San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, May 2, 2014

I Am Not "Homophobic"

I was watching John Stossel last night.  He had another very good show on the 1st Amendment.  It was timely since he addressed the instances in which the right of Donald Sterling and the Mozilla CEO to free speech was brutally taken from them.  He also pointed out how merely stating that homosexual sexual behavior is immoral is a criminal activity in Canada.  He had a short video clip of two ministers reading from the Bible on some college campus in Canada who were arrested.  As they were arrested the students surrounding them were cheering the activities of the police who hauled them away.  In a couple of interviews with the students after the event they professed universal agreement that expressing the belief that homosexual sexual behavior is immoral is hate speech and those who do it should be incarcerated.
After the Canadian clip John turned to two men sitting in the studio with him to discuss what we had just witnessed.  Both men were Libertarians and both were pro-homosexual.  Neither of the two men, however, was anti-heterosexual and they both proclaimed their belief in free speech.  It was at this point that I noticed a subtle shift in the conversation that I found profoundly disturbing.  The term that both men used to describe those who oppose homosexual behavior was homophobic.  According to them, anyone who states his position in opposition to the practice of homosexual behavior is suffering from a condition known as homophobia.  John did not challenge the use of the term so I have taken it upon myself to do so today.
According to Medical News Today, a phobia is "an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder in which the sufferer has a relentless dread of a situation, living creature, place or thing."  Therefore if I suffer from homophobia it is necessarily the case that I have an irrational fear, a kind of anxiety disorder, in which I have a relentless dread of living creatures known as homosexuals.  According to every single homosexual I have ever seen interviewed, as well as according to every heterosexual who believes in the moral propriety of homosexual sexual behavior, anyone who takes an intellectual and moral position against the sexual practices of homosexuals is suffering from a mental illness called homophobia.  Does anyone besides me see the irony in this situation?
As a part of Stossel's show last night he ran an old video clip of an anti-homosexual public service announcement.  It was produced sometime in the 1950s and briefly warned the teenage males of the country to "beware the homosexual" because he has a "mental disease" that could cause him to behave strangely at any time.  Indeed, the government's official bureau dedicated to all things medical had declared that homosexual behavior was indicative of a mental illness.  My how things have changed.  Homosexuals used to be mentally ill.  Today heterosexuals are mentally ill, provided they do not affirm the sexual lifestyle of the homosexuals.  Although the homosexuals love to point out how they were subjected to government persecution in the past, they are more than happy to celebrate the government's persecution of heterosexuals who do not approve of their lifestyle today.  There is a word for that.  It is called hypocrisy.  There is also a word for them.  It is called hypocrite.
If the homosexual movement is successful in establishing the terms homophobic and homophobe into our language they will have set the stage for the future incarceration of all who disagree with them.  I can hear the legal arguments already.  Your Honor, we caught this preacher quoting verses from the Bible that declare homosexual behavior to be immoral.  Since we all know that homosexual sexual practices are highly moral and glorifying to God there is no conclusion that we can draw other than the one which states this preacher is suffering from a mental illness known as homophobia.  That is correct, he has an irrational fear of people who are characterized by the most morally pure sexual standards in the history of humankind.  He gets agitated when he speaks about homosexuals.  He seems to be living in a relentless fear or dread of ever encountering one of these sterling examples of moral propriety.  For his own good, your Honor, he needs to be incarcerated.  Further, we propose that while incarcerated he be forced to receive treatment for his mental illness.  That treatment should have the stated goal of  removing his mental illness.  Evidence of his having been cured is when, through a lobotomized induced mental haze, he can clearly state that he loves homosexuals as much as normal society does.
I do not oppose homosexuals who promote homosexual behavior as morally proper because I am afraid of them.  I oppose practicing homosexuals because their sexual behavior is immoral.  It is as simple as that.  Attempting to shift the argument from the impropriety of their behavior to an alleged mental illness on my part is nothing more than a clever dodge to avoid having to discuss the real issue....all homosexuals innately know that their sexual practices are immoral and they are laboring mightily to suppress that awareness.  I should not be labeled homophobic because they are afraid of themselves.
The simple fact of the matter is that practicing homosexuals demand the praise of the world because it is an integral part of the propaganda they are preaching to themselves in order to aid them in their suppression of the truth.  Heterosexuals have never, in the history of the world, asked or required anyone else in the world to affirm their sexual practices.  Why is it that homosexuals require affirmation of their behavior?  Because they know it is wrong and they are desperately attempting to conceal that knowledge.  Using the term homophobic is just another battle in that ongoing war.  I am not going to stand for it.  From now on I will use terms that express reality.  I oppose homosexual sexual practices and those who are advocates for them.  Meanwhile, homosexuals who oppose me are heterophobes and definitely suffering from a mental illness that requires treatment in a government approved hospital.

What Your Tattoo Tells Me About You

The battle is over and the pro-tattoo camp has won.  There was a period of time, seemingly long ago now, when rational people debated the relative merits of having a tattoo.  As hard as it may be for people to conceive of  today, there was a time when it was considered a bad idea to have a tattoo.  The battle over the propriety of tattoos among the subgroup of people who call themselves Christians was an interesting part of the general discussion.  Old Christian conservatives would quote proof texts from the Bible about how tattoos were symbols of idolatry and the worship of pagan gods.  New covenant hipster-Christians would proudly sport their tattoos and inform anyone who was willing to listen that they had reached out and connected in a meaningful way with their community.  They believed that their tattoos were going to cause throngs of people to join their churches and get saved.  Both parties despised each other and, if truth be told, still do today.  But that battle is long past.  The war has been won and those who sport tattoos are the victors.  So rather than adding a long rant against the evils of tattoos I will take a different approach.  Today I am going to tell you what your tattoo tells me about you.
I know what you think your tattoo tells me about you and you are dead wrong.  You think your tattoo tells me that you are an artistic and well rounded person who is the modern equivalent of the renaissance man.  You probably drink Michelob Ultra.  Your tattoo is a statement about who you are and who you are is simply amazing.  Indeed, you are the world's most interesting person.  You once had an awkward moment just to see what it felt like.  You also believe that your tattoo informs the world that you are someone who should not be messed with.  Your are tough, powerful and somewhat dangerous.  You are a person who is not to be crossed.  You believe that your tattoo contributes to your mystique.  Women wonder who you are and find themselves inexorably drawn to find out more about you.  Men watch you in envy, wishing they were you but a bit fearful to approach you without your prior permission.  You are mysterious and everyone who sees you spends all of his or her time in your presence trying to figure out who you are.  That is what you think about yourself and your tattoo.  Now let me inform you what is really going on.
The first thing your tattoo tells me is that you are selfish.  You believe the world revolves around you.  Everywhere you go you spend your time thinking about yourself and imagining how everyone else is thinking about you.  The joke is on you.  Nobody is thinking about you.  Everyone else is thinking about himself and how his tattoo makes him appear mysterious and somewhat dangerous.  Your tattoo is not an artistic statement about how incredible of a human being you are.  Your tattoo is a neon sign informing the entire world that you are just like everyone else.  You are a rebel in an amazingly conformist sort of way.  You are distinctive just like everyone else.  Your tattoo tells me that you are totally self-absorbed and incapable of thinking about anyone or anything other than yourself. Your tattoo tells me you are just another brainless Joe Six Pack who believes the world revolves around him. Think Dennis Rodman here and you will get the picture of what you are portraying to anyone who cares to look. 
There was a time, long ago, when men properly understood that real power and significance in the world was derived through service to others.  These men made it their goal to be unseen and unnoticed by others.  They realized they were personally insignificant.  These men were taught to suppress their naturally sinful desire to be the center of the universe and reach out to others instead.  These men (and women...I don't mean to leave women of character out of this discussion) learned to act and believe that others were more important than themselves.  They took no thought of themselves as they went about their business of serving their fellow-men.  As these selfless individuals went about their business a counter-intuitive thing took place.  Those who were the best at serving others began to get recognized for their service.  They developed something folks called a "good reputation."   For those of you under forty years of age who have no idea what that term means, it means that they came to be well thought of by others.  Indeed, others would occasionally rise above their own selfish stupors just long enough to think about these men in a favorable light.  But, like I said, that was a long time ago.  Nobody does this today.
The second thing your tattoo tells me is that you are powerfully insecure.  Indeed, insecurity dominates your personality.  You second guess yourself all the time.  You are never comfortable in social settings.  You do everything you can to project an image of what you want to be but the real man underneath is the emotional equivalent of a fearful little child.  You believe that wearing a tattoo overcomes your insecurities but, in reality, it only magnifies them.  You are trying way too hard.  Nobody who is truly emotionally secure spends any time attempting to project the image of emotional security.  As a general rule it is fair to say that the amount of time you dedicate to your image betrays your true self image and it is not a good one.  People who are secure do not think about their image at all.  They are too busy thinking of others.
The third thing your tattoo tells me is that you desperately want to project the image of being a tough-guy.  That, of course, means that you know that you are not a tough-guy.  True tough-guys do not need to pretend.  Nor do they need others to tell them they are tough to know that it is true.  Nor do they need to be tough in front of others to prove some point about their manliness.  Once again you are trying way too hard.  But you are incapable of relaxing and being yourself.  That is just not who you are.  You are a carefully concocted image of something you desperately want to be but never will be.  Congratulations, your tattoo is telling me all I need to know about who you really are.
I do not want to be accused of being sexist.  Women wear tattoos as well.  Although I will not pretend to understand the female psyche nearly as well as I understand the male, it never ceases to surprise me when women also display a powerful desire to appear tough.  I just don't get it.  True mental toughness is not a by-product of an external tattoo.  In general I believe women are much more mentally tough than men.  I look no further than death statistics to prove my point.  When the husband in a marriage dies the woman will often live on for years.  When the wife in a marriage dies the man typically follows in a short period of time.  Men seem incapable of living on their own.  They lack the toughness necessary to do so.  Not so with women.  They are mentally tough and I give them credit for it.  They are also physically tougher than men.  Most of the people who survived the Donner party disaster (look it up) were women.  Women give birth to babies.  That is all I need to know about physical toughness.  That is why I find it so surprising when women feel the need to project some sort of masculine type physical and mental toughness to the world via the wearing of a tattoo.  What I do know is that I avoid contact with women who sport tattoos. They scare me.  Come to think of it, maybe that is the point.
So there you have it.  Your tattoo tells me a lot about you and none of what it tells me is good.  I know you think your tattoo is accomplishing all of your personal goals but I am here to assure you that it is not getting the job done as you wish.  I would strongly recommend that you have your tattoo removed as soon as possible.  If removal is not an option, try putting a press-on tattoo over the one that you have.  I would recommend an image of Tweetie for your cover-up tattoo.  Now that will send a message to others that is entirely believable. 

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Udall And Gardner Duke It Out

Mark Udall is a Democratic senator from Colorado.  Cory Gardner is his Republican challenger in the upcoming SDA Senate election.  Both of them are typical politicians.  By that I mean they are both stark raving idiots who cannot open their mouths without uttering a non-stop stream of lies.  They both have their fingers continually stuck in the wind, seeking to discern what they need to say next in order to get someone else to vote for them.  And, perhaps more significantly, they are both pawns in the greater plan of the Republicans to take back the SDA Senate in the upcoming mid-term elections.  As a result of their strategic political position they are receiving boatloads of money from their respective political parties to finance their campaigns.  That has brought about a series of television commercials that show the political process in the SDA in its finest light.
I witnessed a commercial last night, while watching a televised cage match between a scary looking woman and a masked midget,  that began with some dramatic music and a series of still photographs of various women, all of whom looked very sad.  It did not take me long to figure out what was going to come next.  These women were sad because they were thinking about the remote possibility that Cory Gardner, if elected, might craft and pass a new law that would make it illegal for them to murder their unborn babies.  The commercial went on to inform me that Gardner had voted for a previously shot down law that would have made getting an abortion a felony.  Then the woman's voice doing the commercial became almost hysterical as she informed me that under Gardner's proposed law it would also be a felony to murder an innocent baby even if the baby had been conceived as a result of rape or incest!  I was shocked. 
I thought about that for a moment.  The baby does not know if he was conceived via rape.  The baby does not know if she was conceived via incest.  All the baby knows is that he is alive and wants to continue living.  Little does the baby know that the mother who is carrying her deems her to be a hindrance to her preferred lifestyle choices.  The baby certainly is unaware of the fact that Mark Udall believes that it is a good, moral and proper thing to murder an unborn baby when it might interfere with the mother's lifestyle choices.  The baby will become painfully aware of that fact the moment the steel surgical device enters the womb and removes her head from the rest of her body.
The second half of the commercial showed numerous happy women.  They were laughing and dancing and generally having a good time. I didn't see any children that might dampen the festive mood.  I assumed they were all celebrating their abortions.  They were also talking with Mark Udall.  I don't know if he is a good impromptu comedian or not but he was sure making those women laugh.  I wonder if he was telling jokes about dead babies and how much fun it is to kill them while they are still in the womb?  I suspect he was.  That is the only way I can reconcile the somber faces on the women who were not being permitted to kill their babies with the happy looks on the faces of the women who believed they would continue to be allowed to kill their lifestyle hindrances.  I concluded that a vote for Udall is a vote for death, militant feminism and heterophobic propaganda.  OK, I made up the part about heterophobic propaganda.  But I expect that to be the subject of a commercial in the near future.
Meanwhile the Gardner camp has been attempting to tie Udall to King Obama as much as possible.  The goal of the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections is to overthrow as many Senate Democrats as possible by means of linking them to King Obama's Obamacare plan.  The Republicans believe there is enough hostility among the electorate to give them the votes they need to take over control of the Senate.  They are probably right.  Time will tell.  What they do not tell us is that if they are successful at taking over the Senate they will then propose to overthrow Obamacare with a new Republican version of the same thing.  I know that comes as a shock to those of you who have faith in the Republicans.  You think they will overthrow Obamacare and allow the free market to determine all things medical.  That will never happen.  Mark my words.  You read it here first.  When the Republicans assume control of both houses of Congress the first thing they will do after terminating Obamacare is create a new version of it, called Republicancare, which will be essentially the same thing.  Nobody believes in freedom or the free market.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In one of the first commercials prepared by the Gardner camp a stock photograph of Udall and King Obama was used.  Stock photos are used all the time by the media.  In this case the stock photo came from the period of time when King Obama traveled to Denver to appear in a photo opportunity decrying the use of guns by the Aurora theater massacre killer.  Standing next to Obama on the stage was political opportunist Udall.  The Gardner camp grabbed that photo and used it in a commercial of their own.  In their commercial the photograph is displayed, with ominous music playing in the background, while the somber-voiced narrator informed us that Udall supported, supports and will support in the future all aspects of Obamacare.  They might as well have painted little devil horns on Udall's head.  The clear conclusion the ignorant electorate was to make was that Udall is an Obama lackey who needs to be overthrown.
When several different folks figured out where the photograph had come from things got even more interesting.  The Udall camp immediately accused the Gardner camp of "insensitivity" for using a photograph that was taken during the time shortly after the Aurora theater massacre.  Members of the families of some of the people killed in that massacre were paraded before the media declaring their outrage and disgust that Gardner would stoop so low as to use a stock photo taken during that most holy time period.  Try as I might, I just can't figure out how the family members of the shooting victims have been harmed by the use of a stock photo from that time period.  But, then again, I can rarely figure out how all of the various groups of people who label themselves "victims" really are victims.  What I do know is that the Gardner camp immediately issued a standard variety public apology, pulled the photo from the advertisement and replaced it with another stock photo that looked essentially the same as the one they had just pulled.
I should probably mention that the Udall ad demonizing Gardner for wanting to stop the murder of babies also had a section in it in which I was told that Gardner wants to make birth control illegal.  I found that interesting.  I wondered how he might propose to do that.  Then I looked into it and discovered that what the Udall camp had told me was not quite true.  Gardner did not want to make the use of birth control illegal.  All he wanted to do was to make the use of abortive birth control devices illegal.  In other words, it was just another part of his anti-abortion law proposal.  To call the Udall ad misleading would be generous.  It was downright untruthful.
I leaned back in my rocking chair and pondered what I had just been told in the two commercials.  As I pondered these things the scary looking woman picked up the masked midget and body-slammed him against the chain link fencing of the cage in which they were fighting.  He groaned in pain.   It was then that it dawned on me.   The cage match was far more truthful than either political ad....and the cage match was not truthful at all. How ironic the entire situation is.  A couple of idiots fighting each other in a cage have more moral and intellectual credibility than those who rule over us.  The statesmen who lead the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and who are expected to be the cream of the moral and intellectual crop of the land are inferior to a couple of bozos in a cage pretending to beat each other's brains in.   I then realized that the new season of political advertisements was upon me.  It seems as if the last one just ended.  From now on all of my favorite cage matches will be interrupted by a senseless stream of misleading ads created by pandering politicians desperately attempting to garner votes from ignorant voters in order to get elected and continue political business as usual in the SDA.  Not to worry, I thought to myself, as the campaigns heat up the advertisements emanating from them should be at least as entertaining as a good cage match.

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Hyper-Inflation Is Imminent

In a desperate attempt to increase the daily readership of this blog I have shamelessly posted a title for today's article that is guaranteed to attract a vociferous and, most importantly, numerous audience.  Lots of different political groups have a vested interest in the immediate inflationary collapse of the dollar and the economy of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  They write about it incessantly.  They discuss it constantly.  They dream of the day when it will happen and their views will be vindicated.  They will be figuratively dancing on the grave of the SDA economy when it finally explodes and dies.  If you have come to this blog seeking support for your economically catastrophic views of the future you are about to be disappointed.  But don't stop reading.  Read on.  Maybe you will learn something.
Those who believe in a coming hyper-inflation are right about one thing.  The monetary base of the SDA has, in recent years, increased at a rate that is unparalleled in the history of this sad country.  In 2008 the monetary base of the country was about $700 billion.  Today the monetary base sits at an astounding $4 trillion.  That is over a 400% increase in just a few short years.  What is responsible for this amazing increase of the monetary base?  Quantitative Easing, or QE for short.  We can all thank the Federal Reserve for the fact that the monetary base has expanded exponentially in recent years.  Despite the rapid expansion of the monetary base, which should have brought about the death of the dollar, a strange thing has happened on the way to our predicted hyper-inflation.  Let's consider what has happened for a minute or two.
While the monetary base has been going crazy the actual money supply has not.  During the same period of time the monetary base expanded by more than 400% the supply of money has expanded by only 40%.  The obvious question that screams for an answer is, where has all the money gone?  Fortunately that is an easy question to answer.  The money is there but it is tucked away in an account very few people know about.  The great majority of the money that was created by the Federal Reserve during its heyday of Quantitative Easing has been placed into an account known as "excess reserves."  If you want to understand what is going on with the dollar you must understand what is going on with the excess reserves account.
Starting in late 2008 the Fed created hundreds of billions of new dollars and put them on deposit with its many member banks.  But then a strange thing happened.  The banks did not loan out the money that they had on deposit from the Fed.  There are two primary reasons the member banks did not loan out the newly created money.  First, it is impossible to overrule the free market.  Banks did not make commercial and industrial loans, as well as consumer loans, with that money because, relatively speaking, nobody wanted to buy a loan.  Banks can have all of the money in the universe sitting in their vaults but if nobody comes through the front door in search of a loan it is not going to do them any good.  The loans will not be made and the money supply will not expand.
The second thing that happened was a change in the interest paying procedures for member banks which keep their newly created money on deposit with the Fed.  For the first time in history, starting in 2008, the Fed agreed to pay interest on the excess deposits held by the member banks with the Fed.  Look at things from the perspective of the bankers.  The Fed is depositing more and more money into your savings account at the Fed every month.  But there are no customers coming through the door who want to borrow that money.  Meanwhile, the Fed agrees to start paying you interest on the money that you did not take in from investors.  It is incredible but it is true.  The Fed has created money out of thin air, deposited it into an account with your name on it, and is now paying you interest on that money as if it were actually real money.  What are you going to do?
Bankers are anything but dumb.  They realize a good deal when they see it.  Since they could be paid interest on the money they had not earned and that was on deposit with the Fed they made the entirely rational decision to leave that money on deposit with the Fed.  Those deposits are called excess reserves and banks are making billions of dollars, paid for by the taxpayers of course, on those imaginary deposits.  Only the Fed could have come up with such a ridiculous state of affairs.  But this is what happens when government banks interfere in the free market.  All sorts of perverse things begin to happen.
Now all of this has created a new problem for the Fed.  Now that Quantitative Easing is winding down the Fed has finally come to realize that there is a huge potential for hyper-inflation if all of those excess reserves hit the market at the same time.  I was reading an article from a group called the American Institute for Economic Research the other day.  In that article the author said that "as the economy improves, the question is whether lending will accelerate beyond the ability of the Fed to control inflation....Today the Fed is developing new strategies to neutralize excess reserves.  These new strategies focus on incentivizing banks to maintain balances at the Fed in lieu of lending."  
So let me get this straight.  The Fed creates trillions of dollars of money via Quantitative Easing that never finds its way into the loan market but instead gets parked in savings accounts with the Fed.  Now, several years later, the same Fed is afraid that all the money it created might actually find its way into the loan market so it is doing everything it can to keep member banks from loaning out the money.  This includes paying the member banks interest on the funny money so they will not lend it out.  Of course the taxpayers, who had nothing to do with the creation of the funny money in the first place, are now on the hook for paying the interest on the money that does not really exist.  Does anyone besides me think this situation is preposterous?
I have a very simple question for the Fed.  If you are so afraid that all of this counterfeit money might hit the free loan market and create a hyper-inflation why don't you just take it back?  Why don't you just erase it off the books of your member banks?  After all, you created the money with a key-stroke that created a log entry for each member bank; why can't you just de-create the money with another key-stroke that will erase the log entry for each member bank?   We all have to realize that none of this is real money.  It is all counterfeit.  Like all privately counterfeited money, it only becomes a problem when it gets spent into the economy.  Since you, the Fed, know that this is all counterfeit money and since you, the Fed, have all of this money on deposit in your computer banks, why don't you just make it go away?
I find it fascinating that rather than simply erasing the phony deposits the Fed is prone to encourage banks to not make loans with the money they counterfeited by agreeing to pay higher rates of interest to the banks on the counterfeit money.  Once again I must ask, does anyone beside me believe this to be wildly absurd? 
Equally absurd is another proposal being discussed by the Fed to prevent hyper-inflation.  Some Fed members want to go back to the good old days of Paul Volcker and raise the prime rate to 21%.  Raising the prime rate to 21% will essentially guarantee that nobody in the free market will come in search of a loan and that counterfeit money will stay parked in excess reserves.  Certainly any rational person can see that the cure is worse than the disease.  Artificially raising the prime rate to 21% will choke off economic growth and create a recession.  It is an incredibly stupid thing to do, especially when the alternative is simply to take away the counterfeit money in the first place.
I don't know how any of this is going to play out.  I do know there is a lot of money sitting in excess reserves.  We are sitting on an economic time-bomb but there is no economic necessity for it to go off. Economically astute individuals could resolve this problem overnight.  The problem is there are no economically astute economists working in the federal government, much less at the Fed.  Who knows?  Maybe the title to today's post will actually come true.  Then I can join the happy throngs as we dance upon the grave of the SDA economy.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Negroes And The Yellow Peril

I went to a presentation of the Denver Youth Orchestra last night.  The orchestra is made up of a select group of students who pay a fee to join it.  That sounds a bit jaded, doesn't it?  I went to the concert with the expectation that it would not be very good precisely because rich folks can afford to buy positions in the orchestra for their children.  What I didn't realize is that the rich folks who buy positions in the orchestra for their children typically do so because their kids are pretty good musicians.  That is what surprised me most about the concert.  I have been to many high school orchestra concerts over the years and this was unquestionably the best.  The kids playing in this group have talent.  I had a good time.  But that is not what I am writing about today.  Today I want to write about racism.
As I sat there observing the orchestra I was impressed by two things.  Being the racist that I am I always quite naturally take a racial survey of any group I see.  The first thing I noticed was that there was only one person in the orchestra who could have potentially been Welsh.  She had red hair, a ruddy complexion and a physical disposition that could be described as being somewhat melancholy.  I would guess that she was Welsh but not having an opportunity to speak with her I will never know.  The second thing I noticed was that the orchestra was made up of an inordinate number of children of oriental descent.  The percentage of slant-eyed, yellow-skinned kids in the orchestra was much higher than that of the population of Denver in general.  That is when it hit me like a brick.  The Welsh were being discriminated against by the Asians!  Those Asians were purposefully keeping Welsh children out of the orchestra because of their racist tendencies and natural propensity to hate those who are racially and musically superior to them.  Yep, when it comes to music, the Asians are all a bunch of racists.
I sat fuming in my chair for the rest of the concert.  When it was over I bolted from the room and rushed home.  I didn't want to be around those racists any more than necessary.  Upon arriving home I decided to relax in front of the television.  I tuned into a news channel only to discover that the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team had apparently uttered some abhorrent racial slur a couple of days ago and the entire population of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika had now spontaneously risen in unison to demand his execution.  Or at least a lot of black people were calling for his head.  Being prone to not trust what the talking heads on the television tell me I chased down a audio copy of the offending comments so I could listen to them for myself.  I was shocked by what I discovered.
Donald Sterling is the name of the owner of the NBA basketball team.  Maybe you know him.  The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP" as they now refer to themselves since "colored people" is another allegedly racist term) had announced just a couple of months ago that they were going to give Mr. Sterling a "lifetime achievement award" for his efforts in supporting the egos and activities of colored people, whoever they are and if any of them could be found.  As a part of his allegedly racist activities Mr. Sterling had donated $5000 of his own money to the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP.  Wow, racists sure have a strange way of showing their racial prejudices these days.  In the old days they would have been wearing white robes with a funny looking hats.  Today they are donating money and receiving awards from groups of colored people, whoever they are.
Many black basketball players (who are represented in the NBA way out of proportion to their actual representation in the total population of the SDA....I believe the Welsh are being racially discriminated against in the NBA as well) have called for serious sanctions against this horrible racist.  Kobe Bryant has demanded that his team be taken away from him.  Doc Rivers has called upon the NBA commission to "issue a very strong statement" against Sterling's allegedly racist comments.  Others are demanding that Sterling be fined $1 million for his racially charged statements.  Never mind that Sterling has made dozens of black men into multi-millionaires who are adored by the general public.  Employing blacks and donating money to black institutions are now deemed to be racist activities.  What a strange world we live in.   So, just what exactly did he say that is bringing about these calls for his head?  Goggle his name and listen to the comments yourself.  I will wait.  Come back after you have listened to him.
Do you get the joke?  Sterling is talking to a woman who is alternatively described as his wife and his live-in girlfriend.  She is easily thirty years his junior and black.  This is the first time I have ever heard of a white man being accused of being a racist who is living with/married to a black woman.  I guess the meaning of the term is changing.  If you did not listen to his comments the gist of the argument is this...Sterling tells his wife that he does not want to hang out with the same people she is hanging out with at the basketball games.  Apparently she is hanging out with some gangster types who also happen to be black.  He does not want to go to the games with her when she brings along black friends who act like gangsters.  Therefore he is a racist deserving of the death penalty.  I don't like hanging out with people who act tough and behave like gangsters either.  I guess that makes me a racist as well.  Go figure.
By now everyone is familiar with the story of Cliven Bundy.  Bundy is the Mormon rancher in Nevada who refuses to pay the federal government grazing fees for running his cattle on land managed by the BLM.  He has become a bit of a folk hero in the eyes of the anarcho-capitalist libertarian loonies among us.  He is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame.  Bundy is more than happy to wax eloquent for the cameras on any subject the reporters want to bring up.  Reporters, being who they are, were seeking sound bites that would allow them to cast Bundy as a racist.  They accomplished their goal when they got him to talk about blacks and welfare in the SDA.
Bundy raised a rhetorical question about blacks.  He asked if blacks living in the SDA today who are welfare dependent are worse off than blacks living in the antebellum south during the time of slavery.  It is a good question.  It is certainly worthy of intellectual discussion.  I think I would tend to lean towards the position that it would be better to be enslaved to an individual master than it is to be enslaved to the SDA government.  The primary reason I would take this position is that with an individual master there is at least some chance that the slave will treated with a modicum of kindness.  Under the terms of SDA government enforced slavery there is no possibility for kindness whatsoever.  But, rather than having that discussion, the immediate reaction of the talking heads was to proclaim "racist" at the top of their lungs.
Bundy has been classified as a racist worthy of death simply because he used the archaic term "negro" and had the audacity to suggest that there are forms of enslavement to government that could be potentially worse than chattel slavery.  I don't see how that constitutes racism but who am I to judge?  I am just a Welshman.  I have just been subject to the racial prejudices and enslavement of the Britons, the Scots, the Angles, the Saxons and the Norsemen.   What could I possibly know about slavery?  How can I possibly have an opinion on the matter when I am not a part of the enormous racially sensitive government machine that runs about this country making authoritative pronouncements about what is racist and what is not?  Most importantly, how can I ever discuss the topic of racism if I am not black?  I am forced to admit that only blacks know anything about racism and only blacks are allowed to discuss the topic.  Whatever blacks say about racism is always true and I am in sin if I dare to question their authoritarian pronouncements.  I need to obey everything the negro tells me about racism or I am a racist.  Oh, I almost forgot, don't ignore the yellow peril....I think they are after me too.

Update:  April 30, 2014

I just saw a news story declaring that Mr. Sterling has been "banned for life" from the NBA.  Wow!  He received the NBA death sentence all because he didn't want to hang out at a basketball game with a bunch of guys behaving like thugs who happened to be black.  I wonder if he would have received the same sentence for declaring that he did not want to hang out with a bunch of white guys behaving like thugs?  Or how about for not wanting to hang out with a bunch of Jewish guys behaving like thugs?  Ha! Ha!  Jewish thugs...that really makes me laugh.  I think I will figure out a way to work that joke into my stand-up routine.
Meanwhile this escapade illustrates that there are three classes of people in the SDA whom you are free to abuse, persecute and discriminate against at any time.  These are the pariah classes in the SDA:  1) Anyone who uses words politically connected black people have decided to ban, 2) Anyone who smokes and 3) Christians.  

Monday, April 28, 2014

Everest Is A Yuppie Playground/Death Trap

I am sure you have all heard about the cancellation of the spring climbing season on Mount Everest (South Col route) due to the tragic deaths of  a dozen Sherpa climbers last week.  The Sherpas were pushing the route up to the South Col through the infamous Khumbu Ice Fall when an avalanche roared down from the west ridge.  As the snow slammed into the ice fall many of the tottering seracs collapsed and twelve Sherpa climbers were killed.  Armchair mountaineers and lovers of Everest are once again playing the game called "second-guessing those who make the free will decision to risk their lives on one of the world's deadliest mountains."  Should they climb Everest or not?  Should they guide for wealthy westerners or not?  Should unqualified climbers be allowed or not?  Should Everest be turned into a pay-summit or not?   In honor of their fallen comrades, the surviving Sherpa guides voted to abandon the southern route for this season.  This left hundreds of Yuppie climbers stranded high and dry in base camp.  Eventually I suspect they will all wander back to their suburban homes without ever having gotten out of base camp.
Please allow me to indulge in my own little bit of speculation today.  Like many people who love the mountains I have held a life-long fascination with the high peaks of the Himalayan range.  There was a time, many years ago when I was a much stronger and better climber than I am today, when people would occasionally ask me if I had any desire to go to Everest.  My answer was always the same.  My answer was always a question.  Why, I would ask, would I want to go half way around the world to climb a peak that is swarming with Yuppies when I can figuratively go into my own backyard and find hundreds of challenging climbing opportunities that I will literally have all to myself?  My perspective has not changed.  If anything, I have become more anti-Everest over the years.
The Everest climbing fever started back in the 1980s with the publication of "Seven Summits."  This book chronicled the exploits of Frank Wells and Dick Bass as they attempted to become the first men to climb the highest peaks on each of the world's seven continents.  Neither was a climber.  Both were advancing in age.  But they were also both very rich and able to use their money to buy their way onto expeditions filled with very talented mountaineers.  As a result Dick Bass was eventually able to capture the goal of reaching the highest point of each continent.  I have read the book several times.  It is a great adventure story.  Unfortunately it also makes it seem as if any person with enough money can climb Mt. Everest.  Many people read the book and it was not long before the free market created a panoply of professional guiding companies that would attempt to lead unqualified but wealthy men and women to the rooftop of the world.
About a decade later, in 1996, the first large scale disaster struck Everest.  Most people are familiar with the story of how two professional guiding companies were caught high on Everest in May of that year.  Eventually eight of the "climbers" ended up dead, including the owner of one of the guiding companies.  The event spurned many books, and even a movie, which attempted to tell the tale of what happened.  An IMAX film crew was on the mountain at the time and they captured dramatic images of the event after the weather improved.  Fingers were pointed in many directions but the common ingredients of unqualified climbers with lots of money and serious Type-A personalities connected all of the dots.
A couple of years later another tale emerged from the north ridge route of the mountain.  It seems that a climber, weakened by the altitude and his own exertion, had settled down on the ridge route to die.  While he expired, climber after climber walked up and down past him.  Nobody lifted a finger to help.  Many of those who passed him got back down safely and rejoiced in their good fortune at having attained their life-long dream of summitting Everest.  The callous disregard for the life of their unknown, but fellow, climber created a firestorm of controversy.  The controversy seemed to be resolved when all of the folks who sign on to climb Everest agreed to let each other die along the way.  Something is serious wrong about that state of affairs, in my view.  Still, I understand it.  Why should I be forced into a rescue operation of a weak and unqualified climber like myself, thus jeopardizing the tens of thousands of dollars and years of preparation I have invested in my attempt to reach the summit?  If he is not strong enough to continue he deserves to die.  If I am not strong enough, just leave me to die as well. 
Prior to the 1980s only qualified mountaineers from the fraternity of those who had paid their dues on many previous mountaineering expeditions would attempt to climb Everest.  Climbers would not pay a guide to lead them to the top.  They would raise funds from sponsors to finance their trips.  When on the mountain they would divide up the responsibilities in such a way that each member of the party would participate in the climbing efforts.  There was no place for the dead weight of a person who could not lead a pitch up the mountain.  If someone was hurt or injured, even if it was a member of another team from another country, the climbing would be suspended until that person could be rescued.  When a member of the team reached the summit it was a victory for the entire team since every person was an active participant in the effort.  Was it perfect?  Of course not.  Did egos occasionally get in the way?  Of course.  But there was nothing like what we see on Everest today.
Guiding companies promote Everest climbs as mere "walk-ups."  A walk-up is a route that involves no actual climbing at all.  All that is required is the ability to keep putting one foot in front of the other until the summit is attained.  In order to turn a technical mountain route into a walk-up route somebody has to go ahead and fix ropes all the way to the top.  That "somebody" is the Sherpa guides.  The Sherpas have a long and glorious history of collaboration with the early pioneers of Himalayan climbing.  Not being westerners they are generally ignored by the western media but those who climb with them always consider them to be equal partners on the mountain.  As guided climbing has become more popular more and more Sherpa people have gained employment as route-fixers for the Yuppie tourists who will walk up the mountain via the ropes they have fixed.  Make no mistake, I am in favor of the free market.  The Sherpas can make more money in a couple of months by fixing ropes than most of their people make all year.  Good for them.  But it is dangerous work and they know it.  As long as nobody is being forced to do anything all parties involved in the professional guiding businesses that now dominate Everest should be free to continue doing what they are doing.
Acknowledging that the free market should be free to do what it does does not change the fact that what is happening on Everest disgusts me.  Everest has been turned into a Yuppie playground, albeit a very dangerous one.  I have read many books written in recent years that tell the tales of what it is like to climb Everest today.  It sounds horrific.  There are hundreds of people in base camp.  The people who are there languish around while the Sherpas set the ropes above them.  While in camp they spend most of their time getting drunk and having sex with one another.  All of the participants are Type-A obsessive compulsive personalities.  All of them have summit fever.  When the time comes to actually start for the top, which is only accomplished by means of bottled oxygen, it is each obsessive compulsive person for himself.  The upper mountain tells tales of deceit, theft and immoral behavior on a grand scale.  Some "climbers" will show up and steal the services of other climbing companies by sleeping in their tents and using their oxygen bottles.  Everyone waits around for everyone else to do the hard work of setting the ropes and fixing the route then, when the weather is right, they all converge on the route in one grotesque surge of humanity.
The upper campsites are filled with dozens of tents.  People are sleeping, urinating and defecating upon one another as they seek to get some rest prior to the summit day's climb.  Only the lethargy created by high altitude keeps these selfish jerks from brawling with one another as they wait in the camp high on the South Col.  Then, on summit day, there is a line of humanity stretching up the route all the way to the top.  Some will live and some will die.  All are obsessed. All are thinking only of themselves.  I cannot think of a more wretched place to be. 
Those Yuppies who reach the summit return to base camp bathed in their own sense of glory.  They have "conquered" Everest, at least in their own little minds.  My climbing ethic does not allow me to claim having summited a mountain if I have not at least participated in some of the lead climbing.  If all I have done is crawled up the ropes that were fixed by someone else until I reached the top I have had a good workout but I have not climbed a mountain.  Not so for the Yuppies who drag themselves to the top, or, in some cases, are dragged to the top by their own personal Sherpas.  They claim the glory of the summit for themselves.  On the other hand, those who do not reach the summit this time are quick to sign up for the next season's trip.  Money is no object.  They have summit fever and they will keep trying until they reach the top or they die.  How very sad it all is.