San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, February 8, 2014

I Was Raged Yesterday, By A Yuppie!

I moved into a Yuppie community a couple of years ago.  I have written about the strange sub-species known as a Yuppie numerous times in this blog.  One thing I don't believe I have mentioned about Yuppies is that although they are hyper-competitive, arrogant and extremely egotistical, they tend not to be violent.  I may have to change my opinion about what a Yuppie is after what happened to me yesterday.
I am accustomed to being raged.  Do you know what it is to be raged?  Being raged is when someone driving another car, usually a twenty-something male, decides that you have personally offended him and that you are worthy of death for your offense.  Rage includes many parts.  The wild shaking of the hands and the arms is a part of it.  The issuance of obscene hand gestures is a big part of it.  The wild screaming and shouting at the top of the lungs is usually involved.  Dramatic acts of driving prowess including pulling up beside you very closely and shouting while the spit flies is common.  Also common is the practice of riding your rear bumper while flashing lights and engaging in various physical convulsions.  Sometimes the truly dangerous act of quickly pulling in in front of you and slamming on the brakes takes place.  I have had to lock up my brakes on several occasions, once while driving in the left lane on I-25 at 70 miles per hour, just to avoid hitting the now stationary rager in front of my car.
In addition to being raged, I am also accustomed to some degree of violence at the hands of my fellow human beings.  I have lived most of my adult life in low-rent condominium complexes.  Low rent generally equates to low moral character and I have seen many exciting things in my days.  I once owned a condo (you could have called me a "slum lord" if you are a socialist) in which my tenant, who turned out to be drug addict, once stabbed a prostitute to death while they shared a crack pipe.  The good news about that turn of events is that he was so paranoid about blood being discovered (it was all over the place) that he cleaned the unit multiple times.  I never had a condo so prepared for rental than I did after he was arrested and hauled off to jail.  Of course I did manage to leave out the tale of how the condo became available when the new tenant moved in.
I used to look out my back window and watch thieves fencing their stolen goods out of the trunks of their cars in the parking lot where my car was parked.  I was offered amazing deals on stereo equipment on many occasions.  I always passed.  Hearing gun shots in the night was not uncommon.  Eventually I decided to move to the other side of town where I thought it might be a bit more sane.  My new condo proved to be interesting.  I remember hearing many loud fights during all hours of the night.  One in particular stands out.  A drunken slob was screaming "It is my birthday and I can do what I want to" for all to hear.  I silently wished him a happy birthday.  Another fine morning a woman across the greenbelt decided that she did not like the sliding door on the unit across from her so she took out a shotgun and blew it out.  Somehow I managed to get blamed for that incident.  It is a long story that I will not relate here. Anyway, I think you get the point.  I am somewhat accustomed to rude behavior.  But I did not expect it when I moved to Yuppie land. That is why I was so shocked when I got raged yesterday.
I was coming home from a morning doughnut run.  I was near my home, on residential streets with a speed limit of 25 miles per hour.  I was doing under the speed limit, I am sure.  Everyone describes my driving behavior as being like an "old man" or an "old woman" or a "farmer" or a "tractor driving farmer".  In other words, I rarely drive fast or aggressively.  And yesterday, although I was very  much looking forward to sinking my teeth into the doughnut, I was  not in any special hurry to get home.  I came upon a male driver in an SUV (do you see anything else in Yuppieland?) who appeared to be looking for a street address.  He was driving even slower than me. As I came upon him he began to drift to the right side of the road.  I interpreted that as his intention to let me pass while he continued to look for the proper home.  I slowly drifted to the left and passed him in the left lane, if you can say there is a left lane in a residential area.  Next thing I knew he was on my tailgate displaying all of the previously mentioned affectations.
I used to make eye contact with those who raged me.  I stopped doing that when I realized that it only made them more angry.  So when this fellow came up on my rear bumper I decided to just start driving in circles and, above all, not look at him.  I turned on my radio and began to whistle the tune I was listening to all the while keeping my face rigidly forward.  He did all of the usual maneuvers.  His "slam on the brakes in front of me" maneuver was particularly skillful.  I had to execute a quick turn to avoid hitting him, even at my slow speed.  He kept yelling at the top of his lungs although I was spared the pleasure of interpreting his obscenities by the sound of my radio.  We went around the block a couple of times.  All the while I was wondering if he might have a handgun and be just waiting for the opportunity to plug me in the brains.  I was glad he either didn't have one or decided against using it.  He finally gave up and went back to looking for the home he had initially been searching for.  I took the long way home so he could not find out where I live.
So I have had to update my Yuppie profit to account for this most recent experience.  I had not expected violence from the Yuppie clan.  It was a bit shocking to see it.  I have become desensitized by living among these generally docile creatures.  But I will not forget my experience and I will certainly stop the practice of passing slow moving cars on the left in Yuppietown.  It is just too dangerous of a maneuver.

Inflation Is Theft

Here is a graph showing the growth of M2 since 1980:

 Graph of M2 Money Stock

Here is a graph showing the annual change in M2 since 1980:

FRED Graph

You will notice something about the two graphs above.  They always go up.  M2, or the amount of money in use in the country, always rises.  The rate of increase in the supply of money is never negative.  There is never a period of time when the money supply contracts, despite what you hear about "tight money" from the financial media.  There is 594% more money in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika today than there was in 1980.  There is 138% more money in the SDA today than there was in 2000.  There is 31% more money in the SDA today than there was a mere four years ago in 2010.  Do you understand what all of this means?  If not, I will inform you.
The greatest misunderstanding about money in this country is that it is real wealth.  It is not.  A dollar has no value except that which is assigned to it by those who use it to trade and exchange real wealth, namely, capital goods and services.  To prove this very simple point consider this illustration.  Imagine that all of the wealth that exists in the world is in your home.  Imagine that all of the people who live in the world live in your home.  Imagine that there are ten total people in the world.  If each of the ten people who live in your home have $100 in their wallets you might mistakenly believe that there is $1000 of total wealth in the world.  But the money is not the wealth.  The wealth is all of the stuff that is in your home.  You use the money to buy and sell the stuff among yourselves but the money itself is only worth what you impute to it.  You have $1000 worth of wealth in your home and it is found exclusively in the goods and services that exist within it.  The money is valued at a total of $1000 because of the goods it represents, not because of any intrinsic value in itself. 
Now imagine that I sneak into your home overnight and place an additional $100 into each wallet.  Now each person has $200 and you might believe that the total wealth in the home has just doubled from $1000 to $2000.  But if you just look around the home you will see that is not true.  The wealth has not changed.  Everything is just like it was the day before.  All that has changed is the amount of money that you use to buy and sell that wealth.  Initially you are very happy to discover that you now have $200 in your wallet.  But the immediate impact of that additional $100 in each wallet is that the price for all of the extant wealth in the house doubles.  What you could buy yesterday for $1 costs $2 today.  Another way of putting it is that the value of your dollar has dropped by a half.  Prices rise and people have more money but there is not a penny of additional wealth in your house.
The simple economic truth that money is not wealth is lost on career politicians and envy filled citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  They persist in their belief that government can create additional wealth by printing more money.  And guess what?  Government is very good at printing more and more money.  The graphs above prove that point.  But all that happens as the money is printed is that the value of the dollar continues to decline and real wealth, goods and services, continue to increase in price.
Here is another illustration that everyone understands.  Imagine that we all have $100 in our wallets and one day a new person moves into our neighborhood who is a professional counterfeiter.  He prints an amount equal to $1 per person per day and spends it into our local economy.   Let's assume there are 100 of us in our local economy.  We all immediately understand that the $100 extra dollars he prints and spends into our economy each day is an act of theft.  He is getting $100 worth of goods and services for nothing.  The money isn't real and we know it.  On the other hand, as we each find an additional dollar in our wallets each day we at first believe that we are better off.  However, eventually we come to realize that that one extra dollar is counterfeit.  It is not real.  By accepting that counterfeit dollar all we have accomplished is to devalue the real dollars we have in our wallet.  Prices for the things we buy quickly rise and the value of that extra dollar soon vanishes.  We come to be aware of the fact that we are each losing one dollar per day and the counterfeiter is stealing one dollar per day from all one hundred of us.
What I have just described is precisely what takes place in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika every day.  Each day the Federal Reserve creates counterfeit money.  It is not real and it does not add to the wealth of anyone.  All that the new money manages to accomplish is to devalue the money that we already hold and enrich the person who gets to spend it first.  And guess who gets to spend it first?  Right, the federal government.  We can clearly see that the federal government, by means of what it calls "monetary policy" is stealing from us every day. How much is being stolen?  Go here to do the calculation for yourself.  Plug in any date and see how badly you have been robbed by your federal handlers.  What cost me $1.00 in 2000 now costs me $1.35.  What cost me $1.00 in 2010 now costs me $1.07.  What cost me $1.00 in 1990 now costs an astounding $1.78. 
How many of the citizens in the SDA realize that what I just wrote is true?  Not very many I suspect.  I believe most people never even think about any of the things I have written above.  We need to trust our rulers.  They know better than we do.  They know how to manage the economy to create jobs and maximize the wealth of all citizens.  Just trust them and let them do their jobs.  All will be well.  Not one in a thousand citizens realizes what is going on and those who do are quickly marginalized by the powers that be.  Nobody is permitted to declare that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
I have used this example before but it is still worth repeating.  Good old, red-blooded patriotic citizens of the SDA believe that we are the greatest country in the history of the universe and we should be thankful to the federal government, in all of its forms, for all of the blessings we have today.  The military, in particular, is singled out as the group perhaps most responsible for our obvious and undeniable prosperity.  God (another name for the beneficent and omniscient State) has clearly been gracious to us.  We recognize his grace by singing "God Bless America" at state functions like football games, baseball games, rodeos and clown conventions.  But we need to be careful when we invoke the blessing of Almighty God upon us.  To ask for the blessing of God while simultaneously violating His law, indeed, flaunting the violations of His law and taking pride in doing so, is very dangerous business.  God says we should not steal.  The government of the SDA steals from every single one of its citizens every single day.  Almost every citizen in the SDA believes this to be a good and moral system.  The truth is that the magnitude of theft committed by the SDA government upon its citizens is the greatest in the history of the universe.  Nobody is exempt.  Even those envy-filled citizens to whom the career politicians promise to redistribute the wealth are not exempt from this legal plunder.  It goes on every day and it will never stop.  At least it will not stop until God brings its to an end.  And then everyone will receive his just deserts. 

Olympic Athletes Are Pampered Prima Donnas

My wife does Facebook.  I do not.  As a result I find myself culturally isolated most of the time.  I very much enjoy being culturally isolated.  It helps keep my blood pressure low and my stress levels down.  Every once in a while, to torment me I believe, my wife will tell me about what she is reading on Facebook.  Today was one of those days.  At breakfast my wife informed me that Facebook is filled with comments about the allegedly horrible living conditions the athletes from the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are being forced to endure while staying in Russia.  Here is some of what she told me.
Amerikans are upset that some of the toilets in their living quarters do not have a panel or wall between them.  That forces two people to see each other while they are sitting on the toilet.  Why the folks staying in that room could not just use the toilet one at a time was not explained.  I suspect the photograph of the two toilets that is going viral is an isolated incident.  I suspect most rooms have some privacy in their toilet facilitates.  But we are talking about our arch enemy.  We are talking about those homosexual hating communists.  Don't let the facts get in the way of a good propaganda piece.  Anything we can do to paint those thieving commies in a bad light is fair game.
One pampered Olympian complained that although his internet was working he was able to see the wire attaching his computer to the internet.  How horrible!  I can't think of anything worse than being able to see a computer wire coming out of a wall.  Others have taken lots of pictures of construction debris that is littered around the area.  Imagine that!  $50 billion worth of construction has taken place in the Olympic Village and there is some construction debris around.  How could the Russians have been so thoughtless?  Another SDA athlete was outraged that a curtain rod in his room came loose from the wall and fell to the ground when he tried to open the curtains.  Wow!  How can these heroic men and women put up with such hardship?  I suspect his life was spared only due to his athletically trained instincts which allowed him to quickly jump away from the falling rod before he suffered the almost certainly lethal impact of it upon his arm.
I read about another horrible scandal in the newspaper.  The article began by telling me that, "U.S. Olympians will have to make do without the team's official yogurt -- denying them a source of protein and potentially disturbing their daily routines as they prepare for the biggest competition of their lives.  About 5,000 cups of Greek yogurt from Team USA sponsor Chobani isn't getting to Sochi because of a customs dispute with Russia."  Oh my!  What are we going to do about this?  These youngsters, heroes all of them, might have to survive a day or two without their favorite yogurt.  I see a Russian conspiracy here.  Those Ruskies know that if they can deny the courageous Amerikans their daily supply of yogurt it is inevitable that the Amerika protein levels will drop.  I expect to see an outbreak of broken bones as the brave Amerikans heroically attempt to perform their feats of athletic prowess with bone densities a mere fraction of what they used to be.  Congressional Medals of Honor for all of them, I say.
I didn't watch the vaunted Opening Ceremonies the other night.  I couldn't stand the horror of it all.  I was afraid there might be a stray dog running around somewhere.  Even worse, some commie sharpshooter might have shot the dog down on international television.  Maybe there was a light bulb in the living quarters of an Amerikan hero that would not light.  I just couldn't bring myself to see my fellow citizens suffer so.  Instead, I watched an old movie called Chariots of Fire.
Maybe you remember Chariots of Fire.  It portrays two sprinters, both from the UK, who are competing in the 1920 Summer Olympics in France.  One of the sprinters is a Jew with a tremendous chip on his shoulder.  The other sprinter is a Christian missionary to China, who believes that God made him fast for a purpose.  As he put it, "I feel His pleasure when I run."  As it turns out, both men end up winning gold medals in different sprint events.  Their different reactions to success make up a big part of the story.  What I found quite interesting about the movie was the nature of the accommodations that were given to the athletes in France.  Athletes from different countries had to train together on the same field.  They shared the same locker room.  They shared the same shower stalls.  The locker room was a row of lockers along the wall with some wooden benches on the floor beneath them.  And guess what, none of the men complained about the terrible conditions they had to train under.  On the contrary, they were all quite happy just to be there.  They felt honored to be able to participate in the Olympics.
Fast forward to today.  Today's Olympic athletes are pampered from the moment they show the ability to slide down a hill quickly or turn a figure eight on an ice rink.  They are immediately surrounded by people who constantly tell them they are great.  They are whisked off to the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs where they can grow both their bodies and their egos with other like-minded souls.  Everything is paid for.  They are pampered.  Their every want is fulfilled, provided they do their jobs and train hard to beat the Russians.  They are surrounded by scores of very rich people who tell them they will be performing for the SDA and that it is their patriotic duty to do their best so the SDA can win the overall "medal count" by the end of the games.  Rather than feeling honored to be there they believe that everyone around them should be honored by their presence.  What a turnaround in a few short decades.
King Obama and the radical homosexual lobby in this sad land have decided that the Olympic Games is the perfect venue to advance the cause of homosexual favoritism and privilege.  Because King Putin has declared homosexuality to be illegal (a biblical position by the way), it has been determined by our King that the SDA delegation should include numerous flaming homosexuals who should go out of their way to make fire.  Rub it in the face of old Putin, they say.  Teach him a thing or two about tolerance, they believe.  Meanwhile, the entire production has somehow come to revolve around career politicians and the militant homosexuals who support them.
I say "No Thanks" to the Olympic games.  I am not interested.  If I want to see some sports I will head to the mountains and watch some cross country skiers work their magic on a fresh coat of powder.  Or maybe I will go to a Rockies spring training game.  But I will certainly not watch the Olympics.  Those folks are just too selfish for me.

A Long Way From MLK's Colorblind Society

I opened my Saturday Denver Post to find a large photograph on page 4 with a caption describing how "members of Aurora Central High School's White Student Alliance follow along in singing the white national anthem during a White History Month celebration on Friday morning....The event, sponsored by the University of Colorado's White Staff and Faculty Affinity Group, featured exhibits, food, music, trivia games and inspirational speakers."  What is wrong with this picture?
You have probably already figured it out.  Replace the word 'white' with the word 'black' in the above paragraph and you will have what was really written.  Yet, why is what I originally wrote considered to be racially offensive and what was actually written not racially offensive?  Why does racism only go one way?  Why is it racist for a group of white people to form an organization to celebrate their culture but not racist for a group of black people to celebrate their culture?  If I remember Martin Luther King's speech correctly, and I probably don't, he said that he had a dream that white and black children could play together and their respective racial constitutions would not matter.  We are a long way from that.
MLK probably had it wrong.  Asking people to not notice race is like asking short people to not notice when a basketball team walks into the room.  We are different.  We notice that we are different.  We are proud of our differences.  But in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika if you are different because you are white, and you notice that you are white, and you are proud that you are white, you are a racist.  I have no problem if a bunch of black kids want to form a club at their school.  I have no problem if they want to call themselves the "black student alliance."  I have no problem if they sing a "black national anthem" that they have written.  Good for them.  The Constitution gives them the right to assemble and exercise free speech.  My problem comes up when white people who do the exact same thing are called racist for doing so.
I am going to let you in on a little cultural secret.  We Welshmen do not call ourselves "white."  We recognize the fact that we have whitish colored skin but we do not define ourselves by the color of our skin.  Welshmen think it is rather silly to define an entire group of people exclusively by skin color.  If we are going to define various people groups by insignificant personal characteristics how about having a group called the "long toe nails people" or the "stubby fingered folks?"  No, we prefer to define ourselves by our cultural legacy.  We are not white men, we are Welshmen.  We are not long toe nailed people, we are Welshman.  We are not stubby fingered folks, we are Welshmen.
All of this talk about cultural pride has stirred my Welsh soul.  I find myself motivated to write a Welsh national anthem.  Here it is.  It should be sung to the tune of God Bless Amerika:

We are the Welshmen, we're pretty dumb,
We don't know much, or say much, but we like to walk around our land.
We play some golf, we drink some ale, we tell some jokes that aren't very funny
We are the Welshmen, and no one cares.
We are the Welshmen, all covered with hair.

If you don't like my Welsh national anthem that is OK.  We are not offended when people don't like us.  We are far too busy walking about, playing golf, drinking ale and telling bad jokes to be concerned about how someone else might think of us.  Even more, we don't notice what skin color each of us happens to be.  It is usually very hard to tell what color of skin resides under the thick mat of body hair most Welshmen sport.  I guess that is why we never considered it to be all that important.  On the other hand, the color of your body hair is very important.  If you body hair isn't red, you would be better off dead.  I belong to an exclusive club of Welshmen who play golf, drink ale and tell bad jokes each week.  We call ourselves the red body haired Welshmen and we will have nothing to do with those black or white haired Welshmen.  That only makes sense, don't you agree?

Colorado Legislators Are Not SMART

The front page of yesterday's Denver Post had this headline, "Law to cut fat falls to neglect."  Here, in part, is the story that followed:
"Despite the 2010 SMART Government Act, which ties budgets to performance, agencies still fail at a significant rate to follow the solutions they agreed to.  The law was intended to urge agencies to follow the recommendations to fix problems cited in audits, but the number of unresolved issues has risen from 234 in 2010 to 260 last year.  The compliance rate is 85 percent, but from 2007 to 2009 -- before the new law went in effect -- annual compliance ranged from 87 percent to 90 percent.  Legislative leaders can't point to a single example of any agency's budget being trimmed as a result of the damning audit.  Millions of dollars could be at stake."
I was not aware that the Colorado legislature had passed a law back in 2010 forcing the various branches of the state bureaucracy to comply with internal audits or risk losing their funding.  It is a great idea and I am in favor of it.  The problem with the program is not in the law itself but in its lax enforcement.  It is particularly ironic that compliance with budgetary restraints by the various bureaus actually decreased after the law was passed.  Worse still, Colorado congressmen, as the report states, have never actually enforced the SMART law on any branch of state government.  If a law is never going to be enforced, even when conditions are worse than prior to the law being passed, what good is that law?
The article went on to describe the thoughts of the law's creator.  It said, "House Speaker Mark Ferrandino, D-Denver, sponsored the SMART act four years ago. He bristled at the suggestion that legislators and agencies are violating his law by withholding budget cuts from stubbornly poor performers.  'Its a law that's kind of hard to violate,' he said.  The act doesn't specify penalties or deadlines for solutions, only that legislators tie budgeting to performance.  'A lot of it is very nuanced,' Ferrandino said."  Nuanced indeed!
I know people who are required by the government to obtain an annual audit of their financial records.  Failure to obtain that annual audit carries stiff penalties and can result in the total shutdown of their businesses.  For those who file audits showing that they are not in compliance with the thousands of regulations each particular business activity is expected to follow, they are forced to change their business procedures or be fined or shutdown.  There are no exceptions to the government audit rules.  Everyone must comply of there will be serious consequences.
Every year each one of us, as citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, are required to file an annual audit with the federal government in which we reveal the sum total of all our financial transactions for the prior year.  The audit is called a tax return and it must be submitted to the IRS by April 15th of each year or we will suffer serious penalties.  In addition, failure to report financial information accurately, even if it is an honest mistake, will result in serious financial penalties and, possibly, incarceration.  There are no exceptions to the rule that everyone must file a return.  There are no exceptions in regards to the enforcement penalties.  If you do not comply you will be punished, severely.
I only have one question today.  Why are we required, under penalty of law, to comply with the government's regulations but those who rule us are not required to comply with their own law?  The answer to that question was provided by the man who drafted the bill.  According to him, the Colorado legislature is not required to comply with the law because there are no penalties for failure to do so and the law itself is "nuanced", whatever that means.  Once again we have a perfect example of how those who rule us consider themselves to be our moral superiors.  They do not have to follow the law that we are expected to follow for the simple reason that they are better than us.  They make the laws, we follow them.  All laws that they make to guide their own activities are just for show and to procure votes to ensure that they all can remain career politicians.  I have to keep reminding myself....they are better than me.....they are better than me.....praised be their names.

Friday, February 7, 2014

Abortion Is Murder

Yesterday I wrote a piece about how fornication is a sin.  Nobody cares, of course.  The desires of the flesh are so much stronger than the strange and archaic writings of an outdated and out of touch Mad Welshman.  So everyone will continue to go out and fornicate to their heart's desire.  Everyone will pretend that fornication is a good thing to do because it feels good and empowers women.  But eventually the real world will come into play.  Eventually the price will have to be paid for the sin of fornication.  Eventually the ladies among us will become pregnant.  When that happens they quickly turn to their savior, the omnipresent and beneficent State, which graciously provides taxpayer financed abortions for them. Perish the thought that a woman should actually have to suffer the temporal consequences for her sin.  The state will step and and take care of everything. 
I was reading an article in the Denver Post earlier this week about the number of abortions performed in 2011, the last year for which data has been tabulated.  The article was entitled, "U.S. abortion rate at lowest since 1973" and went on to happily describe how the total number of abortions performed in 2011 has declined to levels near what they were when killing pre-born babies was first declared to be a moral activity.  I wondered why there should be any emotional reaction to a statistic about the number of surgeries that have been performed to remove extraneous tissue from the bodies of women who enjoy fornication as a hobby.  It seems to me that if an abortion is nothing more than removing tissue, as all pro-abortion advocates claim, then we should have no emotional reaction to it whatsoever.  No matter, I have long ago discovered that emotional and rational consistency are nonexistent characteristics in the sinful human creature.
So here is the great news...there were 1.06 million abortions in 2011.  1.06 million pre-born babies were executed in 2011.  1.06 million citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika were stripped of their right to life and brutally murdered in 2011.  In 2011 there were 1.06 state sanctioned executions of people who were convicted of no crime.  In 2011 government registered medical practitioners killed 1.06 million people who were not sick.  Those are the facts. And we are supposed to be happy about this state of affairs?
Over 40 million SDA citizens have been aborted since 1973.  Over 40 million babies have been killed simply because they were inconvenient and hindered the fornication filled lifestyles of the mothers who killed them.  I know, nobody cares.  In 2011 1.7% of all women of child bearing age killed their babies.  1.7%!  In one year!  Almost two out of every one hundred women you see between the ages of 15 and 44 kill their babies every single year.  Yesterday I mentioned that there is a whole lot of fornicating going on.  Today I want to point out that there is a whole lot of killing going on as well.
My statements add nothing to the argument, I know that.  The judicial branch of the federal government of the SDA has declared that the Constitution of the United States specifically declares that all women have a legal right to kill their babies if they want to.  I have read the Constitution hundreds of times and still can't find the statement that grants that right to them.  But the Supreme Court has said that it is there and they must know better than I do.  What a strange document the US Constitution must be to go out of its way to specifically state that all people have a right to life except for pre-born babies of fornicators.  How could the founding fathers have been so prescient and known that millions of angst filled, drunken females would one day want the right to kill the by-product of their fornificational ways?  Those guys must have been pretty smart.
On the same day the paper ran the article about the most recent abortion statistics there was an article in another section describing how the Russian government is killing free roaming dogs in Sochi.  If you have never been to Russia, or Ukraine, you probably would not know this but there are lots of feral animals roaming around there.  Most Russians and Ukrainians simply shoot them when they become a bother.  While rehearsing the "opening ceremonies" for the upcoming Olympic Games a feral dog wandered into the stadium.  That was too much for Putin.  He ordered the extermination of all feral dogs in Sochi.  It will be quick work I am sure.
The next day I quickly turned to the "letters to the editor" section of the newspaper to look for what I expected to be the torrent of letters complaining about the "inhumane treatment" being perpetrated upon the Russian dogs.  I was not disappointed.  As I read one writer after another (all women by the way) write about how they weep for the lives of those poor dogs I wondered to many of these women have had abortions?  Have they ever shed a tear for the person they killed?  How can a dirty dog elicit more human compassion than a helpless human baby?
I am looking forward to baseball season.  The players will be reporting to spring training at the end of next week.  I am looking forward to attending some Rockies games this year as well.  One thing, however, I am not looking forward to is the time during the 7th inning stretch when the field announcer orders me to stand, remove my hat and sing "God Bless America" with the crowd.  I won't do it of course.  My conscience will not allow me to invoke the blessing of Almighty God upon a people of such heinous sinfulness.  How could I ever ask God to bless a country of unrepentant murderers?  I may get beer poured on my head for my rebellion against the state.  I may hear some nasty words cast my way.  But at least I won't incur the wrath of God.  I would rather drive home with a beer soaked shirt than mock the God of the universe.  Sadly, nobody else seems to think that way.  Judgment is coming.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Fornication Is A Sin

Fornication is a sin.  Now, allow me to translate that last sentence.  I know most citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have no idea what that sentence means.  Most folks just don't understand the words in the sentence, if they recognize the words at all.  "Fornication" is having sex with someone to whom you are not married.  "Sin" is an action that God says is morally wrong.  Hence, having sex with people you are not married to is morally wrong.  I am astounded and amazed at how the practice of fornication has come to be accepted as normal and moral in this pitiful land.
I read "Ask Amy."  For those of you who do not know, she is a modern version of Dear Abby or Ann Landers.  I am constantly amazed at how people manage to totally mess up their lives.  Even more amazing is the fact that two particular behaviors always seem to be associated with people best described as pathetic losers.  Pathetic losers love to get drunk and they love to have sex with anything that moves.  It seems as if every single loser who writes to Amy begins her sordid tale of woe with a statement like this, "I got really drunk and I had sex with a guy I didn't know but who was really cute."  Now her life is in shambles and she can't figure out why.  Amy, for her part, never informs those who write to her that both getting drunk and fornication are sins.  Allow me to translate that last sentence.  Getting drunk and having sex with anything that moves are both morally wrong behaviors.
I remember watching the Seinfeld show many moons ago and being struck with how the nature of the television sitcom had changed.  Don't get me wrong, I think Seinfeld is very funny.  He is clever and witty.  He has a take on life that is absurd and, at times, very humorous.  What disturbed me about the Seinfeld show was how the practice of fornication was portrayed as a morally neutral activity.  The dramatic tension created by wondering whether Jerry and Elaine would fornicate permeated many of the shows.  Then, when they did fornicate, it had no impact upon their relationship whatsoever.  I remember thinking to myself, do people really believe that fornication has no consequences? 
I was talking to my wife about fornication the other day and she pointed out that the world has a complete doctrine of fornication.  I had missed it.  I didn't realize it but the more I thought about it the more I realized that she was right.  There are rules about how fornication is to be practiced.  Those who follow the rules are deemed to be morally superior and those who do not follow the rules are considered to be social misfits and, on occasion, arrested and incarcerated for their behavior.  Here are the rules as she explained them to me:
  1. Fornication between consenting adults is always good.  There are no negative consequences to fornication between consenting adults.  Relationships are not destroyed, unwanted children are not born and abortions are not performed.  If it feels good, do it.
  2. Fornication is a good thing to do if you are interested in marrying someone.  The only way to know if you are compatible for marriage is to first practice fornication.  It is a far worse thing to practice celibacy, get married and then find out that you are not compatible than it is to practice fornication today.  Celibacy brings endless misery into the lives of people who want to experience nothing but pleasure.
  3. Marriage is only required in a relationship in which the couple is considering having children.  A couple is free to fornicate freely unless they want to bear children.  Then the couple must get married.  My wife pointed out many examples of people who had been fornicating for years who then got "married" prior to having kids.  I hadn't noticed this doctrine until she pointed it out.
  4. Fornication is bad when it takes place between a person who is 18 years and one day old and a person who is 17 years and 364 days old.  In cases such as this fornication goes by another term....statutory rape.  If the 17 year old waits one additional day it is no longer statutory rape.  By waiting one day the act of statutory rape turns into a glorious expression of erotic love.
  5. Fornication is bad when it involves a government school teacher and someone he has previously taught, regardless of their ages.  This is a perversion of the old rule that government school teachers had to be old maids. 
  6. The act of fornication "empowers" women, whatever that means. 
I remember reading somewhere that the average number of fornication partners for adults in the SDA is seven.  That is a lot of fornication.  I suspect it also involves a lot of drunkenness.   Those of you who have stayed with me so far will probably want to leave now.  I am going to talk about theology and give you God's opinion on this matter.  If you believe in the modern doctrine of fornication you will most certainly not be interested in the biblical doctrine of fornication.
God says that marriage consists of two actions:  sexual union and the swearing of a marriage vow.  The proper order that these two actions should follow is the swearing of the vow followed by the sexual union.  Corrupt marriages are formed when the order is mixed or both parts do not take place.  When a marriage vow is sworn and a sexual union does not take place, we have an example of a corrupt marriage.  The marriage must be consummated.  If it is not the partner who is refusing to engage in the sexual union should be subject to the discipline of the church and the victim should be permitted to sue for divorce.
In cases where the sexual union takes place first and the swearing of the marriage vow does not immediately follow, we have an example of a bastard marriage.  Any children produced by this union are properly termed bastards.  But note, this is still a marriage, even if it is a corrupt one.  The duty of all people who have had a sexual union is to immediately swear a marriage vow to the person with whom they fornicated.  In the old days everyone understood this principle.  Sometimes the male partner in the sexual union would be reticent to swear the vow so the female partner's father would use a shotgun to motivate him.  Hence the term "shotgun marriage" came into use.  Nobody questioned the moral propriety of shotgun weddings.
The modern doctrine of fornication denies that a marriage takes place when a couple fornicates.  The modern doctrine is wrong.  Since fornication creates a marital union, it therefore necessarily follows that any and all sexual unions with different people after the initial act of fornication has taken place are adulterous in nature.  In the case of the average SDA citizen who has had seven sex partners, the first partner would be considered to be his wife and the following six would all be adulterous relationships worthy of the death penalty.  Yes, you got that right.  The punishment, if you want to use that term, for fornication is the necessity to swear the vow (marry) the person with whom you fornicated.  The punishment for adultery however, is death.  Anyone who has had more than one sex partner in  his or her life should be dead. 
God's opinion about fornication has not changed.  The fact that He is not bringing immediate judgement upon the SDA for the rampant practice of fornication should not be confused with the wrong-headed idea that He will never judge the SDA.  Our time will come.  Meanwhile, I have a warning to those citizens of the SDA who get all weepy-eyed whenever "God Bless America" is sung in public.  God will not be mocked.  To ask His blessing upon your life, if you are a fornicator and an adulterer, is an extreme act of mockery. To mock God is not wise.  There is no hope for the SDA but there is hope for your individual soul.  Repent before it is too late.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Constitution Free Zones

A reader of this blog sent me a link to an article that I had missed.  Although it has apparently been the law of the land for some time now, I just became aware of the fact that the federal government believes that all areas within 100 miles of any border with Canada or Mexico are 4th Amendment free zones.  In other words, if you happen to be traveling anywhere within 100 miles of Canada or Mexico you can be stopped, detained and searched by any law enforcement official without a warrant or assertion of probable cause that you have done something immoral.  Here is part of what the article said:
"The federal government has long conducted searches on travelers entering and leaving the US, but Congress expanded that policy by creating the Department of Homeland Security and setting up at least 33 checkpoints inside the country where people are stopped and asked to prove their citizenship. The trouble is, the ACLU noted, that almost two-thirds of the population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US border. New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami, and dozens of other major metropolitan areas fall under the so-called “exemption” zone."
The ACLU had sued the federal government not because of problems with the 100 mile 4th Amendment free zone itself, but because they did not believe that the searches that are conducted within this area should be expanded to include laptop computers.  In their view laptop computers contain too much personal information to be exempt from the search provisions of the 4th Amendment.  The article described the situation as follows:
"District Judge Edward Korman made his ruling in New York on Tuesday, more than three years after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit. The ACLU claimed that - since Americans put so much of their lives on their computers, cell phones, and other devices – border officials should have reasonable suspicion before sifting through someone's personal files....Not so, according to Judge Korman. In his decision Tuesday he argued that the area 100 miles inland falls under a 'border exemption.' "
So there you have it.  The Patriot Act apparently decreed that officers of the law in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are free to disregard the 4th Amendment if they happen to be within 100 miles of a national border.  Like Nancy Pelosi, I have not read the entire Patriot Act.  I am continually surprised to discover what is in it.  And I had no idea this provision was in it.  As the article wrote, "A US federal judge has reaffirmed an Obama administration policy granting officials the authority to search Americans' laptops, citing a controversial premise that makes citizens within 100 miles of the border eligible for a police check."
For the moment let's forget the issue of laptop computers.  If a federal agent has the right to search you, he has the right to search you, laptop computers are not exempt.  The more significant issue is the search itself.  Where does the federal government get the right to search its citizens?  The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  The Constitution does not recognize any exceptions to the 4th Amendment.  The 4th Amendment is amazingly simple to understand.  Before any government agent may search you, your home or your property he must first appear before a judge and prove that there is a probable cause that you have committed a crime.  If that probable cause can be established the judge will issue a search warrant that specifies exactly what may be searched.  If something is not on the list it is not searchable.  End of discussion.
All agents of the various enforcement branches of the federal government swear an oath to uphold the 4th Amendment.  Then, immediately after swearing that oath, they go to work and begin violating their oath on a regular basis.  This state of affairs apparently bothers none of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika except me.  Everyone else chants the familiar refrain of "I have nothing to hide so I have nothing to fear."  Those folks are going to be in for a rude awakening when they realize that they really have much to hide and much to fear.  As the article quoted above indicates, almost 200 million citizens of the SDA live within 100 miles of a national border.  That means that under the terms of the Constitution-violating Patriot Act two thirds of the citizens of this pitiful country can be searched at any time, for any reason and totally without their consent.
This all began when we willingly gave up our 4th Amendment rights at border crossings.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says that Border Patrol agents have the right to detain and search SDA citizens whenever they happen to cross a national border.  There are no exceptions to the 4th Amendment.  Still, we have acquiesced and do not even  question the propriety of illegal searches of our persons and property every time we return from Canada or Mexico.  All that I should be required to prove to reenter the SDA from Canada or Mexico is that I am a citizen of the SDA. A simple presentation of my passport is all that should be required to cross an international border.  I do not consent to an unlawful search simply because I am crossing a geo-political border.  Neither should you.
I know, I know.  "We" all "agreed" to give up our 4th Amendment rights when we cross international borders to do "our part" in the "war on drugs."  Well, I didn't.  I am not a part of that "we."  I no more support the war on drugs than I support the war on terror.  The SDA should not be running around waging war on nouns.  The so called war on drugs is a national disaster.  It has criminalized activity that at the very worst is amoral.  It has created an entire caste of felons and criminals that are filling our overstuffed prisons for absolutely no moral reason whatsoever.  It has had the perverse unintended consequence of spreading gang-land criminal activity throughout Mexico and Latin America.  The only thing that is criminal about drugs is the activity of the federal government in criminalizing them.
Remember the old story about how "they came for this group and I said nothing, they came for this group and I said nothing, they came for me and nobody was left?"  That is happening today in regards to the 4th Amendment.  First we empower federal agents to conduct illegal searches at the border.  Now we empower federal agents to conduct illegal searches of two thirds of all the citizens of the SDA simply because they live within 100 miles of an international border.  Where will it stop?
Expect this law to be used for purposes other than for what it was originally intended in the near future.  The original intent was to catch terrorists.  I am sure it has already been expanded to catch drug dealers.  When will it be expanded to catch drunk drivers, un-seat belted drivers, drivers who are texting or drivers with improper child safety seats?  When will it be expanded to allow the cops to enter your home at any time and search for drugs that they disapprove of?  When will unscrupulous cops (is there any other type?) use the Patriot Act to force their way into people's homes just for the sheer joy of being able to do so?  Once inside they can shoot your dog, eat your food and sexually assault your wife.  Never forget, in the eyes of the cops you are the enemy.  You deserve everything you receive from their righteous hands.  If you complain, you will be tasered.  If you resist you will be shot.  These are not scenarios I am making up.  They happen everyday in the SDA.  And still nobody seems to care.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Venezuela: A Wonderful Example Of Income Equality

Deceased former President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela was a communist.  He had Castro and Putin on his speed dialer.  He never met an income redistribution program he didn't like.  He never met a capitalist he didn't hate.  He was a man of the people.  He told the citizens of Venezuela that rich citizens were evil and needed to be robbed by the state in the name of income equality.  He did his level best to equalize all income in his country.  He also told the pitiable, envy filled citizens of Venezuela that foreign investment was exploitative and needed to be nationalized.  He blamed filthy foreigners and home born capitalists for all of his country's woes.  He told the sad citizens of Venezuela a lot of things.  None of them were right. No matter, he was immensely popular with those who had no property and made little money.
Because the economic state of affairs in Venezuela was similar to that in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, in that 51% of the people made less money than the remaining 49% of the people, Chavez had little trouble inciting class hatred and economic warfare against the upper 49% of the income population.  By promising to steal the wealth, legally of course, from the 49% and giving it to the 51% he guaranteed that he would be perpetually popular and perpetually reelected.  As the inevitable economic consequences of his socialist programs would eventually come home to roost; things like high unemployment, inflation, reduced income and grotesque levels of government spending accompanied with devaluation of the currency, he could always count on the lower 51% believing him when he blamed capitalists for their woes.  No matter what happened he would win.  Well....almost.  God decided that the Venezuelan people had had enough and killed Hugo with cancer at the age of 58.
After the timely demise of Hugo, his hand picked successor, President Nicolas Maduro (sounds like a good cigar), stepped up to the socialist plate and promised to continue his predecessor's economically destructive policies.  He has been true to his word and the Venezuelan people are suffering mightily.  An article in the Washington Post over the weekend (written by Nick Miroff) describes the present situation in Venezuela.  Warning:  What follows is not pretty and might be found offensive by some, proceed at your own risk.  Here is some of what the article reported:
"On aisle seven, among the diapers and fabric softener, the socialist dreams of the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez looked as ragged as the toilet paper display.  Employees at the Excelsior Gama supermarket had set out a load of extra-soft six-roll packs so large that it nearly blocked the aisle.  To stock the shelves with it would have been pointless.  Soon, word spread that the rolls had arrived.  Despite a government-imposed limit of one package per person, the checkout lines stretched to the decimated dairy case in the back of the store....A country with the world's larges petroleum reserves -- and with oil prices at nearly $95 a barrel -- is unable to supply basic goods because of its crumbling local currency and a shortage of US dollars....The arrival of staples such as cooking oil, chicken, flour or milk brings Venezuelans running to supermarkets and touches off mob scenes, even as the government imposes price caps and rationing to prevent hoarding...Venezuela's real problem is that a shortage of US dollars is squeezing the ability of the government and the private sector to import.  Even in upscale Caracas shopping malls, international chain stores like Zara and Gucci are gutted, their employees standing around with nothing to sell and mannequins left naked."
Ah yes, the socialist paradise has arrived.  Look to Venezuela my friends, my comrades, for in Venezuela you see the economically necessary outcome of government programs designed to eliminate income inequality and usher in a new age of prosperity for all.  Do not be mistaken, Venezuela, more than any other country than perhaps North Korea, has realized the goal of income equality.  What King Obama has described as the greatest threat to prosperity in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika has been neutralized in Venezuela.  There is no income inequality in that sad land.  There is also no economic production.  There is also nothing to buy.  Who would have thunk it?
A sad truth about the present situation is that not one in a thousand of the citizens of Venezuela has the economic understanding to realize what has happened.  Not one in a thousand has a clue what to do to fix the present predicament.  Most folks in Venezuela believe that the government imposed price caps are a good idea because they keep prices low and prevent evil profit seeking corporations from exploiting the situation, raising prices and profiting when goods are scarce.  They thus completely misunderstand that price caps guarantee that additional production will not take place and goods shortages will continue forever.  Conversely, 999 out of every 1000 people continue to believe what the new President is telling them.  They continue to believe that free markets, capitalism, greedy entrepreneurs and immoral foreign investors are to blame for their ongoing economic woes.  Still, I do not feel any pity for most of the population of Venezuela, at least not for the members of the 51% who voted Chavez into power and supported his income and wealth redistribution programs.  They are suffering the necessary consequences of their sinful envy.  That is a good thing.  May they continue to suffer until they wise up and repent of their envious ways.
Let's consider Nick's description of what is happening in Venezuela for a moment.  The initial tale of long lines waiting for a single roll of toilet paper is reminiscent of communist Russia not that long ago.  What is the problem?  Are there not enough bolivars (the official currency) to go around?  No, that is not the problem.  Hugo made sure that everyone had plenty of income.  He taxed the rich and gave it to the poor.  He dramatically expanded government spending and awarded government contracts to the poor.  He spread around the profits, at least while he had them, from his nationalized oil companies.  He redistributed the wealth and the income so everyone could have his fair share of the pie.
When he discovered that he didn't have the money to do what he wanted to do he created new money, just like the Federal Reserve does in the SDA.  In fact, he created a lot of money.  The inflation rate of the bolivar stands at over 21% per year as I write this.  So, what do you think, do people use the bolivar?  Of course not.  They are smart enough to realize that the bolivar is rapidly becoming worthless.  They want something relatively stable, like the US dollar.  But they can't get any US dollars because the only way they become available to the citizens of Venezuela is when they produce things US citizens want to buy and, right now, Venezuela isn't producing anything.  Chavez and his successor have effectively killed the golden goose.  Now they have to pay the piper.  (Can you think of any more slogans I can use here?)
Venezuela is not a cursed country. It has huge reserves of petroleum.  Those reserves were being developed by US oil companies until Hugo nationalized them and threw the dirty Yankees out of the country.  Since then they have been run into the ground.  Despite his best efforts, Hugo couldn't figure out how to run a previously profitable oil company at a profit.  Imagine that.  Socialists do not usually make good entrepreneurs since they are more interested in giving away profits than making them.  By the time they realize that profits must first be made before they can be redistributed it is far too late to do anything but duck and cover.
Communists, socialists, Keynesians and the majority of the citizens of the SDA believe that consumer goods just magically appear.  They have no clue about the structure of production or how goods actually come to into existence.  They also believe that economic growth is a direct result of consumer spending.  That is a very dumb belief.  The citizens of Venezuela have thousands of bolivars to spend.  They want to spend their bolivars before they depreciate further.  They will line up and stand for hours just for the fleeting opportunity to spend some of their bolivars.  There is tremendous consumer demand in Venezuela.  Why is that huge pent up demand not creating jobs and generating economic growth?  If consumer spending creates jobs, wealth and economic growth Venezuela should be one of the richest countries in the world today.  The problem in Venezuela is not insufficient income.  The problem in Venezuela is insufficient savings, investment and production.  No person in his right mind would invest in Venezuela because the moment the enterprise becomes profitable the government nationalizes it and throws the original entrepreneur out of the country.  Local citizens have no incentive to create businesses because if they are successful they will taxed into oblivion.  In addition, obtaining business loans is nearly impossible as the value of the bolivar is constantly depreciating and unable to support a commercial loan for any reasonable period of time.  The situation is hopeless unless the people and politicians of Venezuela abandon their goal of income equality and adopt free market economics instead.  Until then things will get worse.
Venezuela is the perfect modern example of what happens when the government enforces income equality.  If King Obama and his ilk get their way the Socialist Democracy of Amerika will be on the fast-track to Venezuelan prosperity.  I say, bring it on.  We deserve what we get.  There is one thing I reserve, however, and that is the right to say "I told you so" when we end up just like Venezuela.

Monday, February 3, 2014

Unionize College Football Players Now!

Last week a group of football players for Northwestern University filed papers with the National Labor Relations Board to form a union.  Good for them.  Although they should be free to form a union without the permission of the federal government, it is still an activity that the free market allows. Whenever individuals wish to engage in collective bargaining they should be free to do so.  Many socialists are initially surprised to discover that free market advocates do not automatically oppose unions.  That is because socialists don't understand free markets, they understand political power and little else. Let's think about the topic of unionization for a while.
In a free market any person is free to do anything he wants insofar as it does not do harm to another person's life, freedom or property.  For unionization to become an immoral activity it must involve the use of coercive force in some fashion.  Although it is generally the case that the laws of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika allow for the use of coercion when unions are formed, it is not necessarily the case that coercion must be used.  When a person is forced to join a union against his will, as is the case with the government's rules about unionization, the law is immoral.  When non-union workers are physically restricted and threatened with violence when they attempt to take work in positions that have opened up as a result of a strike by union workers (the proverbial "crossing the picket line"), an example of immoral activity is taking place.  When the law requires a profit seeking corporation to deal with a union even when it would prefer to fire all union workers and hire others we have an example of immorality.  In a free market employers are free to hire and fire as they see fit.  In a free market workers are free to set the terms of their employment contracts as they see fit.  If they want to bargain collectively, so be it.  If they want to bargain individually, so be it.  No matter how the employment contract is derived, once it is derived the terms of the contract should be enforced by the government.  That is government's only legitimate role in the employment process.
The proposed union of college football players at Northwestern University is an excellent case study.  The only reason for individuals to unionize is to get a higher level of compensation for their services.  It does not matter in which form the compensation comes.  It could be cash, securities, fringe benefits or college scholarships.  All that matters is that someone is being compensated for the service he provides to someone else.  In cases where the services being provided are highly specialized it is sometimes the case that those who are providing the services can obtain a higher level of compensation if they bargain collectively.  The reason is obvious.  If only a limited number of people are able to provide a particular service, they can use the threat of not providing those services (a "strike" in union parlance) to force the employer to pay more.  As long as coercion is not involved they should be free to strike, or threaten to strike, in order to get more money.
College football players make up a select group.  The services they provide are used by their employers (NCAA schools) to generate massive amounts of revenue and profits for their employers.  The five biggest football conferences generated over $5 billion in revenues last year. I am the first to praise massive revenues and profits.  That means that the consuming public is being served.  Good for the NCAA!   It provides a product that many people want to purchase.  In exchange for their skilled labor the college student employees receive a college scholarship.  At Northwestern that comes to annual compensation of about $60,000.  Not a bad sum for playing a game.  Still, should the student/athletes be content with that amount?  Can they get more?  The only way to find out is to organize into a union and go on strike.  If the market value of their services is higher than what they are being paid, the university will suffer losses (or lower profits) when the players go on strike.  That should drive the employer back to the bargaining table where a higher compensation for the players can be negotiated.  If, on the other hand, the striking college football players are replaced with other players and the university continues to make the same amount of money or more, the unionized players have just learned a valuable lesson. The amount they were being paid was the market rate and they should quickly disband the union and try to find employment on their own.
You would think that socialists would be praising the proposed unionization of the Northwestern football players.  That is until you realize that union activists are not really concerned about obtaining the highest wages in a free market negotiation process.  Union activists oppose the free market itself and use immoral unions as a means of coercively redistributing wealth to their members.  I was not the least bit surprised to discover that, despite their many assertions in favor of unionization, the socialists generally oppose the efforts of the Northwestern football players to unionize.  Al Lewis, the socialist columnist at the Wall Street Journal (why is he still there, does the WSJ need a token socialist?), wrote a piece for his Al's Emporium last weekend in which he takes a position against the unionization of college football players.  Or, at least, he opposes the unionization of college football players at Northwestern.  Here is his argument:
"A bunch of over privileged jocks, going to one of the finest private schools on the planet, filed papers with the National Labor Relations Board last week to form a union....They are nothing like the protesting workers at Wal-Mart and McDonald's who are often living on food stamps or getting their groceries from charitable pantries.  Median US household income is about $53,000 a year.  But kids who play football at a school where tuition, fees, and room and board cost nearly $60,000 a year need union representation?  What's next?  Teamsters organizing the debate team and the glee club?
Unions aren't the answer to every problem and aren't without their own scandals.  But as they declined over the past several decades, so did wages, benefits and rights of workers. The gap between the rich and the middle class is now so alarming that the wealthiest people in the world recently gathered in Davos, Switzerland, to discuss rising inequality.  They, of course, talked more about the kind of deals that only make the world more unequal.  The topic of unions -- or less equal people organizing to make theselves more equal -- never really came up."
So there you have it.  Good old Al thinks unions are a good idea when they can use coercive government power to forcibly redistribute wealth and a bad idea when evil rich kids use them to get a free market wage that might be higher than the average wage in this envy filled country.  So much for logical consistency on the doctrine of unions.  Al hates the idea of a union in which anyone who is a member might make more money than he does.  The principle of earning what the free market would pay is jettisoned in favor of  the immoral and unattainable principle of equalization of incomes.  Al also spouts some things that are just not true.  Real wages are not declining.  See here.  Although income inequality has increased in recent years, there is nothing that could or should be done about it.  See here, here, here and here for proof of that assertion.  As is always the case with poor, old Al, his philosophical socialism and personal envy blind him to the truth.
I happen to agree that college football players are being paid far less than they are worth.  I would love to see them unionize at every NCAA football school and force the NCAA to cough up some of its profits.  I believe the NCAA system is grossly unfair and the student/athletes who participate in it are being unfairly treated.  Then again, I could be wrong.  The only way to find out is for the football players to unionize and call for a strike.  If replacement players can do the job as well as the players presently playing on scholarship, I will be proven wrong.  But, if the replacement players bring about a reduction in revenue for the NCAA, it will be shown that the coercive rules of the NCAA have been immorally taking money from the football players who work for it.  Either way we all win because the free market will have spoken and everyone will be getting what he truly deserves.  Viva la union!