children in sacrificial rituals. In the name of a god.

Thousands of Jews murdered in the mid-14th century when blamed for the Black Death that had just swept through Europe. In the name of a god.

The Aztecs sacrificed about 20,000 people per year in the 1300s. Burnings, drownings, beheadings, cannibalism, dropping from heights. In the name of a god.

The Salem Witch Trials are familiar to Americans but some estimates put the worldwide witch hunt death toll at 2 million. In the name of a god.

In the 1500s Catholics killed about 10,000 Huguenots in France. In the name of a god.

India’s Thuggee sect killed as many as 2 million in the 1500s to satisfy the god Kali. In the name of a god.

The Thirty Years War between Protestants and Catholics ripped through Europe in the 1600s and left behind as many as 14 million dead humans. In the name of a god.

Islamic holy wars have killed millions over the last 12 centuries. They are still going strong. In the name of a god.

About 300,000 killed in the War in Darfur. In the name of a god.

60,000 Jews killed in the Russian Revolution. In the name of a god.

I won’t even begin to list the horribly repressive treatment of women in Islamic tradition still practiced today. In the name of a god.

The Taiping Rebellion in China is often referred to as the bloodiest civil war ever. An estimated 20 million humans died. In the name of a god.

This list of atrocities is only the beginning. I could continue for many more pages. These are real and so were the humans involved. Some will argue that that World War II should be on the list since it was essentially an ouster of Hitler and his war against Jews. I would agree. Some would argue that many atrocities listed were in fact not religion based but were over other more material things. To this point, I concede at least partial truth. Many conflicts have elements of the “with vs. without” dilemma, no doubt. It is also true that many of those same conflicts involve religious dogma as the primary motivation to hatred.

One could fill volumes with perhaps less serious but surely no less revealing examples of religious oppression. No dancing, no drinking certain things, no eating certain things, no listening to music, strict clothing requirements, genital mutilation, no attending parties, no seeing movies, no marrying who you please, no seeking proper medical attention, no use of insulin, no driving cars, no voting, the professed filth of menstruating women, no celebration of birthdays, no playing marbles, and the list goes on and on. All in the name of a god.

I leave you now with this question. Should we prefer to stay the course with the accepted historical assumption of god’s existence? Or, might we be better off with one less means of differentiation?

Christopher Hitchens is Brilliant

I was just watching some Hitchens debates and speeches on YouTube. The man is so clear in thought and eloquent in expression. I thought I would capture a couple of quotes that seemed especially so.

Hitchens on the variety of contradicting religions—

”The diversity of religious belief is not mysterious if you assume that god is made by man, it is only mysterious if you assume that man is made by god. Like worrying about why tsunamis kill good people. This is not a problem if you think that we live on a cooling planet with a disturbed weather system. That just will happen--doesn’t require any explanation. Nothing to pray over. Nothing to ‘why’, ‘why’ about…It is only a mystery if you don’t know we live on a planet with a cooling crust and a turbulent climate system and you think that maybe god decides at what point weather takes people out.”

Hitchens on the war in Iraq--

“I regard the war in Iraq as a part of the war against religion. The faith based parties of god are trying to level Iraq to barbarism, and they are very nearly succeeding. As well as killing each other’s children, their fellow Muslim children…they want to reduce by their fellow precepts, a once highly civilized and sophisticated society, to the level of Somalia or Afghanistan, which is what happens, by the way, to any country when you try to run it out of a holy book. I think we should hereby highly resolve that no country of such importance and no people of such civilization who have been through so much and to whom we’ve promised so much shall ever be governed that way. We will not abandon them. The jihadists will never have Iraq. What we’re doing there is one of the noblest undertakings the United States has ever made."

Makes you think.

Pause For The Cause

Man is the only creature that refuses to be what he is.

~Albert Camus


Is liberalism the ideology of science? Is conservatism the ideology of religion? Many of us see the landscape that way, at least in the United States. I suppose I do too. Although there are many scientists on the right side of the aisle and many religious folks on the left, I think we would all agree that each side wears their respective labels with pride.

The religious aspect of modern American conservatism makes it hard for me to give them much credibility when it comes to scientific analysis. Statistics show a higher rate of atheism among scientists, and there is no question that atheism is much more strongly associated with liberalism. Hence the reason for my writings.

Liberals use their science “advantage” for both good and bad ends. Especially positive to me is their dismissal of religion in general and especially their stance against religion as the foundation for our government. However, with their built-in position of scientific authority comes temptation -- temptation to abuse authority. Scientific methodology, if applied correctly, eventually overcomes matters of human bias. Of course, bad hypotheses are forth just as easily as good ones. Thanks to natural laws, hope for a desired end does not ensure that end is correct. Though the scientific method is, by definition, self-correcting, a bad hypothesis can enjoy a long life supported by bad science. Fortunately, we can rest assured that bad science will eventually get exposed by sound testing and the resulting data. Liberals so deeply hope for global warming to remain a foundational cause for government control, that they made the mistake of overzealousness. In the past 90 days, much of their false hope and bad science was exposed. Fudging data is the oldest trick in the book for the politically invested scientist. The left’s desired end became more important for political reasons than any real pursuit of truth for the benefit of mankind. Of course, I also keep a watchful eye when the religious right questions anyone’s science. This time the accusations of falsification and deception are widespread and damning (pun intended).

Global warming, or climate change, as many now call it, is not the only battleground for our competing ideologies. Liberals are by and large very nurture biased in the pursuit for nature vs. nurture answers to human behavior. Is human physicality and behavior a product of nature or a product of nurture? Liberals overwhelmingly choose nurture. Human intelligence, they will argue, is absolutely nurture. For leftists, the brightest minds among us turn unproductive through lack of opportunity. Opportunity, they usually infer, suppressed by conservative elitists. They do not embrace the hard scientific statistics on the intelligence quotient (IQ) and the clear evidence of high inheritability. The data shows that there is a nurture factor, but that much of intelligence is predetermined by nature. Egalitarian views abound in the world of the left, though. We are all inherently capable of the exact same things in their eyes. To admit that we all are not born with the same innate potential would be to abandon the many social causes solely designed to equalize outcomes and lay blame on the successful for the failures of the unsuccessful. Leftists always love the nurture explanation because of the endless possibilities for blame. Well, they nearly always love it.

Something I read the other day gave me pause to consider the left’s views on homosexuality. For this one behavioral trait, and it is the only one I can think of, they flip entirely to the nature team. Leftists will rarely admit any nurture component in human homosexuality. Here they take great offense to any possibility of learned or chosen behavior. With all of the aspects of human behavior I can think of there are components of nature and nurture in their origin. It is peculiar that the left will not typically like to make this admission for homosexuality. Of course, the right often boasts of homosexuality’s satanic origins, which is equally comedic. Each perspective is closed-minded and obviously shallow in its own right. Keeping in mind that I am not a schooled scientist, I have covered my position on the distribution of human sexual preference in more depth in my book Damned If I Do…Damned If I Don’t.

Causes can blind us. Sometimes the cause is god. Sometimes the cause is egalitarianism. Neither cause trumps truth. Both parties have their affiliations with truth seeking, but there is no reason to cease the search for truth when the success of a cause outweighs truth’s justice.

Don't Hate Me Because I'm Beautiful

As iron is eaten by rust, so are the envious consumed by envy.
~Antisthenes.

Envy is a human behavioral trait widely recognized as unattractive, and maybe all too common. I say that envy does not always need to be the green/bad kind. When one party has an enormous desire to attain what another has attained there can be at least a couple of possible resulting actions. One action is healthy, the other not so healthy. In moderate doses, envy is a great source of motivation. Goal setting is a great way to get humans to accomplish things.
If you built a new home with your own hands, and then your next door neighbor felt so desirous as to either take that home for their own or demand that you build one for them at no cost, this would be an unacceptable, even criminal act of envy and greed. Apparently you have learned some skills that enabled you to build a new home. Perhaps if the neighbor studied carpentry, electric and other construction trades, they too could build one. A healthy course of action for everyone is for the second party to also learn those trades and erect their own new home. As a result we will have 2 new homes and 2 individuals with demonstrated capability in the building trade. Importantly also, we would have a peaceful solution and one that makes both parties happy.

The not so healthy possible action would be if our yearning party was to take the new home by force. Rather than invest the time and money to learn how to build a new home themselves, they simply take the short-cut to their desired end. This second option is universally recognized by us as unfair and illegal. None (wait, not many) among us would support laws enacted to condone and legalize such behavior. We want ability to equal accomplishment and accomplishment to equal reward.
Of course, there could also be a compromise where the talented individual volunteers to teach their friend a new craft and maybe even provides charitable financial contributions. This behavior, while appropriate at times, should never be the expected solution and certainly the forced solution.

Well, I see the world viewing the United States with the very unhealthy kind of envy. When the rest of the world looks at what the United States has accomplished and accumulated, they seem to feel that they must have a piece of the action. The most troublesome aspect is that they seem to think that they are entitled to a piece of the action—our action. This is classic greedy behavior that appears motivated by jealousy.

The United States is arguably the world’s great achiever. All around the world we see nation after nation envious of our accomplishments and accumulations of “things”. Many of our own citizens and many citizens from other nations tell us that we owe the world, and must share in our accomplishments. It is only fair that we share our medical knowledge and medical funding. We should be expected to send exorbitant amounts of aid in the event of natural or man-made disaster. When nations get in political struggle or all-out war, American blood and money is always expected. It is only fair that we set up factories is far off lands, for their good, not ours. If sending work and technology is beneficial to the United States, it is denigrated as predatory capitalism, even if there is great benefit to the host nation. In many eyes our gains are seen as a result of their losses. They feel as though a world economy is a zero-sum game. If the United States fostered the intellect, freedom and need to build, say, the internet, we should hand over partial control to others. After all the only reason we invented the internet is because we wouldn’t let them. Do you see how crazy that is?

It isn’t as though we don’t have enough problems of our own that need attention. Crazy public and private debt at levels never before seen on earth. Protection of our own borders. The education of our young people needs attention. Our inner cities are dangerous, crime ridden, economic disasters.

Interestingly the world wants it both ways when they look at us. At times, when it benefits them, they like to ignore the fact that we have our own problems. If we are all fat, dumb and happy, we should share the wealthy, they say. On the other hand, they often like to point out our real and imagined problems when it benefits them to do so or simply when it makes them feel good about themselves. Nobody likes to be second best at anything, and the world knows that they are all fighting for 2nd place. So, for reasons that can only be self-loathing based, they love to focus on those things that make the United States less than Utopian. They even make up imaginary tales of enormous class divisions and the ever-present racism charges. These I mention because they are among the most foolish charges since we are actually the first country to all but eradicate them and maintain a nation of equal opportunity.

Is there really any doubt that we lead the world in anything that matters, even superficially? We have the best athletes in the world because we have the best training available and the most leisure time for such meaningless but deeply ingrained pursuits. The Winter Olympics are ruining my television viewing possibilities this week. We dominate these inane events, if we care to. Even the best Olympians from “other nations” train here at our universities and world leading sports science facilities.

The world envy’s and copies our pop culture, the best and the worst of it. Look, our movies, books and music make world impact far beyond that of any other single country or even any other continent or indeed the rest of the combined world.

Don’t believe the lies from the left or the rest of the world. We have, by far, the best medical care. Please, stop all of the crap about how we are lagging. Sure, we have people with medical problems here and the cost can be high, but the world looks to us to solve all of its ills (pun intended). Americans don’t head for Africa or Australia when we get diagnosed with horrible inflictions, nor does the rest of the thinking world. We distribute obscene amounts of medical aid world-wide each year while those among us continue to complain about our medical ineptitude.
We are the best educated. Sure, we have some abysmal statistics showing low graduation rates and sad mathematics performance, but these statistics are bogged down by a significant portion of the country that simply does not take education seriously. For those that really want to learn, the United States is the place to make it happen. I witnessed this in my own public school education 30 years ago. Motivated and intelligent students could learn from very talented teachers. Unfortunately, kids that did not care to learn did not have to. Our strong educational position ties directly into all of the other categories in which we lead the world. We have available the best education so we lead the world in things like medical advances, engineering accomplishments and the like.

We are the most charitable nation ever. Despite popular myth, we have made a lot for ourselves and we like to share it. If there is an earthquake or tsunami in some corner of the world, the United States is first on site with people and money. I won’t even give this one any more undeserved attention.

We have the best national defense (but losing capability every day). We have lots to protect and we can protect it well. There are not many real threats to our land militarily. Of course, our freedom opens us to many political threats, both internal and external. Today the pesky appearance of terrorists can inflict targeted and headline grabbing damage, but, our seas, land and air are pretty well secured. Few, if any, other nations enjoy the same level of national security as the United States. Again, we have been called upon to be the world’s defender for most of the last 100 years. If only modern Europeans understood their good fortune we could get the respect due.

We feed ourselves and hungry people around the world. We have developed very advanced agricultural and livestock techniques as well as distribution capabilities. People in other parts of the world are starving. Of course, we were able to invent those techniques and capabilities because we kept those other nations from inventing them. Absurd. It is not a zero-sum game.
This envy isn’t only displayed by foreign nations. If the rest of the world can be written off as jealous and envious, what of the detractors within our own borders? The American sense of adventure instills a sense of exploration in all of us. The world is our oyster, so we tend to think we should check it out. We like to see things that are different. We like to see what we may be missing out on. Maybe that is an expression of our own unsatisfied envy. American leftists espouse the grandeur of Europe. They maintain that it is vastly superior to the United States in so many ways. They love to blow about what a great and progressive continent it is. Few, however, choose to actually move there. The reality is quite the opposite in fact. Sure, we like to visit and upon return regale our North American bound friends with stories of clean streets and awesome coffee café’s, but nobody really wants to uproot and move there. Why take a step back in time if you are in any way progressive minded? We love to agree that there are better things out there but we rarely choose to opt for them.

Within our own borders, those that do not have the same “things” as others around them long for those things and voice their entitlement to them. When you think about it, it should be expected. We’ve fostered a very vain culture with recent generations bent on showing their material worth and bling. Over the top displays of supposed wealth have become commonplace. I don’t think it was that way when I was a kid. Sure, we liked to show that we had cool stuff, but I think the degree of flaunting was much less. I wasn’t alive in the first half of the 20th century, but for all I can tell during that period there was even less of an emphasis on material things and material worth. That was also a period when Americans were very proud of being, well, American. I remember finding out from my parents that some of our friends were worth big money. I hadn’t the faintest. They lived the same middle class lives as we did but weren’t compelled to flaunt their actual financial worth. I don’t see that today. Instead I see welfare recipients and unemployment lines filled with people wearing $200 shoes, $500 coats, $300 jeans and carrying $500 purses. The false display of worth appears to have trumped actually pursuing a lifestyle that could enable you to actually obtain some financial worth. As long as health care insurance is such a hot-button issue, I’ll go ahead and mention it. I see the very same envy coming from those that have made countless successive bad life decisions and are subsequently left without the best health insurance options. Again, work hard, take advantage of things that are given to you like free public education and you are almost guaranteed health insurance coverage…that’s what the statistics say. For those that are really trying and are really contributing but still need some help for whatever reason, we should have that for them, but this is an input/output system. Where this was once a nation built upon work and pride in accomplishment it is now a nation where everyone tries very hard to exhibit that pride but not everyone actually takes part in earning it. A very small percentage of American citizens shoulder the overwhelming burden of income taxation so others may take pride in full tummies, nice cars, cool iPods, high-definition televisions and disdain for the system that hands it to them. Pride is an internal thing. Who am I to say what should invoke it for you? I guess you find it where you find it.

Enough Already

People who self-identify as American Indians feel an inborn right to land settlements and other special treatment in the United States of America. The U.S. government has obliged them of this right by showering them will all manner of land grants and rights not available to other citizens. Are such reparations justified? Who exactly should get them? Countless tribes ask and receive, but it is not really clear which one actually should get credit for first settlement, if that is the determining factor in providing reparations. The deal is presented thusly…Indians were here, in what are now the Americas, first (hence the “Native Americans” tag). They were wrongly driven from their lands by white European settlers in a way that is somehow unusual and dissimilar to other peoples and other competitions for land. Therefore, for the next several hundred years all other settlers of this land must pay for a wrongdoing purportedly carried out by white European settlers.

As always, there are many problems with such massive and widespread reparations. Nobody does a better job of capturing the general categorical problems with reparations than David Horowitz (look it up). David’s observations aside, let us look at a few things that make North American Native American reparations an unworthy and indeed unnecessary cause.

First, who were these original settlers that lay claim to the lands now called North America? Is it even possible to know with any accuracy who it really was that got here “first”? These original settlers, we are told, are the “Indians”. I do wonder how we know who was really first and what tribe they would look at today to find their identity. From what we know, current American Indians are comprised of Siberian peoples stemming from Chinese, Koreans and Mongolians who came from the Asian continent to North America via the trans-Siberian land/ice bridge during the last ice age. Various Asian descendant peoples came at various times throughout the ages and struggled with populations already settled here. Who was the first guy here? Where was he from? Was it the first guy that was still ruling when the Europeans got here? This we really do not know. In fact, Science Daily reports that recent archaeological suggest that the first humans were here perhaps 50,000 years ago, long before the last ice age and long before those credited as “Native Americans” today. This information suggests that North America was inhabited just after the dawn of modern homo sapiens between 60,000 and 80,000 years ago. This credible information causes great complications in how we recognize “ownership rights” to our lands since these earlier people are not considered among what we call “Native Americans” today. These pre-Clovis people settled here long before the traditionally held “first” settlements of around 13,000 years ago. Logic tells us that many, many wars transpired between many, many peoples prior to and subsequent to the first human footsteps on this North American landmass. Does each concurring group owe its own reparations to the previous one? Does each concurring tribe owe its own reparations to EVERY prior tribe? I do not see any reparations between tribes today. I only see reparations demanded of the generic white man.

If we are playing a “first come equals perpetual ownership game” we had better get this right. Given the “out of Africa” explanation of human development and migration, does Europe belong to the Europeans or the Africans? Does Asia belong to the Asians or the Africans? Alternatively, does each piece of land belong to the group that fought the hardest to occupy and maintain occupation? Once the first two guys walked across the ice to North America and punched each other out over the rights to a warm cave or some fish in a stream, you had the first case of property ownership. This first dispute, I have no shame in assuming, was settled just as two bears settled the same dispute. Posturing, psychological and physical dominance is how conscious life settles territorial disputes. Humans are no different. Admittedly, we have come a long way and make our struggles over land occupation much more complex. Today we set up state sovereignty with boundaries, usually clearly drawn, with accompanying clearly written rules about breaching those boundaries for the purpose of settlement.

Therefore, I do not have much confidence that the method by which we determined original ownership rights is meaningful at all. We know with some bit of certainty that the land was indeed given up. This is not to say that the original inhabitants voluntarily gave up the land, but that they in some way ceased to claim governing rights. How about this thought to complicate things---if any of those “original” settlers procreated with any subsequent settlers, then we are talking about a SINGLE people, are we not? I mean, as soon as you start to become part of the group that moved in with you, the line separating you becomes lost. In any event, if there really was a struggle for land occupation it was a struggle seen for countless ages before on other continents. The originals lost the North American lands they once occupied in a time-honored tradition tested for eons worldwide used to decide rule over territory…war. Not only was the North American land mass fought for with winners and losers, but we can say without doubt that those “originals” and their ancestors that lost the fight for North America had previously competed for and won lands in other places like Africa and Asia or wherever. In fact, every bit of land ever settled by anyone on Mother Earth was parceled out as a direct result of warfare or some conflict with winners and losers. I know of no exceptions. Sure, there were peaceful treaties, but these were brought about by war leading to compromise.

There are other complicating factors. The easiest argument is whether anyone today, hundreds or thousands of years removed from any original struggle should hold any responsibility at all. Should recent immigrant groups be expected to fund Indian reparations? How long is long enough. When do we call it even and assume that the assimilation happened long enough ago that we can finally all live happily among one another with equal rights?

If you can somehow overlook the cloudy circumstances that led to the identity of those of supposed Indian heritage as benefactors of reparations, then maybe the reparations themselves will make you think twice about what modern Americans owe other modern Americans. As alluded to above, the reason for the special rights enjoyed today by Native Americans over and above those rights specified for the rest of us in the U.S. Constitution are grounded in the reasoning that they had their own inherent rights prior to the arrival evil Europeans on American soil. This causes many conflicts between the rights that they now enjoy and what the Constitution allows for all other citizens. They have provisions allowing them to establish their own foreign policies with other nations. These could and sometimes do directly oppose our nation’s foreign policy. Of course, Native Americans now share the same rights as all other Americans, but also enjoy some especially reserved for only them. Those designated for reparations have special rights in areas pertaining to land occupation, hunting and fishing, gaming (that’s always been a curious one to me) and water use. Native Americans have the right to tribal sovereignty, or the right to govern themselves. They also enjoy “treaty rights”. American settlers and Indians began signing treaties, or occupation agreements, in 1787 and continued signing various agreements for about the next 100 years. These usually dealt with subjects like peace, land, fishing/gaming and guaranteed protection by the U.S. government.
There is an interesting provision in the laws pertaining to treatment of “native Americans” called the Reserved Rights Doctrine. This doctrine:

"…which holds that any rights that are not specifically addressed in a treaty are reserved to the tribe. In other words, treaties outline the specific rights that the tribes gave up, not those that they retained. The courts have consistently interpreted treaties in this fashion, beginning with United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S. Ct. 662, 49 L. Ed. 1089 (1905), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a treaty is "not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them." Any right not explicitly extinguished by a treaty or a federal statute is considered to be "reserved" to the tribe. Even when a tribe is officially "terminated" by Congress, it retains any and all rights that are not specifically mentioned in the termination statute."(Reference: http://law.jrank.org/pages/8748/Native-American-Rights-Reserved-Rights-Doctrine.html#ixzz0fcDWddW8)

Check that out. They are essentially saying that if a current treaty does not call out a specific reparation or corrective action for historical wrongdoing, they can still whip out just about any old behavior they feel the need for and call it covered under this doctrine. I love open ended and one-sided agreements. Let’s see what we can think of next.

The right to maintain gaming complexes puzzles me too. This one must have fallen under the Reserved Rights Doctrine. I mean, honestly, do you just think up any old thing that could make you some cash and then call it a Native American right? We have all seen the cave paintings of stick figures with feathers in their headdresses spinning the old roulette wheel, or giving the old one-armed-bandit the pull, have we not? Honestly I could not care one iota less if gambling institutions are legal or illegal, but to give it legal cover for one group when it is strictly prohibited for other groups is absurd, racist and economically in opposition to free-market capitalism.

Oh, by the way, I am an Indian. My mother’s father (my grandfather) was 100% Mi'kmaq. The Mi’kmaq are a “first nations” aboriginal people very closely tied to the Inuit, typically settled in the northern and eastern territories of what is now New England and Canada. I am ¼ genuine Native American. I have never once identified myself legally as an Indian or Native American, in any way asked for, or received preferential treatment. Sure, I am proud of it, I suppose, but growing up in the United States taught me that I wasn’t identified by my heritage. I am simply and American. I want my damned casino though.

Government Cheese Makes You Fat?

If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.
~Charles Darwin


Most Americans eat too much. Turns out that “poor” Americans eat more than non-poor Americans. It actually makes pretty good sense. People that make bad choices in life that make them chronically underemployed or unemployed also tend to make other bad choices like those in regard to their health. This reality flies in the face of the stereotyped “Wall Street fat cat” portrayed as sitting back and getting fat at the expense of everyone else.

Poor people around the world starve to death every day. We see the news footage, the print articles and the TV articles tugging at our heartstrings. The United States sends more money, both public and private, around the world to fight starvation than all other countries combined. We clearly care about poor people going without food. That’s not the full story though. In 2006 MSNBC reported that there were more overweight people worldwide, more than 1 billion, than were undernourished, about 800 million. Starvation is common in much of the underdeveloped world. Thankfully, the very real truth, separating us much of the developing world, is that severe and critical malnutrition is quite uncommon in the United States, due in large part to federal, state, local and private nutrition assistance programs. The United States government spends in the neighborhood of $40 billion annually on domestic food programs alone, not to mention assistance programs that free up other money for food. Unfortunately, governments in other nations actually intentionally starve citizens as a show of power and coercion over poor populations.

The poor in our United States have quite another problem. Numerous studies show a strong correlation between obesity and poverty. Poor people in the United States are very often beneficiaries of public assistance programs. Many of those programs are nutrition based, such as SNAP (supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Our states with the highest SNAP recipient rates are also our most obese states. The states below have the highest obesity rates, around 30% and above, as well as the highest SNAP recipient rates, in the neighborhood of 15%.

Mississippi – 32.5% of population is obese
Alabama – 31.1% obese
West Virginia – 31.1% obese
Tennessee – 30.2% obese
South Carolina – 29.7%

The lowest obesity rates, at 21% and below are:

Hawaii – 21.8% obese, 7.4% SNAP
Rhode Island – 21.7% obese, 8.1% SNAP
Connecticut – 21.3% obese, 6.4% SNAP
Massachusetts – 21.2% obese, 7.7% SNAP
Colorado – 18.9% obese, 5.1% SNAP

Some say that the “use of food stamps increases obesity”. I say it is the other way around. The behavior that makes you fat also makes it likely that you don’t want to work, therefore you may end up on food stamps. It would makes sense that if you are poor, there is a higher than average likelihood that you aren’t working. If you are working you probably lead a sedentary lifestyle which would also encourage obesity. It turns out that states with relatively low unemployment rates tend to have much lower obesity rates.

There are more than a few proposed reasons for the obesity/welfare program correlation. Some argue that the only the cheapest food with high fat content are available to the poor on food programs. False—fruits, vegetables and grains are very inexpensive calorie sources and are healthy sources of nutrition. In actuality, the cheapest foods are not the cheapest source of calories per dollar. The highly obese states tend to be in the Southeastern states. In 2010 location cannot be an excuse. Long ago modern transportation and food distribution networks made it possible for all food to reach all regions of our great land. Just as access is not a factor, neither is nutrition education. Look, we all have access to public school educations, and having one myself, I know that the food pyramid and basic nutrition was drilled into my head for at least 10 of my compulsory 12 years. University of Maryland Professor Douglas Besharov, and others that study hunger in the United States say that our poor are much at risk of health issues and death from problems related to overeating than starvation. My observations on the streets tell me the same thing.

I am not only bothered by the apparent misuse of government funds to make people obese, but there are other very negative aspects associated with government food programs. Doctors have long known that obesity is a huge factor in determining health. We all know by the 5th grade that fat people are less healthy than thin people. Now we know that poor people tend to be fatter than wealthier people. Sociologists call this the health-wealth gradient. A University of Washington study showed that

“each $100,000 increase in the median price of a home in a given ZIP code was accompanied by a two percent decrease in obesity rates. Obesity rates reached 30 percent in areas with the lowest property values but were just 5 percent in more affluent ZIP codes.”

An Emory University study predicts that obesity related illness will consume nearly 25% of total medical costs in the United States by the end of this decade. Executive Healthcare Magazine, describes obesity, along with many other authorities, as the “fastest growing public health challenge the nation has ever faced”. If you look at where the problem is concentrated, any public healthcare taxation program that penalizes higher earners, like our system does, places an unfair burden on middle and upper class citizens to pick up the tab for those most responsible for the problem. To be a fair risk based insurance paradigm, overweight people should pay more and share more of the burden for health insurance than those in better physical condition. This is in direct opposition to any health insurance reform initiatives offered which target the financially sound population (generally thinner) to pay for the financially troubled (generally fatter). I say that there is a fat chance of ever turning this around. If we could only solve the obesity epidemic among the poor, we could solve a preponderance of their medical problems. If we could solve their medical problems, our medical system, purported to already find it difficult to account for the poor, we would all be in much better shape (pun intended).

Did I Really Wear That?

Democrats and Middle Americans are blinded by the aura of Barack Hussein Obama. BHO ran for office on what his image represented more that what his experience promised. Folks became caught up in what we wanted him to be rather than what he really was. Enamored by the untouchable persona, giddy with the idea of complete, unquestioned control, star stricken by a president that represented everything that prior presidents had not. Childlike exuberance over finally being teacher for a day, these dupes voted for the most unqualified man to ever hold the highest office in the United States. What his experience promised is, in fact, is exactly what BHO is delivering.

Barack Hussein Obama is playing dress-up in the Whitehouse. He is a Chicago south side community organizer and race hustler dressed in the Commander in Chief’s clothing. His qualifications and accomplishments, traced back to early adulthood, give us a glimpse into his (and our) future. Though we are oft reminded how smart he is, we have yet to see his secret SAT scores or his college transcripts. If I were as smart as he is purported, I would wear my SAT scores around on a lapel button. I think he may be hiding something there. The mean streets of Chicago’s south side are as mean as they were the day he redistributed his first dollar to those battle torn neighborhoods. I think he believes the hype that put him in office, and I don’t think I can blame him. He has surrounded himself with hand-chosen supporters all looking to stick it to “the man”. Barack and the adoring media convinced Americans that he was not “the man” but that Bush and anyone not in the new posse was. He represented “change” away from “the man”. The promise of change took on a life almost larger than BHO himself throughout the entire campaign and he still refuses to let us forget it. Hardly a day goes by, now more than a year into his presidency, that we don’t hear the chosen one place blame on George W. Bush for the entire world’s ills. A campaign based on deception got him elected and it doesn’t look like he’s letting go of the ruse any time soon.

I can only wonder if office-holding Democrats are embarrassed with themselves for falling for the deception. I can understand the occasional American citizen, perhaps bouncing from middle-right to middle-left, being caught up in the matter, but learned, lifelong public servants I cannot. You would think that they would know better than to fall for this latest and greatest American fad. As with all trendy fashions, swooning support for BHO will eventually embarrass those who swooned most rabidly. Perhaps all of us have fallen victim to chasing a trend only to chase it over the end of a cliff. In my own life, I spent some formative years in the 1970’s wearing bell-bottoms…BIG, bell-bottoms. Thankfully there are few pictures of me in that ridiculous garb. Today I am a bit embarrassed to see what I looked like as I chased trends. I find that it is best not to stray too far away from the straight and narrow. Progression is certainly important, but most radical experiments result in tremendous failure. A conservative progression in one’s approach to fashion will result in the least embarrassment in the long term. You can always stay current without falling for the biggest sunglasses, bigger bell-bottoms, spiked hair, parachute pants or pants that hang down to your knees and a hat worn sideways as if you do not have the sense to straighten it for its intended purpose. You may not be the coolest kid on the block today, but you will be the one with staying power. There is something pathetic about the kid working tirelessly to exhibit unsurpassed coolness. These guys must constantly remind you how cool they are so you won’t forget. Keep in mind something that age and a few high school reunions have taught me—the coolest kid on the block, rarely is.

Unfortunately, it is possible to become so thoroughly invested in cool things that they scar you for good. Bad tattoos and conspicuous body piercings stay with you much longer than their fleeting coolness. Some people can admit their mistakes. Others invest so much of their identity in the trendy pursuits that there is no turning back. They will find it necessary to get even more tattoos and piercings just to save face. Before you know it, the once trendy statement becomes the only thing that defines you. I am afraid that many of our bamboozled citizens and left leaning politicians will not soon be smart enough to see where they went wrong with their support of BHO. This community organizer turned president is leaving a huge, unprecedented trail of failed appointments, decisions, initiatives and promises in his yearlong wake. How many, so strongly defined by BHO’s greatness, will be strong enough to overcome their huge investment in this man? One can only hope that these shills will someday soon cringe when they look back on this presidential election and term. Some will see their error and admirably correct course. Others will continue with a life based on lies, sometimes established long before the chosen one became so chosen. I think anything close to full admission of failure will take decades. So many people have invested so much of themselves in this man’s fantasy that it will take generations for the stench to fade and the damage come to light. Nevertheless, come to light it will. Indeed, a few months ago I began to see a very faint light at the end of the tunnel.

His Own Words

The last hour of this last day of 2009 is approaching fast. We've had a full year with the annointed one in office. We've gotten to watch him wield his socialist wrecking ball just as he said he would. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed tonight as I prepare for another year of devastatingly clear socialist damage to our declining nation.

This is text from Barack Hussein Obama's appearance on Chicago Public Radio in 2001.
The audio is on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pc) and very many other places I suspect. Do you think the leader of the United States is in favor of redistribution of money from productive citizens to the unproductive? Unfortunately many of our citizens are blinded by what they feel could be short term benefit and will not or cannot contemplate the long term devastation this "change" will bring about.

His own words.

"I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. "

His own words.

Shit, he wants the Supreme Court to "venture into the issues of redistribution of wealth" and the basic issue of "economic justice in this society".

His own words.

Barack Hussein Obama would like to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution" which he sees as only a "charter of negative liberties". This guy is out of his socialist mind.

His own words

He doesn't think you can bring about this necessary change through the courts. I wonder how he feels it could be brought about? Maybe through a motivated Chief Executive Officer?

K

I do not know if we are or are not soon approaching a point where we have saturated the Earth with more people than it can physically support. In population study nomenclature, this carrying capacity of our planet is referred to as “K”. There is plenty of research available on the estimated value of “K”. Some of the data is actually quite interesting and I think it could be fun to look into it some more myself. The estimates of “K” for humans range from 1 billion (oops) to 1 trillion. Such a useless range shows only that there is wide disagreement. As you might expect, the vast majority of the disagreement is largely politically based. And as with most issues where underlying political agendas drive research, getting to the heart of the matter can be all but impossible. That we have reached a point where we feel some affects of overpopulation is certainly true. It is also true that those affects are regional today; most easily attributed to ineffective/poor governments as well as poor social and organizational capabilities. The result is poor or sporadic distribution of necessities.

Artificial sustainment of regional populations by outside entities (normally the United States) results in populations that are not sustainable when the outside entity cannot or will not continue to provide assistance. These distribution programs, usually referred to as “aid”, allow for growth beyond what the isolated population would be capable of if left alone. The aid programs in the simplest terms are very humane. Much immediate suffering is avoided as a result of this short-sighted good will. Even with the long term probabilities in mind, the most natural course of action is to alleviate the immediate suffering. Appreciable.

Although I do not know if we are reaching a human saturation point, one thing I do know for sure is that our population is very, very rapidly growing. The current world population is about 6.8 billion. The highest birth rates are overwhelmingly on the continent of Africa and in the Middle East and South Asia. Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) contribute to world population much more aggressively than developed countries. Consider the population statistics for the last 1000 or so years.

Year AD - Earth Population (millions)

1000 310
1100 301
1200 360
1300 360
1400 350
1500 425
1600 545
1700 600
1800 980
1900 1650
2000 6070
2005 6500
2008 6900

Population, it must be said, is exploding—human population anyway. Look at those increases. Beginning between 1700 and 1800 we see the first unusually large jump. Then we see a startling increase between 1900 and 2000. Technology, sanitation, logistics and other results of human progress are the keys to these jumps. (Sidebar- This got me thinking about if our population explosion is unprecedented in the rest of the animal kingdom. Our population explosion is certainly the result of our unique brain capacity, but is that the only way a species can make such huge increases? Or, could such population scale increases be common or at least observed in other species?) I do not know how quickly we are approaching “K”. What is clear is that even at current population levels, no matter how close to “K” we may be, we have regional issues.

Is our current situation more severe than what we have seen throughout history? There have been periods of mass starvation and population thinning episodes throughout the ages. These episodes, usually weather or political in nature, are common. If we are approaching “K”, it would stand that our periods of starvation are more severe, either in number or duration, than those we experienced when the planet was further from full capacity. With my meager research I have been unable to find good data on historical starvations to determine if we are in more dire straits in this modern era or if indeed our current situation is similar in relativity. In any case, if we are in better, equal or worse condition we still have a problem with probable solutions.

I feel as though I have what should be the reasonable, conservative perspective on overpopulation. My anti-artificial population sustainment stance is rooted in an anti-socialist perspective and is, I argue, ultimately the most humane approach to world population management. The actual conservative position is to deny the problem. This is another example of the blinding influence of religion. To most conservatives population control equals abortion and abortion is inexcusable as an act of “playing god”. Of course, population control does not have to mean abortion. Natalism is an ideology where societies, through religious or other means, promote child-bearing and glorifies parenthood. This often includes limiting access to abortion and contraception. Governments, often religious based, routinely sponsor natalism through the inclusion of financial and social incentives for the population to reproduce.

Wouldn’t we all be happier if we voluntarily practiced and encouraged sustainable reproductive habits? Whether or not you think we have a current overpopulation problem or if you think we are soon to be at “K”, wouldn’t a voluntary curtailment of reproduction be the right solution? Perhaps much of the world already practices reproduction habits that would be beneficial if applied everywhere. Zero Population Growth (ZPG) may be just what the doctor ordered for Mother Earth. ZPG is roughly attained when each couple has no more than 2(.11) children. At this rate you will have a population that neither increases nor decreases. The Western and more developed countries have the leanest reproduction rates and suffer less from the ills of regional overpopulation. The trouble is in places of the world with no regard to overpopulation. The United States has roughly a 2.11 fertility rate. More troublesome is that among native born Americans the fertility rate is well below 2.11 but is elevated when you factor in the immigrant population which often brings with it very high fertility rates from origin nations. Here are some 2008 fertility rates from around the world as stated in the CIA World Factbook:

Mali – 7.34
Niger – 7.29
Uganda – 6.81
Somalia – 6.6
Afghanistan – 6.58
Yemen – 6.41
Burundi – 6.40
Burkina Faso – 6.34
Democratic Republic of the Congo – 6.28
Angola – 6.20
World – 2.80

There are about 50 countries above 4.0 or about twice the ZPG rate. Lower rates are easily attainable as evidenced by not only the United States but the other 100 countries with a fertility rate of 2.11 or less. Clearly we have a significant disparity in reproductive philosophies worldwide. No matter how imminent you feel the problem of nearing “K” is, there is no doubt regional strife. In fact, the regions with the most suffering are often the regions that reproduce at alarmingly high rates. We need to quit making excuses, religious, political or otherwise and begin to educate the world for the good of us all.

This subject begs for research on the effect of “G” on “K”.

Footprints You Can Be Proud Of

Of course I’m not against conserving energy and other natural resources on mother earth. What I am sick of are conservationists. You know the type. They typically decide to make miniscule and low impact lifestyle changes designed to show that they are forward-thinking environmentalists like the rest of their friends, and you are not. You are wasteful and inconsiderate—typical American they’ll say. The irony lost on them is that they too are the typical American. It turns out that with respect to environment gluttony and carbon footprints all Americans are “guilty” of this slander. An MIT study cited in Science Daily that included all walks of life from the homeless to millionaires showed that among Americans “even people with the lowest energy usage account for, on average, more than double the global per-capita carbon emission. And those emissions rise steeply from that minimum as people's income increases.” Even the lowest on the economy scale are supported by a vast infrastructure of government services and programs. None among us escapes scrutiny.

What irks me about our environmental snobs is that while they purport to know the issue deeply, they in fact know only enough to compensate for their guilt over a comparatively lavish lifestyle. Armed with little information, somehow whatever level of consumption they decide is acceptable becomes the point above which you receive their judgment and their scorn. Obviously Al (“I invented the internet”) Gore is a shining example.

Sure, every bit helps, but I want all of these recycle nuts to admit that their lifestyles, to include heating and air conditioning, air travel, extravagant personal square footage, boats, motorcycles, and all the rest, are WAY above necessary and not above reproach. They too are at fault and they are not to decide what is appropriate for me or you. Outfitting your summer home with what someone told you are floor tiles made from recycled materials may make you feel all warm inside but does little to compensate for the lavish lifestyle you lead. Driving your Prius to the airport for your 2nd European vacation this year doesn’t exactly place you among the frugal. Purchasing your “organic” food from your neighborhood grocery store locked in the middle of a city fifty miles from anything resembling farmland does not necessarily make one healthier and certainly does not count as “living off the land”. Keeping your home at 70 degrees through seasonal extreme temperatures won’t have anyone confusing you with Lewis and Clark.

During my research I came upon several carbon footprint assessments designed to show your approximate impact on the environment. Out of curiosity I completed one of the surveys. As I suspected, the estimated carbon emissions footprint for my family of 4 is relatively low with respect to the national numbers. We are at 73 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. The national average is 110 with the world average at 22. So, my family and I are at 66% of the national average and still well above world emissions levels. All of the studies do like to show that there is an income/emission correlation with higher incomes portrayed as the evil gluttons. My family is well above the 66th percentile for income in the United States and surely the world, so comparatively we are doing better than most. I find neither pride nor shame in our numbers, just relativity.

I ask my American environmentalist friends to simply admit their hypocrisy and to stop judging me. Admit that setting self imposed standards that give them peace of mind doesn’t bring them anywhere near the world average carbon footprint. If you want to impress me, do the world some real good and show me you really care by exhibiting some real sacrifice. Buy a few acres of land in “flyover country” as you like to call it, and live off of it. Not live on it----live off of it. Use your physical resources to provide the food, clothing and shelter you need. Not the food, clothing and shelter that you think you need or that you want, but only the bare necessities. Until you do this, stop judging others and encouraging them to do as you do. Stop fooling yourself that your relative extravagance sets the example for which others to stride. Hey, I went a whole carbon footprint essay without saying "global warming".

Divinity in the Whitehouse?

In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again.
~Edward Gibbon


I have written about the competitive nature of society in the past. I think I see competition in society because I am a very competitive person. To me, the win/lose opportunity of life is almost the very reason for life--it keeps things interesting. Certainly family and other close relationships are the most satisfying aspects of life. I see them as an important part of my motivation to excel.

Today with BHO at the helm of our nation we are being force fed a societal model for reasons foreign to many of us. This societal model is not untested by history. Its traits are not mysterious. The pitfalls are not hidden or undocumented. The redistributive, socialist leaning politics eating our nation alive today run in direct contrast to competition. When you know that winning is not rewarded, you will learn not to strive toward winning. In fact, we have crossed a precipice where winning is not on not rewarded, it is abhorred by many. To win in the current liberal world is almost a tacit admission of unfair advantage. Winners are not appreciated for their ability and dedication, but are instead frowned upon as someone who dared to capitalize on competitive advantage. The prize of recognition is withheld. With socialism, the more concrete prize of personal wealth is snatched from the winner and redistributed among the less competitive. If you will not compete for food, the winners will feed you. If you will not compete for shelter, the winners will house you. If you will not compete for health and health care, the winners will care for you. This “throwing in the towel” mentality doesn’t sit well with me. What’s more is that it has not sat well with history.

Capitalism is what I call a pure system. Capitalism is not judged. Capitalism is self governing. Capitalism is competition. Hence, capitalism is natural. Capitalism sorts people (competitors) into winners, also-rans and losers. Some will prosper, some will get by and some will flounder. Capitalism is the single social model consistent with evolution. It is nothing more than an economic version of Darwin’s species evolutionary model. Capitalism can be judged neither fair nor unfair for the same reasons evolution is immune to such judgments. In that way it is the only model that makes sense to some of us. Capitalism is the only natural economic model and in that respect, the only model that can be ascribed an attribute approaching fairness. The other offered models like communism or socialism are quite unnatural. What forward looking society could support a model that encourages or allows for less than optimal performance?

Some may argue that redistribution is seen everywhere in nature and therefore somehow equally as natural as I purport competition to be. I think a closer study reveals the simple error in this thinking. It is an error of number or scope. Familial redistribution is surely seen throughout nature and thus arguably present. This observed altruism is easily understood as protection of offspring and closely related genetic pools. I feed the kids because they cannot feed themselves and they are mine. Their genes are mine. It has been said that an organism (human body) is simply a vehicle by with genes reproduce themselves. Redistribution beyond the family, beyond what would normally be recognized as altruistic protection of your genetic pool is rarer.

Redistribution and artificial sustainment may seem thoughtful and ethical to some but in the long run will result in great suffering for those supported with no net contribution. Being anti-Darwinist, the socialist society will favor the unfit and ultimately succumb to pressures from outside entities, be they other societies or nature based. Allowing a socialist society is akin to raising a bunch of quickly multiplying domestic rabbits in your back yard for a beautiful summer knowing fully that you cannot provide for them what they need to get through a long winter. This artificial support of life is premeditated, cruel and criminal.

Maybe my perspective is tainted. In competition, I would say, I am mainly a “winner”. When I approach any competitive activity I aim to succeed. I do not like to lose. Were I an expert loser, perhaps I would see things differently, but I don’t think so. Others have pointed out that we the living today are ALL winners in the evolutionary competition having already taken place. Each and every one of your predecessors was a winner, a survivor. Each and every one of them survived long enough to reproduce. For eons they reproduced. Chance meeting after chance meeting, genetic combination after genetic combination, your ancestors won the competition of life. Think about it…none of your ancestors died prior to being able to reproduce. Be proud, you already come from a long line of winners. Lines that did not succeed are quickly forgotten. What results from this unguided competition is best for survival. This applies to humans as well as it applies to bacteria. Any artificial monkeying (kind of a pun there, right?) with the ingredients or winners and losers almost always has to someday result in something less prepared to deal with the realities of the environment presented naturally. Who among is really qualified to overrule natural selection and posture another means selection as more beneficial to mankind? Is Obama playing god?