There are reasons why engineers, technologists, entrepreneurs, etc., tend as a minority group to find Marx’s theories so appalling. It goes way beyond the individual vs. the tribe thing. Inevitably, those praising Marx and his theories express an economic model – an actual mathematical equation purporting to represent something real, in factual economies, and the equations are so overwhelmingly simplistic that they can’t possibly model anything close to something real. It may not even be purely mathematical. Sometimes it is as simple as a political assertion masked as an equation, as if it was a law of nature. For example:

PRICE = COST + PROFIT (1)

As if that wasn’t just an assertion, but the actual economic ‘law’ that determined PRICE—ie, that set PRICE. It is true, in that one definition of PROFIT can be expressed as

PROFIT=PRICE-COST (2)

and one can be easily derived from the other, but the cause/effect implication is far different in those two equations, (1) and (2). (1) carries with it the implication that PRICE is determined by COST+PROFIT, while (2) carries with it the implication that PROFIT is determines by PRICE-COST, and only one in fact can be true, in a cause and effect sense. The assertion that PRICE is set by COST+PROFIT is a political assertion, and one that doesn’t bear much scrutiny in the real world.

The required disciplines of the hard science – significance, uncertainty analysis, calibration – are uniformly missing. Not so much dismissed or ill regarded as never recognized as a significant part of the scientific process to begin with. The entire endeavor is perceived, therefore, as an example of what Feynman referred to as ‘Cargo Cult Science’ in his 1974 Cal Tech commencement speech. It is perceived as the veneer of mathematics and science, without the discipline or essence or either.

This impression is not improved by increasing the number of decimal places carried forward in the analysis; in fact, the impression is reinforced. It is perceived as a process similar to someone stumbling into a math or science lecture, seeing the form of presentation, the charts, the tables, the graphs—the white labcoats even, and then running off to an unrelated subject and borrowing just some of what was briefly glimpsed, mimicking the form but not the essence, and attempting to borrow the veneer of actual science to make what is in essence a political argument. Pretty much what a Paul Krugman does 24/7/365. This tactic works well in impressing the majority of folks who have never actually labored in the math and science lecture halls, but not nearly as well with the minority who have. And so, it persists as a political tactic, because as politics, it is an entirely effective tactic.

Another reason that Marx’s naked assertions tend not to sit well with other than technical illiterates is the shallow and incomplete reasoning at the very foundation of his assertions: “Capitalism is inherently exploitive because it pays workers less than their added value.”

This is a naked assertion purposefully blind to the following facts:

1] Risk is unavoidable in the universe. Do we fish the deep or the shallows today? The answer is not always the same. We intelligently assess risk, but we never eliminate it. It is always with us.

2] Wage workers are paid a guaranteed rate of return for their efforts, win or lose. That guarantee is the reason they are paid wages at a discount. The value of that guarantee must be included in the assessment of their compensation. Who guarantees that rate of return? Ultimately, others who participate in the economies with ROI totally at risk, with no guarantees. They expose themselves to unlimited downside in return for the chance of unlimited upside. Marx’s foundational assertions are totally ignorant of the value of such guarantees. Marx and his acolytes want their cake(guaranteed wages)and eat it, too(at the same levels of compensation as those who risk all returns.)

3] In the American model, workers have the choice to participate in the risk/reward model in a self-modulated way; they can choose to hold no stock in companies, a little stock in companies, or a lot of stock in companies, and all of that is at risk, as is, their total exposure.

Marx’s gibberish is totally blind to any of that.

One of the first things a scientist or mathematician would do in any argument is define terms, and so, “Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from other people, using any means short of actual violence.” It is crucial to understand what we are about when we are toiling in the field of politics.

It is also insightful to realize that, in many political arguments, the last thing in the world that those making the arguments want for you or I to understand is the meaning of the word ‘politics,’ which is why, guaranteed, when you ask your basic 4^th year PolitSci major to define the word ‘politics’ that they will stare at you like you have C4 strapped to your chest.

Politics defined.

In recent years, on more than one occasion, I asked 4th year/senior PoliSci majors to give me their working definition of the word 'politics.' I wasn't trying to be a wise-guy, I was sincerely interested in what state-of-the-educational art was in the topic of 'politics.' I was looking for a usable meta-definition of the word 'politics,' not examples of 'politics.' We use this word in every second sentence; surely, we all have some idea what we are engaged in when we are engaged in 'politics.'

On these occasions, I generally got stared at as if I had C-4 strapped to my chest; this question was that terrifying. The responses ranged from embarrassed chagrin, "Gosh, I never thought about that!" to the less than satisfying, "You know, political parties and stuff." I thought these non-answers were revealing.

But before we are too hard on these mostly young folks, especially for using the word in its definition, let's look at the less than enlightening modern dictionary 'definition' of the word 'politics."

pol·i·tics

   [pol-i-tiks] Show IPA

noun ( used with a singular or plural verb )

1.

the science or art of political government.

2.

the practice or profession of conducting political affairs.

3.

political affairs: The advocated reforms have become embroiled in politics.

4.

political methods or maneuvers: We could not approve of his politics in winning passage of the bill.

5.

political principles or opinions: We avoided discussion of religion and politics. His politics are his own affair.

and then...

po·lit·i·cal

   [puh-lit-i-kuhl] Show IPA

adjective

1.

of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics: political writers.

2.

of, pertaining to, or connected with a political party: a political campaign.

3.

exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.: a political machine; a political boss.

4.

of, pertaining to, or involving the state or its government: a political offense.

5.

having a definite policy or system of government: a political community.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com

Ha! Are we having fun yet?

Can we even pretend to be informed by those definitions, if we are looking for a usable meta-definition of the word?

Even no less than an authority than UNESCO, on one of its 'resources for educators' websites, honestly informs us that 'there is no widely accepted definition of the word 'politics' ... before providing their own definition(by necessity.)

This, to me, is a hint, even if it is a circular hint: the fact that there is a struggle to define the world 'politics' is itself a hint of the 'political' struggle. If you go on a search to 'define the word politics', you will find almost as many definitions as there are people in the world, but that is only because many people never consider its meaning, or think they know the meaning from context, and never seek to fully identify the meaning. And so, it is possible to immerse yourself into the science of Political Science for four years at a major university (such as Duke or Syracuse, not that it matters), and never pause, not even once in those four years, and even consider the meaning of the word 'politics.'

The reason for that, I believe, is itself a political tactic; for some flavors of politics, the last thing in the world anyone wants is for there to be a broad understanding in the world at large what we are all about when we are involved with 'politics.'

And so, I will provide my usable, for me, meta-definition of the word 'politics.'

Politics: the art and science of getting what we want from others using every means short of actual violence. The superset that includes violence, I refer to as 'mega-politics.' Commerce is the subset that includes the offering of value-for-value as a strategy(which can in some instances be corrupted by the offering of false-value for real-value.)

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of ruling others' is a subset, an example of the above meta-definition(when what we want is to 'rule others.')

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of who gets what when and how' is also a subset, an example of the above when what we want is to be the folks who decide 'who gets what when and how.'

The sometimes definition 'the art and science of governing' is also a subset, an example of the above when what we want is to govern others.

But, none of these more restrictive examples is broad enough to encompass 'personal politics.'


"What we want from others" might include the TV Remote, love, affection, admiration, the validation of the parking of our very souls, a gallon of refined gasoline, to be invited to dinner, their vote, carnal knowledge of their wife, or Kuwait, and how we get those things from others depends on our politics.

Strategies might include "To ask." This often works in the case of the TV Remote, but not always.

Other strategies might include "To offer value in exchange." We use this one often, and it works quite well. It is often possible for these trades to be win-win, because each of us in the transaction values what we are giving up less than what we are obtaining(or else we wouldn't likely make the trade.) But, it is also possible to be the victim of false commerce, of receiving false value for real value(and under the rules of our political context, that is to say, the rules of acceptable tactics for getting what we want from others, we often have a cause of action in those instances. The balance of the tribe, selfishly wanting to enforce the rules of our expensively maintained and largely beneficial political context, will rush in with the force of the state to enforce the rules.

These rules are what defines 'a political context.' They are not the same in all political contexts. For example, in Hitler's Germany, only the state(or in fact, those who claimed to speak for the state) could 'want from others.' Individuals/citizens could want nothing from others. It was Tribe Uber Alles. That is one way to limit politics, just not the (once) American way.

Other strategies include "to convince, cajole, propagandize, lie to, or deceive.' These are often just shy of actually breaking any laws in our political context, and their persistence is a tribute to their efficacy.

When Saddam wanted Kuwait from others, he relied on mega-politics, actual violence.

And, so on.

And so, a pressing need in our political context is to ask the tribal question, 'What are reasonable limits as to what we can want from others?

Ownership of their lives?

How about, domain over their 'excess' income?

Their third child?

How about the most elusive tribal want of all; "To be left alone in freedom, to interact under rules of free association?"

Because indeed, not all tribal wants can be met, especially if there are no limits as to what is reasonable to want from others. Those wants can range all the way from the aforementioned "To be left alone by others" all the way to "To ride others like a tribal property pony for all of our needs, wants, wishes, desires, whims, and even, implementation of our worldviews."

Clearly, those two sets of tribal wishes cannot be simultaneously met. So, what is the foundation for choosing reasonable limits?

It is our competing foundations of morality and justice, and there is the rub in our political context. We have all but delegated 'morality' to religion, and have simultaneously firewalled 'religion' from the state. So...what is there to guide the state in regard to 'what is reasonable to want from others?'

The FF tried to codify this civic morality into the constitution and BoR, but insufficiently to thwart the bottomless wishes and wants and whims of a tribe hell bent on 'what it wants from others' uber alles. The Achilles Heel in this foundation of freedom is that they left a path to power via pandering to the majority, which seldom has any issues with eating the minority.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

So, what is it that we are involved with when we delve into 'politics,' other than, the graceless clawing of humanity over other humanity, even to define the word politics?

Actual Keynesian Theory

1] Save and pay off past debt during boom times.
2] Borrow and spend during bust times.


What our national policy has been for decades:

1] Borrow and spend during boom times.
2] Borrow and spend more during bust times.


What we have done, and are doing, has nothing at all to do with Keynes. What we have done, and are doing, is profligate spending of OPM. Period.


Endlessly borrowing from the future is a de-investment in future economies. After decades of this carcass-carving policy, those endlessly de-invested in future economies are here, gasping at our feet. With more than a little irony, and certainly not harmlessly so, our government has delivered this nation from a period of generational worker surplus, with an extra 30 million working Boomers just today leaving the peak of their earnings and tax-paying years, with nothing but a broke-busted credit card to show for its management of 'the economy.'

SS 'solvent to 2037? Ha! That 2037 date is totally without meaning, and shouldn't re-assure anyone except a fool. The Boomer generation was surcharge taxed once, for its entire working life, to create those 'assets' in the SS Trust fund-- the ones that are supposedly not going to be consumed until 2037. But they are self-issued bonds-- IOUs from the government to itself! To redeem those 'assets' representing the once surcharge taxation of the Boomers, the Boomers kids would need to be taxed a second time, for the same 'asset.' The 2037 date is merely the hypothetical future date when the Boomer's kids will have finished being taxed a second time for the same government 'asset.' And as they date moves up, that only means that the Boomer kid's will need to be taxed at a higher rate to pay them off sooner!

Too few, but many, saw this clearly, even in the 70's. Moynihan, on the floor of the Senate in the 70's: "God help us when they realize what we've done to them." I voted for Clark over Reagan in 1980, precisely over this issue.

We are decades past being able to 'fix' SS. All that is left is the slow realization of exactly what the government did with fully 15% of the middle class's lifetime earnings, to pay the benefits of a generation whose middle class paid 6% of their earnings, who were taxed to pay the benefits of a generation who paid 2% of their earnings, who were taxed to pay the benfits of a gneration that paid 0% of their earnings...

As the sinking lifeboat slowly realizes this and panics, the 'solution' offered is ... acceleration of the burn the future policies that got us to this point.

Credit must be balanced by savings/investment, or else there is endemic deflation/value corruption in the economies. The sum of all private and public credit must be balanced by the sum of all private savings/investment, because there is no such thing as public savings/investment; profligate government at every level spends every dime it taxes, and then some at the federal level, with one minor exception: local school district capital accounts. That is it.

Who saves and invests? Those with excess current income. Who saves and invests the most? The rich.


What we are saying when our panicked lifeboat mentality clamors for yet more 'tax the rich and spend it NOW!' solutions is that we want them to save and invest less and let the rest of us spend it all immediately NOW! On top of our massive public future borrowing/debt, we want to accelerate the de-investment in future economies even more.

Said another way, screw our children, we want our free government cheese and band-aids.

We need to look at SS as what it was: a one time generational thank-you to the sacrifices made by the Greatest Generation, all of whose generational pain was front end loaded, and which created every economic opportunity which followed. But now it is time for our generation to accept its share of the generational pain; ours will be back end loaded, as one way or the other, those politically promised SS benefits are going to far less than as promised by vote buying politicians long dead. Our generation pain will be back end loaded, but accepting less than politically promised SS benefits is not nearly the same thing as leaving a leg or worse in Normandy or Iwo Jima, so buck up and accept our share of the generational pain.

We should not screw over our kids or our neighbors kids just to maintain the empty political promises of vote buying politicians long dead.

JFK's federal budget = $100B, at the height of the Cold War.

Adjust for CPI/inflation to 2011: x 7.5 = $750B

Adjust for population growth to 2011: barely x2 = $1500B

Compare to today's actual $3800B+. How to explain?

Medicare in 1966: $3B

Same CPI and Population adjustment: $45B

2011 Medicare budget: $466B. A factor of over 10X over adjusted 1966 amount.

And yet, we could eliminate 100% of defense(at $550B) and 100% of Medicare(at $466B), and still not be half-way between today's bloated $3800B and JFK's fully adjusted $1500B.

Explain that.

"% of GDP" is a sham. It is not the function of self-government to consume a given % of GDP. The measure of government efficiency is in inverse proportion to the % of GDP that it consumes.

When we built our home 20 years ago, we spent a certain % of our income on much needed plumbing. As our income has grown, we did not continue to spend a fixed % of our income on much needed plumbing, nor were we ruled by plumbers, just because we needed plumbing.

Self-government is much needed plumbing, and our elected officials are state plumbers. They are not tasked with consuming a fixed % of GDP, but ... we wish. Obama's 25% is a whopping 5% over historical averages in this nation. As Peggy Noonan wrote, "He made things worse."


Federal bloat has crushed our economies, even as they insist on referring to them as an it.


JFK's 60's economies provided the world's best ... everything. Economic opportunities, educational opportunities, infrastructure programs -- this was the height of building IKE's autobahn/Interstate system -- and even, Apollo Moon Programs.

So how to explain his adjusted $1500B federal budget against today's $3800B federal budget?

The difference has crushed our economies-- the engines that we claim 'must' fire to drive prosperity. These social engineers do not understand how they've killed risk, the desire to run uphill against the gradient, the desire to pull hard on pump handles. They are all about taking and giving, redistributing, shedding risk at the point of a gun aimed at the many for the some.

This nation's financial system used to be governed by 50 sets of independent state banking and lending laws. In court case after court case, and even USSC, those 50 sets of regulations standing in parallel in a distributed governance model were systematically and deliberately replaced with a single point of failure overbearing federal model. This exposed the inherent dangers of monopolistic influence(even in governance) when it failed simultaneously across the entire nation. Monopolies can't be bad only in the private sector, but good things in the public sector, and as we flirt with global totalitarian economic constructs, we should ponder that, no matter how compelling the resulting leverage is. The lesson of massive leverage, over and over and over again, is that it can massively leverage in two directions; good and bad.

There is a reason that suspension bridge cables are built the way they are. There is a reason that 'the Sears Tower' is really 9 towers standing in parallel, like a bundle.

The expression is, "United We Stand." Not, "United It Stands."


If we still had those 50 sets of independent state banking and lending regulations, this financial crisis would have never made it past P8 of the local paper, and "CountryWide" would have been named "StateWide." The failures of a single state running amok with a failed social experiment would have easily been absorbed by 49 still standing state economies, interlinked and yet not lockstepped via an over-bearing single point of failure federal model.

We are in love with the leverage promised by totalitarian solutions, and it blinds us to everything except our ambitions, well meaning or not. When those disparate ambitions converge and sprint the entire nation headlong into a single 'the' direction, heads roll.

The last person you want to be is the last investor into a bubble. And yet, that is exactly what our converged interests managed to do, aimed precisely at that segment of our nation least able to bear that title-- well meaning or not. But, who was there to say "No...stop!" in our nation? Not any POTUS of any party, anxious to tout 'the highest % of home ownership in history." Not any Congress, for the same reason. Not the "CountryWides," raking in milliosn doing God's work. Not HUD, or any construct of government. And certainly not the folks getting access to the warm body tear-off credit. A few academics here and there were waving the nation off, maybe Peter Schiff most effectively. But during the peak of the bubble, anyone who would have actually effectively argued to put a stop to this convergence of interests would have been painted as a 'red-lining' meanie who was trying to keep poor-people away from the 'wealth-building' party.

The failure was not our intentions. The failure was the massively monopolistic, single-point-of-failure nature, scale, and scope of all those converged interests. The failure was our collective stupidity at tolerating over-leveraged models of single-point-0f-failure governance loose in our nation.

The imbalance between weakened states and too-powerful federal models of governance is what failed us all, at once, in the universe's latest demonstration of the stupidity of single-point-of-failure models.

We have barely learned a thing; we are still drawn like moths to a flame to totalitarian global solutions, because we are mesmerized by the leverage. If only our great ideas could benefit from the massive leverage afforded by global totalitarian reach, then we could build 'a' better economy.

We should be building economies, plural. Massively parallel systems, not a single point of failure 'the' system.

But we aren't. Until the wheels fall of 'the' wagon.


(Credit: Ayn Rand, "We The Living" for the plumbing analogy.)

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

In ’89 the Berlin Wall fell, supposedly at least placing some doubt as to the wisdom of centrally planned/command economy running. Yet within 2 years, the intellectual juggernaut “It’s THE Economy, Stupid” was(and still is) sweeping our nation. My point is, isn’t it really “the economies,” and doesn’t our political trend of thinking of ‘them’ as an ‘it’ lead us away from understanding, not towards? I know that painting our economies as ‘The’ Economy serves a political purpose, but does it serve the tribe’s purposes? The political purpose is, if entities seek ever more centralized power(for better or worse)over the tribe, then they have a conceptually easier task of convincing us all that they are capable of controlling an ‘it’ rather than a ‘them.’ “ Are they an it?” is a fundamental question. Our nation has decided ‘yes’, for the worse I believe.

Consider all the counter examples. Consider the Sears Tower, in Chicago. ‘It’ is not really ‘a’ tower, it is a side by side stacked bundle of towers, more like a ‘cable’ than a ‘rod’. ‘It’ is strong precisely because it is not one thing. “ United we stand, divided we fall?” Sure thing, but it is not “United It Stands, Divided It falls.”

We talk about ‘the weather’, but not ‘the weather of the entire USA’ ,else, what is ‘the’ temperature of the USA right now? Let’s let the folks in Alaska and Florida duke that one out. Ditto ‘economies’. Ask someone who is today selling either ‘guns’ or ‘wallsafes’ about ‘the state’ of ‘the economy.’

The real villain of the current Perfect Storm has been AllOurEggsInOneBasket. Not just monopolies – we are reasonably vigilant about monopolies(except all those that are today ‘too big to let fail…”) – but rather, monopolies with guns. We are totally blind to them. SEC Exempt FNMA/GSEs were just used/abused to overcome more stricter state banking/lending regulations, to impose a OneSizeFitsAll singlular experiment on the entire nation. Instead of 50 experiments in parallel, our imbalanced federalism attempted to impose a single point of failure experiment on the entire nation. If FNMA had been just as large, but been ten independently run and managed experiments, or better still, 50 state experiments, then the crash and burn failure of any one of them would barely have made it past P8 of the local paper. Instead, they managed to touch nearly every mortgage and as well, nearly every portfolio in the nation, when their Perfect Storm singular experiment went awry.

How did it go awry? It was a Perfect Storm confluence of greed all around and well meaning public policy, but the former required the latter to have the impact it did. Think about it—who was going to say ‘no’ to all the tear-off credit, while the bubble was still inflating? Not FNMA – it was their stated policy to maximize home ownership across the broadest economic spectrum, which is a fancy way of saying, hand out tear-off credit to poor folks and get around the 20% down and other conventional banking conventions. Not CountryWide. Heck, along with FNMA, they were doing “God’s Work” when they were raking in all those millions. And certainly not the folks getting the tear-off credit. So, who was left to say ‘no?’ We really don’t have a ‘Czar of the Economy’, not even Greenspan. Plenty of folks were waving the red flag – while the bubble was inflating. However, if any one of them had been effectively able to ‘say no’, then they would have been redline painted as a meanie for keeping poor folks out of the party – while the bubble was inflating. But think of what ‘we’ – as a Perfect Storm confluence of greed all around and good intentions – did. We deliberately shepherded that segment of our population least able to bear the title “last investors into the bubble” into precisely that role. Some, motivated by ‘good intentions’, and some, motivated by greed(to keep the bubble inflating, by broadening out the market.) But locked, arm in arm, in a massive singlepointoffailure social experiment, and now we are deep into the ‘they did it!’ part of the festivities.

The villain was ‘monopolists with guns.’ Single Point of failure. One Size Fits All. All our eggs in one basket. Rampant out of control ‘imbalanced federalism.’ In this instance, the imbalanced federalists were not content with the proper role of the federal government, which is, enforcing fair housing and lending practices, and prosecuting actual instances of violations, to ‘regulate the marketplaces.’ By their own admission, that was ‘too difficult’ to enforce on an actual instance basis, so they switched instead to a scheme based on targeting broad (OneSizeFitsAll instances) demographic outcome numbers, period, and set as an overriding banking ‘standard’ simply the total number of loans issued to folks in a given income bracket(!), conventional banking practices be damned. The use/abuse of FNMA to override more stricter state banking regulations was seen as ‘critically important’ in achieving those goals. Ironically, the federalists are now claiming ‘not enough regulation,’ and are proposing as a solution to our national house fire that we call in the arsonists who started the fire.

The securitization of mortgages into marketable bags of chopped salad could also not have occurred without the monopolists with guns. The ‘backwash credit’ window – (our endemic trade imbalance trying to flow back into the US as credit/investment all these decades) – has been the not so secret buoyant force in our previously gravity defying economies. Desperate to find risk taking/beast building capitalists yet breathing in the US in which to invest, instead they found ever more carcass carving capitalists. My Ivy League brethren sprint to Wall Street from where to launch a career staring at the scoreboard and betting on the game using OPM, with no skin in the game. From there, they go to K-Street to glom onto the guns of government and keep the CronyFest on the Potomac flowing smoothly. A connected at the hip Wall Street/K-Street Klan of Cronies makes sure of one thing, and that is, that the Masters of the Universe CronyFest is fully funded, and that thing, that so far soft fascism, is what used/abused the guns of government to foist those chopped bags of mortgage salad onto the free for all previously going on at the backwash credit window. Though, Perfect Storm, it turns out some of those bags of chopped salad have an indeterminate amount of defaulting/deflating bubble E.Coli in them, and so the backwash credit window slowed down considerably and those backwash credit dollars flowed elsewhere, into commodities, oil. China literally just sat on a ton of US dollars, because of a dearth of real investment opportunities in our climate. When the backwash credit window tightened, that left our own domestic investment banks sitting on massive inventories of chopped salad bags for which there was suddenly no longer any market any where. As banks stared across the table at each other, knowing full well that each other were holding E.Coli tainted bags of chopped mortgage salad, interbank credit froze as well. And, into that mess have rushed the monopolists with guns, recognizing full well that the crisis at hand is the future of monopolists with guns, running ‘the’ Economy for them and their crony connected special interest friends.

Meanwhile, a nation of 300,000,000 mostly bewildered folks simply hope that the mob really hasn’t taken over the country.

JFK’s entire federal budget was about $100B. In order to try and save some singular thing called ‘THE ECONOMY’, our current tribal CronyFest Masters of the Universe just handed over $300B to a single entity, AIG. A dollar is not a dollar(precisely because of the CronyFest), but that is still almost 10% of the current federal budget handed over to a single entity. What happened to FDR ‘saving capitalism’ – by implementing ‘mixed economies?’ Isn’t the very first thing in the ‘mixed economies’ List of Things To Do “Be wary of monopolies too big to let fail?”

We can’t call what has been going on capitalism. And what little capitalism remains in this nation is of the carcass carving variety, not the beast building variety. I don’t even think we can call it socialism. Some try to dress it up and call it ‘corporatism’, but it is most closely fascism, and even if it is so far a soft, mostly polite fascism, it is still a cozy melding of the guns of government with powerful special interests/mobs. We’ve unfettered our state, and just like in Germany in the 20s, under financial stress, we are screaming to unfetter it even more, even as the state itself and its massively single point of failure experiments cause the very economic stress driving this latest madness of crowds. We are witnessing … collective widespread insanity.

The chairman of FedExp “FredEx” – recently pointed something out in the WSJ. He employs a ton of people. FedExp is the #2 consumer of energy in the world, behind the US Military. They buy a ton of airplanes, like 777s from Boeing. Trucks, equipment, etc. Recently, he went to Boeing to buy 777s, and would have bought even more, except for what are ‘reasonable’ leverage rules of thumb; the folks on Wall Street get nervous when a brick and mortar beast building capitalist tries to borrow more than 15% of asset value. That is a ‘sound’ limit on credit. And yet, if “FredEx” was in the financial industry – if FredExp was involved in pushing value-proxies around, period -- he could routinely leverage out to 5000% of asset value.

???

Apparently, it’s good to write the leverage rules. But, who do they serve, and towards what ends? We can’t all be staring at the scoreboard and betting on the game. Somebody in our economies has to be willing to take risk and put their own skin into the game of building the future, aka, beast building capitalism. A massive once beast can tolerate some amount of carcass carving. A massive once beast can tolerate some amount of parasitism. A massive once beast can tolerate some amount of Anything Goes. But not an infinite amount, and only some, right up until the moment that the bones are beginning to show. And then what?

Well, in our case, we start to make noises about ‘redistribution of wealth,’ and we lurch left. We must believe, or there must be a theory floating around, that risk takers just can’t help themselves. And yet, when the Masters of Running the Economy Universe throw a trillion or two of tear-off credit borrowed OPM/debt at a problem caused by tear-off credit debt and then “The Economy” still circles the drain, they surely can’t blame themselves/Economy Running. No, they have to blame ‘the banks.’ The banks, they say, aren’t lending. It’s the banks fault. And I say, nonsense.

It turns out that loans, like education, are primarily taken, not given. They are both at most well offered. I had no trouble re-upping my largely unused business LOC last month, and interest rates are really low. I get hit daily with incantations begging me to borrow money. 500,000 at 0.5% for 36 months? Unreal, and yet yikes. And yet, I’m saying, “Not in this environment.” And lots of folks are saying “Not in this environment.” I don’t normally use a lot of credit, but I am certainly not incentified in this environment to take on any future business risk based on borrowing or credit. Not until this nation backs away from its imbalanced federalism, and devolves all of that out of control centralized power running amok on Wall Street and K-Street.

All of the above is noise, because as we speak, the nation is sprinting towards increasingly imbalanced federalism and even globalism. It’s not at all clear to me that is the right direction, based on how we got to this point, or even, based on an even cursory look at examples from the Universe of ‘strong’ systems of systems.

Restore balanced federalism -- which should be redundant. Devolve concentrated, single point of failure, monopolistic power. Especially, monopolists with guns. It's how we got here.

reguarda,
Frediano

"S"ociety from society

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

We have been duped by religious fanatics.

Social, from the Latin socius, meaning "companion, known associate."

An example of a society is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. These are a subset of individuals who knowingly and freely associate with each other for some purpose.

How then did our common language ever become polluted with the concept of "S"ociety, as defined by Emil Durkheim, and as frequently referred to in our political discourse? The "S"ociety that is leg liftingly referred to in these arguments has nothing to do with "companions, known associates", but to the theoretical agregate of all such societies--as if that concept had any meaningful purpose in the political arguments of free people?

The 'generalization' of the specific term 'society' has become so vague and diffuse as to be totally meaningless, and yet it is claimed as the basis of a 'science' not only taught in our public schools, but directing entire departments of our federal government.

This was done to promote a religious movement, Social Scientology, that was selling the religious argument "The State is God." Our state bought it.

We were over-run with a religious movement over a hundred years ago, and yet still rail on about 'separation of church and state' as if that wall had not long ago been toppled.

This was some slick slight of hand. But, look how clumsily it was hidden, if only we had actually looked:

"Society is not at all the illogical or alogical, incoherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only intheir permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them."

How could we have not seen this, and why did we let it happen?

reguarda,
Frediano

NST Fair Tax and Two Currencies

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

Gov. Huckabee almost has me convinced with the Fair Tax proposal.

I get the uniform minimum exemption, to relieve the burden on the poor.

I get the slick way that it captures currently untaxed economies in our economies.

I get the way that it unburdens incentives on saving and investment, and doesn't punish creation of wealth.

As long as it is an end use tax only, I can see how it might eliminate hidden compound/pass along taxation.

I get the way it eliminates a convoluted tax code and IRS, and replaces it with a what should be simpler and easier to understand NST collection and reporting agency.

I get the way it throws millions of tax accountants out of work. I mean, displaces their efforts.

It has way more positives than negatives, but there is one thorny issue that I've never gotten a Fair Tax advocate to address, and that is, the Transition Problem.

When I bring it up, it gets hand waved away. If that is how it is going to be treated, then if it ever happens, it is going to create an enormous opportunity for displacement of wealth between those paying attention and those not to the fact that the transition is going to create two currencies in the economies for some period of time, PRETAX currency and AFTER TAX currency.

Something tells me that banks and financial institutions are going to be able to figure this out.

Something tells me that an awful lot of just plain folks with money in their checking and savings accounts will be among the folks not figuring this out.

One day, you deposit your hard earned AFTERTAX dollars into your checking account, and some time later, you withdraw your brand new PRETAX dollars, ready to go spend and be taxed again.

One day, you are a retiree living on AFTERTAX assets, and the next day, you are retiree freshly finding out that you are living on PRETAX assets.

I seriously doubt that we are going to go to the trouble of actually issuing a new currency, or establishing an exchange rate between them, and so on. Too complicated.

So...that leaves, opportunities to pay attention and not get hosed, or just live your life and get hosed. IOW, for some of us to game other of us and/or the economies to extract value from the unsuspecting.

Rest assured, banks and lending institutions will pay attention to the details.

For example, if you borrow AFTERTAX dollars from someone, I doubt if they will be happy with being paid back with PRETAX dollars without an adjustment in the interest rate being paid. Got a 30 yr mortgage? Been paying it off with AFTERTAX dollars? It will be a relief to pay it off with PRETAX dollars, won't it?

Of course, that's the way the bank will feel, too, when it has to pony up those demand accounts. You deposited AFTERTAX dollars, but they will deliver PRETAX dollars when you make a withdrawal.

I'm wondering, will you keep your old currency in demand accounts during the transition to Fair Tax? Some will, some won't.

Will you attempt to convert as much of your AFTERTAX assets as possible in the old economies into real/transferable assets of some type and carry them into the new economies?

Will you attempt to borrow as much AFTERTAX credit as you can in the old economies to do same, and then pay back those loans with PRETAX dollars in the new economies?

Of all the things a Fair tax is or isn't, what it clearly also is is an opportunity to tax the same income TWICE during the transition, if folks try to carry AFTERTAX proxies across the transition.

I mean, assuming this complicated transition issue is not addressed by recognition of the two currency problem, and advocates just hand wave it away and claim "it will take care of itself."

Eyes glaze over.

"Not a big problem. It will work itself out."

Then...get ready for more sharks in the water.

Reguarda,
Frediano

Fixing Social Security Forever

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

It's all in the sales pitch. I think Sen. Obama could sell this one.

We know the problem; nothing but IOUs in the SS Trust Fund. It is and always was a 'pay as you go', revenue in, benefits out, surplus immediately spent program. This was fine during the entire working life of the Boomer demographic, the same already generational surplus paying demographic that was charged an additional surcharge, supposedly to fund this coming rainy day in a sound, actuarial manner.

Well, they couldn't help themselves. Too late to cry over that. So, what to do?

It's easy, if not painless. Here' is the pitch.

"Social Security, in its current defined benefits format, was a one time well deserved 'thank you' to the Greatest Generation that preceded us. Without their enormous sacrifices, none of the economies which followed in the free world would have existed. But as they fade into history, America must adjust Social Security so that it will last forever. We can do that easily,by converting it over some period of time to a defined contribution program. As such, it will last forever. What this means is, your future benefits are not defined. They will be determined by the then available revenues in the program. You want higher benefits? Then do what the Greatest Generation did, and have more kids."

"This means that the Boomer generational pain might be back end loaded. Well, the Greatest Generation's pain was front end loaded. But, consider the world without the sacrifices of that generation, if you can. You can't, the debt we owe them is immeasurable."

"So, buck up. Receiving less Social Security is not the same thing as leaving a leg in Normandy."

That will fix SS forever.

reguarda,
Frediano

The Myth of 'The' Economy

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

We hear that phrase all the time, especially in this now continuous political season: "The Economy."

Think about it. No, in fact, that is the slight of hand being pulled. By thinking of 'them' as if they were an 'it', we are all lulled into a false sense of tractability, as if those talking about 'it' have a handle on 'it.'

Alas, 'it' is really a 'them.' Whenever you hear someone talk about 'the Economy', make an effort to actually hear 'the economies.' The former does not lead to understanding, it prohibits it.

Do we talk about 'the' weather in the United States in any meaningful way--meaning, the singular 'weather' that characterizes the entire United States of America? If you think so, then what is 'the' temperature in America right now? Should it be 'hotter' or 'colder'? Let's let the folks in Florida and Alaska duke that one out.

Silly? Then what about 'the' unemployment rate, or 'the' interest rate that best tweaks 'the' Economy?

Do 67 year old pharmacists in Altoona really participate in the same 'the' Economy as 25 year old stock brokers in Manhattan or 43 year old defense contractors in Huntsville?

Then, globally, what of the 28 year old PhD in Beijing? Do we shift a gear, and then think of 'The American Economy' as something yet different than The Global Economy, or in fact, is it just yet ever more economies at ever smaller scales, right down to your very household?

Did the Soviet Union actually win the Cold War, and America has actually conceded the brilliance of a centrally planned command 'The' Economy? I missed that. What I remember hearing about instead was an America half our present size that left over 400,000 of themselves in a meat grinder fighting totalitarianism. I'm not sure the Greatest Generation would have gone to all that trouble if they knew that their clueless kids were going to preside over the political equivalent of Macy's buying Gimbels when it comes to embracing 'totalitarianism.'

The herdists/statists running loose among us would prefer us to believe in the Myth of The Economy. It is a political argument for OnesSizeFitsAll management of that which is inherently not a single entity, but a complex aggregate of systems, some of which have no bearing whatsoever on each other, no linkage at all.

If we believe in that Myth, then we are one required step closer to believing also in the ability of Cargo Cult scientists, aka soft scientists, to manage it.

Flip a perfect coin a million times, and keep track of the net number of heads vs the net number of tails. The probability that you flip 'heads' on every even throw and 'tails' on every odd throw, or vice verse, is effectively 0%. This means, simply at random, there will be periods of 'net heads throws' and 'net tails throws' at any given time, and in fact, 'no net heads/tails throws' for a very small % of time.

We could pretend to look at those periods of net heads and net tails and predict the future with certainty, but with a perfect coin, we'd have no clue.

So, here's the God's truth: modern day state of the art economic science can't even reach a consensus and tell us what just happened, much less, what is going to happen.

Compare it with 'weather prediction.' Weather prediction has a model and a predicted outcome. Every day, yesterday's model can be compared with today's outcome. Models can be calibrated daily. And still, state of the art is about 2 weeks, tops.

How are economic models calibrated? They aren't. Consider the LTCM fiasco. Unknown/unknowable/unmeasurable terms were simply ignored. What was left amounted to a model that said "the weather in San Diego will be pleasant, sunny and warm tomorrow.' Which was true, right up until the moment it wasn't.

That leaves, Cargo Cult scientific 'modeling'. I mean, the same age old ritualistic voodoo witch doctor sacrifices at the base of the volcano. If a model guesses right, the high priests are validated. If a model guesses wrong, then the sacrifice must have been tainted.

What really drives economies? The same things that drive everything in the universe: gradients, only in the case of the economies, there is not just one gradient, there are myriad gradients, most of which are unmeasured and unmeasurable.

At most, we can hand wave about economies. As in, economies are not fundamentally driven by 'money', but by the energetic circulation of human exchange of value for value. Unlike cartoon dogma from the 19th century, value does not fall from the sky, unabetted, nor is it largely laying on the ground waiting to be effortlessly scooped up. Value is inevitably the crass, warm afterglow left over from the creative exertion of actual human beings. It is not sufficient to 'stimulate' economies--if healthy economies are our goal--simply by handing out value proxies for consumption based on borrowing from the future, or any mere credit based consumption side 'stimulation.' What needs to be stimulated is the human circulation of exchange of value for value, and that means, exertion of human creative effort. Humans taking intelligent risk, humans exerting effort, humans creating value circulates the exchange of value in healthy economies, and creates additional opportunities for creating value.

Otherwise, simply printing and handing out money to people would stimulate economies. That stimulates only one thing; some noise before the next dark ages.

Do yourself a favor, and see the world differently, with your eyes open; there is no such thing as 'The Economy.' So, ask yourself, why is it so front and center in our politics?

reguarda,
Frediano

Religious Freedom in America


Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!


Full disclosure. I am not only not Italian(well, partially,) neither am I Catholic nor Christian as well. You'd think with my pre-occupation with religious themes that I was at least a Lutheran Evangelical. Sorry if I've misled.


I am a devout non-aligned agnostic theist. I believe in a God, my Creator, that I am not permitted to define. He defined me, not the other way around. That is my place in existence, in Creation in this Universe.


My only beliefs in regards to either church or corporate religion is the certain knowledge that they are both man made constructs, but logic prohibits me from extending that certain knowledge to God, my Creator.


I'm here. I once wasn't. My 'creation' is no more at question than my existence. Logic demands that I acknowledge not just the possibility, but the absolute certainty of the existence of at least one form of God/Creator, and that example is 'the Universe as it is.' So, on the scoreboard being kept 'evidence of God/Creator', I see it as 1-0, God's favor.


There may be other examples, but as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, "I don't know." I only know that I can't set conditionals for my own existence/creation, I can only acknowledge both. The topic of defining God is way above my pay grade as a member of the merely Created.


I am not antagonistic towards man made religion and church. I am, however curious as to how much of that activity is based on the jarring(to me, if nobody else) phenomenon of "Rules for God." I am amazed that members of the merely Created can allow themselves to start off on an intellectual journey that begins with "God is..." or "God wants...." or "God isn't..." or "God must be ..." and so on, as if it was logically possible for the merely Created to establish "Rules for God/Creator", or better, "Conditionals for my own Existence." I am equally as stunned when non-agnostic atheists assert those rules for their own existence as I am non-agnostic theists, i.e., together, not 'believers' but 'knowers' on the topic of God/Creator.


So that leaves "illogically possible," and history is nothing but endlessly creative "Rules for God" asserted by the merely Created, both by theists and atheists, both of who exist, as they are, in the Universe as it is, and once did not.


"In order to have Created us, God performed per the Book of Genesis(written by who?)and no other way. God was not permitted to employ Evolution, so say we, the merely Created."


Stunning in its illogic(I know, it is a matter of faith --in ancient mankind--, not logic...), but matched equally by the stunning illogic of "Here is evidence of Evolution, therefore, The Book of Genesis is art, therefore there is no God."


As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I cannot permit myself to entertain any concept that starts off with "Rules for God" established by the merely Created. I can't tell God/Creator of the Universe, as it is, with me newly in it, how to bring about that which already happened, as if a violation of any such Rule for God would void my actual existence. That is nonsense.


God, between you and me, you do not require my permission or blessing or agreement to have employed Evolution to bring me about. The truth of that impacts only petty man made political struggles, the political supremacy of some man made constructs down here in the stink and grime, which we have formulated for our own purposes.

A strange co-traveller to 'Rules for God" is "Rules for Intelligence." It goes like this. "Intelligence spontaneously appeared in the Universe, as it is, about 4 billion years after The Big Bang. It appeared spontaneously in a far arm of the spinning Milky Way galaxy on the 3rd planet circling a minor star. The only intelligent acts of creation appeared after that moment, and all acts before that moment in time were cold process. So, mankind represents creative intelligence, but that which created mankind is not intelligence, it is cold process."

To which I say, nonsense. It is nothing but parochial "Rules for Intelligence." I say, it is 'turtles all the way down.' Those turtles are either all 'cold process' or 'intelligence' , unless we apply a totally arbitrary 'Rule for Intelligence.' That which created us has also inescapably created all that we create, good or bad. We can make up all the parochial stories we want, does not change the Universe, as it is, nor our place in it.

There is no existential comfort to be found in the 'First Creator' Paradox, you know, "If there was a first Creator, then who created the first Creator, therefore, there was no first Creator." That is pretty slick until it is reflected back: "If there was a first Cold Process, then what Cold Process created the first Cold Process, therefore, there was no first Cold Process."

Get over it. We exist. We once did not. The existential paradox is unsolvable. It makes no difference if we are intelligence all the way down, or cold process all the way down. Either way, it is nothing but turtles all the way down. If existence is just 'the Universe, as it is,' by what set of 'Rules for God' do we declare "Not God Enough? Not Creator enough? Not Miracle enough?" Existence is a miracle. The un-scratchable existential itch of this miracle, this singularity, this paradox, has led mankind to congregate around the singularity and ponder religion.

Well, 'stuff' sure enough happens around singularities, especially when naked sweaty apes attempt to formulate legislation around same.


Since the prohibition in our 1st Amendment does not address a specific 'R'eligion per se, such as Christianity, but the meta-concept 'religion', a definition of the meta-concept 'religion' is required to understand the Amendment. Yet, not only is a suitable government "definition of religion" lacking, it appears to me to be prohibited.


My search for a meta-definition of 'religion' fortunately occurred in the context of a free America. As I looked for a meta-definition, I formulated my own, as follows.


Religion, to me, as a meta-definition, is the man made existential search for answers to the following two questions: Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?


Every human being ever created, theists and atheists alike, actually answers those questions by living his life, even if never asked, by expending the finite mote of heat and light granted to each of us in this miracle of existence. We answer those questions whether we consciously search for the answers or not, and yet when we consciously search, to me, we are engaged in religion. In that light, the brilliance of our first Amendment is glaring, positioned as it is at the very beginning of an Individual Bill of Rights.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of why you are here, or what you are supposed to be doing now as a result of that. You are free to live your life and answer those questions yourself.


Has a very nice "One skin, one driver" feel to it. I am blown away by the brilliance of our Founding Fathers for so carefully attempting to define Freedom from Oppression, and I am equally blown away by the persistence of the mob to bring oppression back.


How does the mob do that? Through political means. Watch how carefully any one of us can turn religion into politics, just by rephrasing the questions:


Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?


Excuse me. Doesn't that presuppose that there is just one answer to the original question? Doesn't the OneSizeFitsAll nature of posing the question like that define statism/oppression? Isn't that exactly the kind of question that a free people should be wary of?


This is the basic global political struggle, the individual vs. the tribe. How much of your life belongs to the tribe/state, how much belongs to you? The American experiment is an attempt to codify an Individual Bill of Rights, a suggestion to the mob that the most fundamental right of each of us is to be free from the unfettered overwhelming force of all of us, and that is a concept worth mobbing up to defend. This interpretation of the American experiment is an impediment to the political goals of the herdists/statists among us, who would prefer to emphasize singular answers to the fundamental question of religion, and who require unfettered application of the overwhleming force of all of us against any of us in order to achieve that.


As you listen to modern American politics in 2008, listen closely to the tone of the debate, both from the GOP and the Democratic party, or as a wise man[1] refers to them collectively, "The National Party." See if you can detect anything but a 'free fall' to the concept that OneSizeFitsAll. There is no longer even lip service being paid to anything but.


Reguarda,
Frediano



[1] Nessus

Defining 'religion' for the purpose of not establishing 'religion'.

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion', for the purpose of insuring that Congress is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

If you search the US Code, you find surprisingly many references to the term 'religion,' as in 'minister of religion.' You even see definitions such as "The term "duly ordained minister of religion" means ...

But curiously, you never see the following: "The term "religion" means ..."

I call this 'the not with a ten foot pole' paradox. Imagine some Congressional staffer starting off a line like that. You would hope it would at least give him pause.

There are a ton of anecdotal quotes of the founding fathers, former SCOTUS Justices, and so on, none of which answers the question; how does Congress/SCOTUS define 'religion' for the purposes of making sure that Congress is not defining religion?

Americans are free to define religion any way they wish, as in, the worship of Tuna fish. Silly, but not prohibited. The question is, is Congress permitted to ever declare "The worship of Tuna fish is/is not a religion?' Is Congress permitted to ever declare, "For the purpose of declaring the worship of Tuna fish as a religion/ not a religion, the definition of "Tuna worship" is defined as ...?" Not even the IRS Code gets out that 10 foot pole.

Then, is Congress permitted to establish any kind of a list of religions, for any purpose? As in, "List of Allowable Religions in America" and an implicit "List of Not Allowable Religions in America?"

Well, instead of lists, can Congress simply define a meta-definition, some list of hurdles that 'R'eligions must jump over before they are considered examples of 'r'eligion? If so, then why haven't they?

Perhaps 'belief in a supernatural being." Would that be limited to 'real' supernatural beings, or could it include 'unreal' supernatural beings as well, like 'The Gods of Football" or "The Gods of the Theatre" or even, Durkheim's "'S'ociety?" (You know, the unseen yet all seeing entity above and beyond all mere local contingencies, that alone can see all and furnish the ...Durkheim's substitute totem for 'God', "Society?")

If limited to 'real' supernatural beings, then how does Congress determine the reality of supernatural beings? Is a God-O-Meter of some kind involved?

There are those who selectively defer to former Justice Joseph Story's admiring reference to the Virginia Bill of Rights, as if it was federal statute, which it is not, and yet when seen in its entirety, it is not much of a secular help at all:

16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.

"Forbearance" as in, a failure to enforce.

If it is as simple as looking up the term in Black's Law or any other Dictionary, then it should be a simple matter to simply state that in the US Code: "The term 'religion' shall mean..." Alas, not.

We have set all kinds of precedents so far when it comes to the abuse of the 1st Amendment. For example, if I want to claim protection from what I claim is religion, is it necessary that I actually believe in that religion, or believe that the supernatural being associated with that religion is 'real', before curiously seeking 'protection' from it? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Is it necessary that I hold a majority view of religion when I seek protection? (Let me check...atheists, 'No').

Well then, I don't really believe in Thespianism(like atheists don't believe in say Christianity), and I don't really believe the "Gods of the Theatre" are real supernatural beings(like atheists don't believe in God), but just to be safe, let's get that "sacred space" of the theatre crap out of our public schools before someone gets hurt.

I know that makes me sound like a crank fringe crackpot with a minority view of religion(like atheists), but too late, we've established the precedent, and I do not see where Congress is able to rule, for the curious task of prohibiting undefinable religion anywhere in America, that "Thespianism is/is not a religion."

Gods of Football, with its endless Hail Mary's and uniformed acolytes, halls of fame, and regular Sunday services?

Gaien Environmentalism? Why even, and especially, "Social Scientology?" If "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," then where are the prescribed Lists of "These are real religions that those with a minority view of religion may seek 'protection' from, and these 'unreal' religions that only a crank would seek 'protection' from?

The best anyone has ever explained this paradox to me is as follows. "It is not a paradox. Congress may not establish religion, so it must be able to define religion, to make sure that is not defining religion. It can't, so it must, because it can't, otherwise it could."

I have a much better explanation for this paradox. The paradox of having to 'define religion' only comes about when Congress/SCOTUS finds itself in the curious position of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. The paradox goes away when there is no ability to petition the federal government for the curious task of prohibiting the free exercise of religion anywhere in America. If our political bias was towards religious tolerance, not intolerance, then there would be no paradox.

So, from where the present paradox?

It is what we should expect to see in America if its public institutions had somehow been overrun by a particular religion, and that particular religion was actively slamming the successfully pierced 1st Amendment door shut behind itself by turning it on its ear. Is there any hint of such a theocracy in America?

"Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, inherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them"

So said Emil Durkheim, the 'still seminal' founding father of modern Social Scientology. It is one of the most honest definitions of "Society" ever disclosed by the Social Scientologists. If you can read that definition and not smell 'religion' about, then I must put you in touch with my brother-in-law, who is an excellent chiropractor, and will be able to help you with all of that bending over backwards. (I always love when sociology texts, aka PolitSci Bibles, refer to Durkheim as 'still seminal' -- as if it was possible to ever lose ones 'seminality.' It is revealing; the Social Scientologists will indeed throw Durkheim under the bus the second it becomes politically advantageous to do so, just like they did Marx.)

An example of a 's'ociety is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss bird migration. That is not what the Social Scientologists mean when they lift their eyes to the skies above and leg lift their clearly a religion political agenda by speaking(in tongues)for "S"ociety.

A century ago, did they succeed in piercing the 1st Amendment, when all this Social Scientology Society=God slight of hand was sweeping the face of the planet? Check your wallet. Were you issued a "Biblical Security" number, and are you carrying a card? Does your kid come home from public school with his "Biblical Studies" books, from his 'Biblical Studies" classes?

Think about it; why would our very own government ever succumb to the sweet siren of a religion that was selling "the state is God?"

Pick up a sociology textbook, aka, a soft science textbook, aka, not a science at all. It is filled with nothing but "Sociologists believe..." from beginning to end. Well, so did the Apostles.

A hundred years ago, they called their religion 'science', and the Social Scientologists succeeded in over-running our 1st Amendment. They have slammed the door shut behind themselves, and have turned religious tolerance into religious intolerance, precisely by 'defining religion.'

Reguarda,
Frediano

Remarkably anisentropic separation of emigrating European Jews

Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

An amazing thing happened in Europe in the last century. Persecuted European Jews fled the local fomenting insanity. Some emigrated to British Mandate Palestine, some to the United States. The colonies rimming the Med, once in thrall to the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years were left in a vacuum when the Turks picked the wrong ally, lost a global war, then saw the handwriting on the wall and 'modern-ed up' behind Ataturk. A war weary West half heartedly redrew the maps, and the unfinished world war has been festering ever since. You should expect that kind of mess when you lose a major world war, but you should also expect residual mess when a conflict is ended early without pacifying all the players, especially those not regarded with enough respect to take seriously. Some of these brand new nations cast off their colonial chains and modern-ed up, some didn't, but the war weary West was in no mood to pacify every last local tribal crapfight over the dusty bones of the local prophet. The West had a party to throw called 'modernity', or so it thought, and wanted to get on with it.

In that context, the Jews who fled to the United States took their places in our nation as doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, entertainers, artists, neighbors, citizens. They built their temples, they built their community centers, they raised their children, they flew to Israel and took their kids on bus trips to see the HolyLand, then flew back. They bought land, they built homes, they participated in our economies. They lived alongside of Arab Americans who were doing the same, and continued their 6,000 year tradition of values that have served them well..

The Jews who fled to Palestine tried to do the same. Wealthy by local standards, they arrived and bought land from the locals at prices that not even those selling the land could afford, and for this grave sin, they were hated. Arafat's 'uncle nazi' was a member of the 3 member Arab High Council in Jerusalem whose original complaint, long before the Hebron massacre in the early part of the 20th Century is summed up stunningly as follows: "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood."

There it is, the nexus that led to the current intractable crap fight, and the sentiment we are supposed to get behind when we are asked to condemn the defensive response now known as the State of Israel. What are we asked to believe? That in Europe, a kind of Maxwell's Demon stood guard at the docks, and separated out all of the reasonable, peace loving Jews from the Arab baby eating monsters, and sent the former exclusively to America to live in peace and raise their families, and the latter to Palestine, to prey on the poor innocent Jew haters. I mean, local version of the KKK, with their "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood' sensibilities.

It comes down to the same old class warfare and jealousy. The same Jews who arrived in Palestine were wealthy by local standards, and this was resented even by those selling land to them. The local KKK, after having its attacks on Israel thwarted not once but several times--and by thwarted, I mean, deservedly had the living crap kicked out of them--, now resorts to selective portrayals of history, who did what to whom when, in order to sign up support for the "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood'" campaign.

One is confused, for about 20 milliseconds, when one wonders why so much of the West's radical Left signs up for the "Too many Jews buying land in the 'hood" campaign on the side of the local KKK. The confusion disappears when the class warfare aspect is brought into focus. First the Jews, and now the State of Israel represent "The Rich" in this local class war, and the local KKK represents "The Poor." The radical left understands only one calculus, and that calculus is forever based on "The Rich vs The Poor". "Poor" trumps "KKK" in that calculus, to the point where the "KKK" must be whitewashed away with incredible stories of unbelievably anisentropic spontaneous separation of peaceful European Jews and Arab baby eating Jews at those European docks.

That calculus, if enough once free people fall for it, will take us all to its inevitable conclusion, which is the sad spectacle of two miserable beings clad in rags, fighting in a hovel, arguing over whose sores are runnier as claim upon the not so maggoty piece of rotted meat.

Reguarda,
Frediano

Does Muslim World hate the West?


Buongiorno specie al mio preferito!

A few years ago, I was doing some business in Bangladesh as a Westerner. Dhaka, Chittagong. I was dealing with educated Muslim naval officers. My hosts treated me warmly, kindly, and took excellent care of me during my visits. Although Bangladesh is not technically an Islamic Peoples Republic and has a nominal secular civil government, it is in fact a defacto Islamic Peoples Republic; there is no mistaking who is running that nation, as is regularly declared via the throwing of Hartals--national religious strikes--for any reason whatsoever, and whose primary reason for being is to declare the political supremacy of the local theocracy. During one of these visits, I had the opportunity to hide out during one of these Hartals so as not to be seen in the streets as a Westerner doing business during a Hartal and possibly killed. You see, during a Hartal, everything is shut down, from power to taxis to rickshaw pullers. Sadly, because during a Hartal is the best time for struggling rickshaw pullers to compete with taxis, some try, and the local papers carry the tally the next day of how many of them and their passengers were murdered on the streets by religious gangs/thugs who enforce the Hartal, despite the many pleas from civil authorities to 'modern up' already. My hosts, the Bangladesh Navy and their normally bayoneted Enfield wielding escorts, knew to take a 'bye' during a Hartal, and so, advised me to hide out in the 'Westerner hotel' (who could find me there?) until the craziness was over. And so, on this occasion, I did, in the dark and the damp and the heat and the stink, for the prescribed 24 hours. The cause of this particular Hartal was a poster that had been published by an Israeli artist that was critical of one of the Mullahs. Boy, did Bangladesh ever show her with this display of national masochism. That will teach her to be critical of Mullahs and their teachings, and by teach her, I mean, if she even knew this occurred. But, as I said, not the point. The point of these Hartals is to occasionally show the civil authorities who is actually running the nation.

The passing of this event and the subsequent discussions gave me the opportunity to ask of my hosts, so I did: "Why does the Muslim world hate the West?"

I was corrected by my hosts. "The Muslim world does not hate the West. The Muslim world fears and loathes the West. We are taught from an early age that the West is lead by America, and the American government is officially, in writing, a Godless thing. The most powerful nation on earth is thus led by no morality, and is a thing to be feared and loathed."

I asked if they thought I was a Godless soul, unguided by morality, and they laughed politely and said, "No, we understand the difference between the American people and the government they elect. It is your government that is Godless thing, it is your government that wields power unguided by the morality of God."

Their only concern with me personally, as 'president' of a western firm that they were doing business with was that I had only one wife, but I somewhat made up for that deficit in their eyes by having two sons.

I was, and still am, somewhat taken aback by their observation, which is based in fact. They are not telling lies about us, but like all bloody complicated messes, the truth is a little twisted. I could not tell them they were wrong, because in fact, we put it in writing, proudly, as our very 1st Amendment.

But, we get our 1st Amendment. Our educational system does a great job of explaining to us exactly why it is key to the concept of our religious freedom which true enough includes but is not defined exclusively by freedom from religion. Of course, our education is in the context of a secular, non-theocratic nation, while their education is in the context of a defacto if not in fact theocracy. If that is too complex a description, then better said this way: the local Old Men in Robes at the top of the local heap are keen on clinging to their gig, and correctly perceive the competing idea of America as a threat to their political futures. They have read our first Amendment, they have decades ago watched us go to the moon and open up Disneyworlds and so on, and have correctly concluded long ago, "It is them or us."

When seen in that light, it is little wonder that the local Old Men in Robes are not singing the praises of our 1st Amendment, nor instructing their school children what a wonderful idea 'constitutionally limited democratic secular republics' are.

Of course, we in the West don't see it that way. We don't see this struggle as "It is them or us." And, why should we? We are perfectly happy with The Old Men in Robes running places like Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even oil rich Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We barely even skip a capuccino sipping beat when Saudi Arabian shieks send pocket change to tsunami ravaged Malaysia, while the West sends its billions to aid Muslims. Is the fact that places like Bangladesh are struggling in poverty and squalor, sitting there on that flood plain at the exit of India's sewage disposal system--I mean, the Ganges River delta--any threat to the endless party we are trying to throw? We don't blame our political leaders for their struggles. But, neither do we control the political/educational scene in countries like that, and guess who does? The local political leaders/Old Men in Robes who would otherwise be taking the heat for all the strife and struggle. And, guess who they are blaming? The Great Satan. And, guess who is winning that PR war? The Old Men In Robes who have correctly perceived, in their context, "It is them or us."

Do we help them with their PR campaign to blame their failures on us? Every way possible. We claim to understand all the parts of our 1st Amendment, including the bit we love to abuse like adolescents, the part guaranteeing Free Speech. In so tolerating adolescence as a cost of freedom, we know to just turn the channel when the kids get a little childishly obnoxious. But, the Old Men in Robes are given an infinite supply of "See what these fools do with their precious freedom?" to feed their propaganda war, which is again primed with not lies, but incomplete truths, when our 'freedoms' are characterized only by their worst abuses, in the name of keeping ignorant people ignorant and at bay. When we let fly into the eather and snicker, we have no idea how that is perceived and abused in other seething political contexts. That emotion serves mainly nihilistic urges to destroy that which we did not make.

A related anecdote. While in Bangladesh, I had the chance to use the services of a local business/store front. They were diversified. From a dirt floor shop with a blanket for a door, they sold rotted fruit, ancient Soviet era electronics, and access to a phone, fax, Windows95/desktop computer, complete with modem and internet access. I was concious of the opportunity, "What do folks in Bangladesh look for when they plop down their Taka and are given access to the world community's on-line library of everything?" I took a quick look at the browser cache/history, and sure enough, it was "XXX' this and 'SLUT' that as far as the eye could see. Oh, well. Folks everywhere are the same, it turns out. On average, we are average.

Are we really ready to compromise on our 1st Amendment, in the name of addressing the 'fundamental issues' that are driving the current crap fight, so as to not be seen as a threat to the gigs of the Old Men in Robes? Because, as much as we would like to ride this tiger for our own petty political agendas, the 'fundamental issues' driving this come down to the West's continuing willingness to be seen only bleeding from the a$$ on CNN in the name of Old Men in Robes clinging to their Dark Ages gig.

Speaking of the Left in America, they are playing an odd game these days. I'm not talking about the 'loyal left', but the less and less fringe radical left that is practicing 'revolution by proxy.' It's as if they think they can ride the current geopolitical struggle like a tiger to 'change' in America, and get off the nice tiger a kitchen fire short of Sharia Law. It could just be the desperate death throes of an often failed political paradigm, playing 'nothing left to lose.' Or, they truly could be idiots. Wild assertion to follow: if 99% of the soft advocates of 'change' in America could spend just 15 minutes in a place like Bangladesh, a place desperately trying to attract capitalism, by the way, I think the Big Headed Puppet Parades in America would be shut down for good. But, ain't going to happen, so we'll just let History happen.

A little insight into what life is like in the Dark Ages. There is only one traffic law in Bangladesh, and it is followed religiously: biggest vehicle wins. The primary traffic law is governed by 'physics.' This means, deuce-and-a-halves drive where they will, turn when and where they want, and all smaller vehicles must avoid them. This means, light trucks only need to look out for deuce-and-a-halves. This means, autos only need to look out for light trucks and deuce-and-a-halves. And, so on, to Cushman three wheelers and finally to rickshaw drivers, who must avoid everything except possibly other rickshaws. It is a regular occurrence when driving through the streets to see rickshaws flying end over end through space. When this happens, the crowd descends upon the heap and drags the bodies to the side of the road, berating them for creating a traffic disturbance. As you drive through the streets of Dhaka or Chittagong, you can't help but notice the large number of single and double amputees along the side of the road. When I first saw them, I asked my host if they were victims of some conflict, and he said, "No, they are former rickshaw drivers." In this and many other ways, the message that life is cheap is found on the streets of Bangladesh, and The Great Satan is not to blame for that. But, that is an insight into the nature of those ruled by Old Men in Robes who have concluded, when regarding the West, "It is them or us."

And yet, it was educated, wealthy Muslims who sent their children off to Western Universities to be radicalized. They returned to the local dusty land of the local prophets with their western radicalization, mixed it with some dark ages fundamentalism, and came up with a new formula for 'global change.' An odd confluence of ultimately incompatible left wing radical interests smell blood in the water, and actually believe the West is teetering on the brink of 'doable,' and the Old Men in Robes are using them all to their political advantage. Meanwhile, the West with few but glaring exceptions barely takes any of this seriously, and is still averting the eyes, even after the Bhutto assasination.

The Old Men in Robes have correctly concluded, "It is them or us." Will the West respond appropriately and defend its right to organize under a 1st Amendment without bleeding from the a$$ for the CNN cameras? Or will be slow to respond? Are we infested with enough nihilistic self-loathing that we are indefensible? The radicals hope so.

Reguarda,
Frediano