San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Saturday, November 21, 2015

No Self-Driving Car For Me!

I was sitting around talking with some friends the other day when one lady made the comment that she can't wait until all cars in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika are self-driving.  She informed me that she hates to drive, hates to be on the road, hates to have to operate a vehicle on crowded city streets and would love to see the day when she can just send her car on errands while she stays home and watches soap operas on the television.  Okay, I made the part about the soap operas up, but she did say the rest of what I attributed to her.  As she was extolling the virtues of a driver-less society I found a great tension starting to form in my gut.  Let me tell you about that tension today.
I love freedom.  I am willing to give up massive amounts of alleged safety in exchange for freedom.  I believe we should be free as individuals to do anything we want to do, anytime we want to, anywhere we want to and any way we want to.  I oppose all government rules and regulations that infringe on my freedom.  Driving a car is one of the last things I can do these days that gives me at least a small sense of being free.  I can't conduct most of my life free from the myriad of government rules and regulations that oppress me but I can still get in my car and go for a drive.  Admittedly, driving a car is not the freedom inducing experience it once was.  The gross preponderance of new highway rules and regulations as well as the disproportionate number of jack-booted thugs out enforcing those rules and regulations has changed things considerably in my lifetime.  Still, by driving at the right place and at the right time I can still convince myself, perhaps delusionally, that I have some remaining freedom in this enslaved land.
A couple of weeks ago the Denver Post reported on a convention that was held in Denver called the "Transportation Matters Summit."  From what I can gather from the article, the "summit" was a convocation of greenies and career bureaucrats who love socialism and hate freedom.  They joined together to brainstorm about new and improved ways to control the sheeple who live in this tortuously regulated land.  One of the most exciting new forms of people control they proposed at the meeting was related to self-driving cars.  Here is what the newspaper had to say about the summit: "A roomful of Colorado city planners and transportation experts buzzed over the idea that people born Wednesday might never drive a vehicle.  One session in particular -- on self-driving cars bettering city commutes -- filled up quickly Wednesday at the Transportation Matters Summit at the Grand Hyatt Denver.  Jon Walker, who works at the Rocky Mountain Institute on reducing energy and carbon dioxide related to transportation, said American's vehicles are idle 95 percent of the time and contribute to one of the largest expenses for families.  'It's a broken system,' Walker said.  'It's time to change the paradigm.'"
Everything wrong about socialism is on full display in that one simple comment from Jon Walker of the Rocky Mountain Institute.  Jon is a socialist greenie who thinks he knows better than everyone else and who is also willing to use whatever government power he can muster to force others to bend to his will.  Like all good socialists Jon is blind to his own elitism as he makes blanket pronouncements about what is good or bad for society.  The fact that Jon would be so amazingly stupid as to refer to the millions of miles of streets and roads in this country, with millions of cars driving upon them, as a "broken system" defies the imagination.
Jon, just what is broken about the way people in this country get around?  I can get anywhere I want to, most of the time without getting involved in a traffic jam, and am happy to be able to do so.  I live in a big city with alleged major traffic problems but, for the most part, I have learned how to avoid them.  My system isn't broken so please, don't speak for me.
Jon, just what is this system you speak of?  I look outside and see a bunch of roads and cars but I see no evidence of a system whatsoever.  Of course there is no such thing as a system when it comes to cars and roads but socialists are so ingrained in their thinking about things as systems they are unable to overcome their inherent bias.  I see cars and roads filled with people behaving freely and Jon sees a system in need of some serious fixing.  Jon's fixing, no doubt, will include a serious reduction in personal freedom.
Note how Jon still has enough of a conscience to know that most people are going to despise him and his elitist program to fix a system that isn't broken.  To convince himself that he is really doing what is best he takes the time to inform the unwashed masses that we are so dumb to own cars that sit in our garages 95% of the time.  Not only that, Jon cares about the finances of my family!  What a swell guy he is.  He wants to impose a government controlled system of driver-less cars upon me and my family because I do not use my car enough to suit his tastes and he is fearful I am spending too much on my car.  Thanks Jon, but no thanks.
Jon, please mind your own business.  Please stay out of my business.  Please abandon your dreams of coercive power used in service to humanity.  Please leave your position at the lobby group you belong to.  Please go out and get a real job and actually serve somebody.  I refuse to own a self-driving car and when Jon and his ilk come for my car they will only get it as they pry the steering wheel  from the lifeless hands of my dead body.


Note To Regular Readers:  (all 3 of you)
I am heading to the desert to climb some mountains all of next week.  I might even eat a burrito smothered in green chile on Thanksgiving day.  One thing is for sure, I won't be anywhere near a shopping mall.  Look for the next post on December 1st and have a great Thanksgiving yourselves.

Friday, November 20, 2015

The Morality/Immorality Of Hunting

I used to hunt.  I gave it up because I lost interest in killing things.  Not that I was ever very good at killing things in the first place.  I was a terrible shot and most of the things that I shot at walked away unscathed.  But I still loved the thrill of the hunt and the act of the kill.  Then, one day, I realized that I no longer had the blood-lust so I put away my weapons and moved on to climbing mountains.  I say all of this as an introduction to today's topic and to let you know that I think I can understand both sides of the debate about the morality of hunting and killing animals for food and sport.  I would like to consider that debate here today.
A man by the name of Jerry Neal wrote an article for the op-ed section of the Denver Post in which he took up the standard arguments in favor of hunting.  I think most of you probably know those arguments.  If not, here is a brief summary.  I was a student of wildlife science for two years in college and I was taught, properly I believe, that the carrying capacity of a range for any animal species is determined by its ability to sustain life during winter conditions.  Given the fact that food is less abundant in the dead of winter it necessarily follows that only that number of animals that can eat the scarce supply of food available in winter will survive.  Those that do not survive will usually fall prey to predators or starvation followed by predators.  Death by starvation or predation is difficult to watch as it involves what appears to be a fair amount of pain and suffering on the part of the victim.  Hunting allows for a more animane (my word for "humane" since animals are not humans) way to kill the excess supply of critters.
Since animals usually give birth in the spring the total number of animals roaming the summer range will be higher than the total number of animals that will be sustained by the winter range.  Game managers are entrusted with the chore of calculating how many animals can be sustained on a winter range, how many animals actually exist on the summer range, and a good number of total animals to kill before the winter does the job for them.  Once that number is established hunters are called in, or allowed in, to kill what is hopefully the proper number of animals.  This behavior of hunting and killing is seen as more kind for the animals when compared to the alternative form of death described earlier.  It also ensures that animals are not wasted as humans are able to harvest the meat and eat it throughout the year.  I have used this argument in the past to defend hunting and killing and I believe it is true.
Bob Davidson wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper to criticize the position taken by Jerry.  He wastes no time showing his philosophical position on hunting when he writes, "I found Jerry Neal's article on the benefits of hunting to be incomplete, unbalanced and self-serving.  Neal's position that hunting is ethical and humane disregards both concepts.  Instead, he tries to justify a hunter's well-placed shot at a defenseless animal as being better than the animal being attacked and consumed by wolves.  Apparently he does not understand that wolves attacking and consuming animals is one of nature's ways of controlling animal populations."  I think we can understand Bob's position on the matter so I will not elaborate on it. What caught my attention in Bob's letter was the last clause.  He wrote, "wolves attacking and consuming animals is one of nature's ways of controlling animal populations."
I wonder if Bob believes in the religion of evolution?  Everyone either believes in the religion of evolution or he does not.  Those who believe in evolution, which make up the majority of the citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, can have no logical complaint with hunting.  Man, just like every other creature on the face of the earth that has evolved, has the right to survive.  According to one of the tenets of evolution the world runs on the principle of the survival of the fittest.  Right now mankind is the fittest.  Indeed, right now mankind has the ability to cause the extinction of hundreds of competing species.  Frankly I do not understand why evolutionists don't advocate for the worldwide extinction of species that could possibly compete with mankind for world-wide supremacy at some point in the future.  I have watched the "Planet of the Apes" movie series and I would start with the primates.  That is our moral right as the most evolved species in the world, at least according to the doctrines of evolution.  To claim that a species which has evolved to the highest point in the chain does not have the right to behave like the species at the highest point in the chain is sheer lunacy.  Men can kill anything they want to kill.  They can kill whatever they decide to kill for whatever reason that pleases them.  When it comes to men killing other things, there are no rules and everything is, by definition, moral behavior if evolution is true.
On the other hand, I wonder if Bob believes in creation by the God of the Bible?  If he does he must certainly be aware that God took the time to inform Noah and his progeny (that would be us) that every animal walking the face of the earth has been given to mankind for food.  We can kill and hunt anything we want to kill and hunt.  God also informed Noah that a righteous man will not kill something just for the sake of killing it, that killing an animal must be for a specific purpose, but that does not negate the fact that killing animals is just fine in the eyes of God, indeed He often commands it.
Notwithstanding my own evolution of thought on killing animals, it seems clear to me that nobody has a just argument or a moral reason to prohibit it.  The fact that I no longer have the stomach for it may mean that I am more or less morally sensitive, I really don't know.  I might be good not to want to kill something or I might just be a silly wimp who is detached from the real world.  I do know that I am not about to give up eating meat and animals have to die for me to do so.  I am just glad that there is someone else willing to do the killing.  Maybe the anti-hunters should adopt my position.  Live and let live and let the hunters do what they like to do. 

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Do You Know The Value Of A Dollar?

Most people have no idea what the value of a dollar is.  In the old days we used to refer to people who were foolish with their money as folks who had no concept of the "value of a dollar. They would spend and spend their money on ridiculous and unnecessary things, believing that the government would eventually support them anyway.  Huumm.....now that I think about it, things have not really changed at all.  One thing that has changed, however, is the colloquial expression about the value of a dollar.  I don't hear anyone use it any more.  Do you?
Maybe one reason it is hard to talk about the value of a dollar these days has to do with the fact that its value is in constant flux.  Since the US Dollar is not backed by anything other than the promise of the federal government to honor it, a worthless promise if there ever was one, it has basically decreased in value every year.  Like any commodity, money will have less value per unit when more units are created.  Since the Federal Reserve exists for the purpose of creating more dollars and giving those new, counterfeit, dollars to the federal government to spend on various vote-buying boondoggles, the dollar has consistently decreased in value over the years.  Here is a chart gathered from information provided by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Look at it carefully:
 
Year Amount it took to
equal $1 in 1913
1913 $1.00
1920 2.02
1925 1.77
1930 1.69
1935 1.38
1940 1.41
1945 $1.82
1950 2.43
1955 2.71
1960 2.99
1965 3.18
1970 3.92
1975 $5.43
1980 8.32
1985 10.87
1990 13.20
1995 15.39
2000 17.39
2001 $17.89
2002 18.17
2003 18.59
2004 19.08
2005 19.73
2006 20.18
2007 20.94
2008 21.57
2012 23.27


What cost $5.43 when I graduated from high school now costs me $23.27.  That dramatic, almost five-fold, increase in cost is nothing more than the impact of inflation as the Fed creates more and more dollars over the years.  The more dollars there are in circulation, the more dollars it takes to buy the exact same thing from years ago. What I am buying today is not worth five times more than what it was in 1975, it just cost that much more because there is so much more money circulating around.
In recent times all the countries of the world have followed the example of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika and created national banks that exist for the purpose of inflating their currencies.  Governments benefit from this because it gives them an unlimited supply of their nation's currency to spend.  An unlimited supply of money is what allows career politicians to become career politicians as the envy-filled citizens of the land expect the government to provide an increasingly long list of freebies and fringe benefits in exchange for their votes.  The citizens living under the tyranny of those rulers are harmed by it because the value of their currency is constantly depreciating, although they scarcely realize what is happening.  
In the business world there are people known as currency traders who make their living trying to guess which country is going to devalue its currency the most, thereby profiting on the spreads between a somewhat devalued currency and a horribly devalued currency.  Lots of money can be made by those who guess properly about which country is going to commit financial suicide first.  All of this is to make my point that when someone talks about the value of a dollar these days it has everything to do with how the dollar compares to other inflated currencies around the world, not how much it might be intrinsically worth.  Let's think about that for a while.
People who trade the world's currencies speak of those currencies as being either weak or strong in comparison to each other.  You have probably heard people talk that way and wondered just what they meant by it.  A weak currency is one that is inflated more than another country's currency whereas a strong currency is one that is inflated less than another country's currency.  It would be nice if all of the central banks in the world got together and agreed to inflate their money supplies at the same rate but that does not happen.  Each country believes that there is some sort of economic value and advantage to having a weak currency when they are engaged in trade with other countries around the world.  It is an amazingly stupid idea but it is what government financed economists believe.  When it comes to exports, most central banks seek to devalue their currency more rapidly than the country the goods are being sold to.  Why?  Here is the argument, taken from one of my favorite websites:
"Theory and conventional wisdom say a weak currency boosts exports because it makes goods cheaper overseas, boosting demand. A strong currency, by contrast, makes goods pricier overseas, hitting demand. However, if this were true, one might expect a given country’s exports and imports to move in opposite directions from time to time: exports up and imports down when the currency is weak, exports down and imports up when the currency is strong. As Exhibit 1 shows, however, this isn’t so. Exports and imports usually move in the same direction, with economic growth the primary driver. Currency trends hold little to no visible influence."  That quote is from my favorite investment adviser, Ken Fisher, and can be found at his website.  And what he writes is true.  Just look at the graph below:



As a perfect example of an application of this erroneous economic idea to today's world, consider the gaggle of bozos who are currently running for next King/Queen of the SDA and how they all seem to like to talk about engaging in some sort of trade war with China.  Donald the Trumpet in particular likes to rattle his economic saber as he accuses the Chinese of all sorts of immoral economic activities.  He accuses China of engaging in a trade war with us because the Chinese government allegedly devalues its currency more quickly than the Fed does.  The various candidates also declare that the best weapon in a trade war is for the Fed to create more counterfeit money than China does, thus theoretically making SDA goods cheaper for the Chinese and encouraging them to buy more of our products.  But as the above graph clearly shows, currency wars have nothing to do with international trade.  International trade is driven, as Fisher points out, by economic growth and the desire to improve our economic standing in the world by means of free trade.  The fact that something might cost more or less, depending upon whether the central bank in that country is inflating quickly or slowly, is just a cost of doing a business in international trade and nothing more.
If you allow yourself to consider this nonsense in common sense terms it will all make more sense.  Only a politician or an economist could make the argument that shooting myself in the foot by devaluing my own currency is good for me because it allows the Chinese buyers of my goods to pay less for them.  I end up subsidizing Chinese buyers and destroying the value of my own currency.  Please explain why that is a good thing?  If the rulers of China are dumb enough to devalue their currency in order to make their goods cheap for us, who am I to complain?  I am certainly not going to accuse the Chinese of engaging in unfair trade practices if they make the stupid decision to devalue their currency to make their goods cheaper for me to purchase.  All I am going to say is "thank you."   If Chinese taxpayers are forced to subsidize my purchases, why should I find fault?  The only thing that enrages me is when the shoe is on the other foot and the Fed, by pursing a weak dollar policy, forces me to subsidize foreign buyers of SDA goods.  I know the value of a dollar and I want it to remain strong.  In the absence of perverse political incentives the dollar could be strong but I live in the real world and understand that perverse political incentives and immoral motivations determine just about everything that happens when career politicians are at work.  I therefore conclude that my dollar will continue to devalue until, at some point, it goes the way of the Continental.  The million dollar question (quite literally) is, when will that happen?

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Debating The Minimum Wage

Socialists, like all of the present candidates for King/Queen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, love to talk about a government mandated minimum wage.  It is not surprising that in a monarchical election year we should hear a lot about this magical socialist program that is lauded as able to raise people out of poverty, create economic growth and cure cancer.  Career politicians, and those who want to become career politicians, know that spouting a bunch of nonsense about the glories of the minimum wage is sure to garner a lot of votes from an envy-filled and socialistic voting public.
Recently a couple of letters have been written to the editor of the Denver Post and a debate, of sorts, has been taking place over the relative merits or demerits of the minimum wage. Normally I would not bother to comment on such an inane topic but some of the things that were written sent me into a rage, thus forcing me to sit down and write this blog post.  Let me tell you all about the vast reservoir of ignorance that exists in the minds of socialists who think about the minimum wage.
The salvos began when Gordon Halloran wrote a letter asserting, "the minimum wage law was implemented to keep employers from taking advantage of young and inexperienced employees in entry-level jobs."   That single comment tells me all I need to know about Gordon.  Gordon is a union man.  Gordon hates profit seeking businesses.  Gordon believes that profit seeking businesses are evil and will exploit anyone and anything in the world they might come into contact with.  Gordon, in a word, is a socialist.
The concept that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which created the first federally mandated minimum wage, was enacted to "keep employers from taking advantage of young and inexperienced employees" is complete fiction.  Gordon, and all socialists, do not understand (or are unwilling to believe) that in the free market labor services are a commodity just like any other commodity.  As such they have a market price.  Skilled labor services can command a higher price and scarce labor services can command a higher price as well.  Commanding the lowest price of all are unskilled labor services when there are many people willing to sell them.  Henry Ford introduced the assembly line in 1913.  It was not long until manufacturing was revolutionized and assembly lines were being created to produce all sorts of goods.  Operating an assembly line is generally a low-skill job and many people who were selling their labor services were qualified to perform it.  This economic reality kept a lid on wages and allowed many people of low skill to enter the workplace.
Low skilled workers at companies with assembly lines wanted to earn higher wages but the free market would not bear them.  Too many high school kids were willing to drop out of school and enter the labor market to earn money for their families, thus keeping the supply of unskilled labor high and wages low.  In most cases this was a very good idea as the parents could use the additional income and the child could get out of a government school that was not teaching him anything of value for his future life.  Yes, it is true.  In the old days people recognized that not everyone was a scholar and bound for college.  Almost nobody believed the patently absurd notion that everyone should go to college.  People recognized that many people should be blue-collar workers and tradesmen and those young men were encouraged to enter the workplace as soon as possible.  The market would become the "college" for many young men and that was a very good state of affairs, until the unions got involved.
The unions wanted to not only get monopolistic higher than market wages for the labor skills of their members, they also went into protective mode and sought to eliminate all competition for their labor skills.  The union leaders were aware of economics, unlike today's career politicians, and they realized that the best way to obtain a monopoly on labor services is to exclude cheap competition from the free market.  The best way to do that was to get Congress to enact a law ostensibly designed to "protect children" from having to work for "slave wages" in "sweatshop factories."  The propaganda war was well waged and today nary a soul understands that the minimum wage was created by Congress to obtain the votes of union members by pricing cheap teenage labor out of the assembly line.  It was famously successful and several terrible things resulted.  First, teenage unemployment skyrocketed, harming both the teenagers and the families that were dependent upon teenage income.  Second, teenagers went back to government schools to become bored drones, destined to later go to college and run up massive government loan debts.
Bill Goodrich takes exception to Gordon's caricature of the minimum wage.  Bill claims that the minimum wage was "implemented to improve the lot of all the working poor -- young, old and in between."  I am not quite sure where Bill is getting his information.  If that was the intention of the career politicians who first enacted the federal minimum wage it has not worked out that way.  The minimum wage has hurt the poor more than any other class, regardless of its original intent.
Bill goes on to deliver a brief lesson in economics.  I quote it in its entirety here because it serves as a perfect example of what passes for economic understanding among the citizens of the SDA these days.  Bill writes, "According to economics, reducing their workforce is employers' least likely immediate response to an increase in costs due to a higher minimum wage.  Staffing levels are driven by current and anticipated demand, rather than by cost.  Especially in the kinds of businesses that are likely to pay minimum or near minimum wage.  History confirms it."  I think we can figure out what Bill is trying to say, despite his incomplete sentences.
Bill claims that an employer will employ people based exclusively upon his anticipated future needs for employees and with total disregard to what those employees will cost his firm.  Has anyone who has ever operated a business truly behaved in this fashion?  Is it not the case that the very first thing an employer will do is project what his future payroll will cost his firm?  Is it not the case that decisions about how many new employees to hire will be based upon the projected profitability of those decisions?  What employer or manager in his right mind would say that he is going to double his workforce because he expects great future demand for his product without even considering what that action will cost him and whether he can remain profitable even under the conditions of increased demand?  I know one thing for sure about Bill....he has never managed a business.
Although Bill confidently announces that "economics" teaches him that an increased minimum wage will have little to no effect upon company hiring, just the opposite is actually the case.  Bill believes that companies that operate on thin margins, he calls them "businesses that are likely to pay the minimum wage," are least likely to care when a government rule raises his cost of doing business.  On the contrary, the very companies that are operating on the margin are those that will either go out of business or cut back on employees when minimum wage laws are enforced.  I don't know what history Bill speaks of when he alleges that "history confirms" his belief that raising the minimum wage does no harm to marginal business enterprises but it is not the history of any marginal producer in the SDA.
Let's cut to the chase.  If raising the minimum wage does not do any economic harm; indeed, if it does only economic good like creating economic growth and curing cancer, let's all agree to raise the minimum wage to $1000/hour effective immediately.  What harm could it cause?  If you object and say I am being unreasonable, then answer one question for me.  Where does the minimum wage go from being good to being harmful?  I want to know the exact amount.  Is it $15/hour, $30/hour, $100/hour or the $1000/hour I am proposing.  And then, after you tell me the exact amount, please explain to me how you know that.   I can't wait to read your answer.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Meaningless Moments Of Silence

I finally got around to reading my Sunday paper yesterday and now I wish I had not.  I sat down with a big bowl of mac and cheese to read the paper and ended up almost upchucking my dinner when I flipped to the second page and was visually assaulted by a photograph of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton observing a "moment of silence."  The photo was so offensive I had to set my dinner aside while I pondered just how terrible it is when people seeking to be the next King/Queen of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika make the voluntary and conscious decision to mock the God of the Bible.
The photograph showed the Democratic candidates for King/Queen upon a raised platform, heads bowed, eyes closed and hands clasped in front of themselves, assuming the typically western pose for prayer.  The caption to the photo informed me that "Democratic presidential hopefuls pause for a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris terrorist attacks prior to the start of the second Democratic presidential debate."  That got me to thinking about the utterly meaningless concept of a moment of silence.  Just what is a moment of silence anyway?
Now I am the first to admit that, when in the presence of career politicians, a moment of silence is a good thing.  In fact, I am in favor of more than just a moment of silence from them.  How about an entire day of silence?  Or even better yet, how about an entire year in which the career politicians keep their mouths shut and utter nary a word?  I can see some utility to the moment of silence if it gives us all the opportunity to not have to hear what comes from the mouths of those who wish to rule over us for a while.  Sadly, that is not what they believe a moment of silence is all about.
The caption to the photograph informed me that the moment of silence was "for the victims of the Paris attacks."  What in the world does that mean?  They are all dead.  How can anything be done for them now?  All of the people who died in the various terrorist attacks in Paris are already slotted into their proper places in either heaven or hell and there is nothing we can do for them now.  The time to help our fellow men is when they are alive, not after they are dead.  What possible significance can be attributed to holding a moment of silence in their honor?  How can they possibly benefit from a bunch of career politicians pretending to pray for them when their fates are already sealed?  Prayer for the dead is like prayer to Santa Claus, it just doesn't work.  If the moment of silence is meant to be some sort of prayer on behalf of the dead it would be better for us to to keep our eyes open, our heads raised and our hands in their usual state of reaching out for a government handout.
Why do people, including career politicians, assume a pose of prayer during moments of silence?  There is nothing in the social rule book that I am aware of that requires it.  I know when I am at a baseball game and the public announcer informs me that we are about to experience a moment of silence for some person or group of people who are recently dead I just sit there quietly and listen to the birds twerp and tweet.  It usually ends up being a pleasant moment and I avoid the wrath of God by not pretending to pray for the souls of people He has already judged.  I never know any of the people for whom I am theoretically having a moment of silence anyway and even if I did I would not waste my time praying for a person who is already dead and judged by God.
Bernie and Hillary are God-hating pagans.  I know, I know...Hillary believers will inform me that she is a Methodist.  Like I said, Bernie and Hillary are God-hating pagans.  They both despise the God of the Bible.  They both have committed themselves to a lifetime of behaviors that are contrary to the revealed will of God for mankind, all of which are called sins by the way.  They are both bound for the Lake of Fire in the Eternal State if they do not repent of their sins.  Perhaps most importantly for the purpose of the moment of silence, they both hate the God of the Bible with an intense passion.  So I have to know, just what god are they addressing when they pray to it during one of their moments of silence?
Based upon their behavior I can only see one god in their lives.  That god is the god of government, of which they are an important part.  Their god ends up being themselves, as those beneficent elitists who will rule over us commoners.  Based upon what both Bernie and Hillary have said and done for as long as I have been aware of their existence I am forced to conclude that when they have a moment of silence they are thinking about themselves.  I wonder what they are thinking?  I bet Bernie was thinking that he would really like to stick it to some profit-seeking corporation and turn the company's profits over to some favored political group that he wants to vote for him.  I bet Hillary was thinking that the pants suit she was wearing looked really smart and was sure to garner some votes for her from the pants suit wearing constituency.  One thing is for sure, neither of them was thinking about the God of the Bible.
One of my favorite nonsense statements so common in the post-Christian and post-modern society in which we live is "we are sending out our thoughts and prayers to this person or group of people who just died."  That is allegedly what is happening when people observe a moment of silence.  During the moment pictured in the newspaper I believe both Bernie and Hillary would say they were sending out their thoughts and prayers to some people who were then dead but who had been alive in Paris a couple of days earlier.  Now just what does that mean?  What does it mean to "send out" a thought or a prayer?  And just where do those thoughts and prayers go when they are sent out?  And what is the content of the thought or the prayer that is allegedly being sent out?  I suspect if we could pin Bernie and Hillary down and force them to answer those questions honestly they would be required to admit that it is all theater and nothing more.  Neither of them prays to God and most certainly neither of them have any thoughts about the people who died in the Paris terrorist attacks, unless it is how to exploit the situation to appear compassionate and hopefully get more votes in the next monarchical election.   Even if Bernie and Hillary were somehow able to conjure up some thought for a dead person I suspect, if they were honest, they would admit that the thought they conjured was "sent" to the government and the career politicians who run it.  For Bernie, Hillary and most of the idolatrous citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika, government is god and the source of all that is good and right in the world.  So if thoughts and prayers are to be sent anywhere they will be sent to the government in the hope that new laws will be made and signed into law that will ensure that terrorist attacks never happen again.  Good luck with that.  Government has created thousands of laws to make sure things never happen again.  How are those laws working out?
I am thankful that my God is the God of the Bible.  I don't have to have moments of silence set aside to pray to Him to do something for the bodies and souls of people who are already dead and that I never knew.  I also don't have to pretend to care about people I don't know and who are now dead.  And most importantly, I do not have to practice the hypocrisy of pretending to pray to Him when I am really praying to the god of civil government.  That will save me from a lot of future judgment. 

Monday, November 16, 2015

"Whiteness Studies" Students Are All Racists

I feel comfortable (is there anything more important than that?) with the title of today's blog post primarily because I am not white.  I am Welsh and I know a thing or two about subjugation and enslavement.  At one time or another in my history my people were enslaved by the Irish, the Scots, the Angles, the Saxons, the Normans, the Vikings and the occasional Icelander who wandered across the ocean in search of fish to catch and Welshmen to enslave.  So don't go getting all high and mighty on me because you think you have a racial history of sordid enslavement worse than mine.  You don't and you probably never will.
That having been said it is important to note that white people are racists by definition.  A racist, as I understand the term (and in a post-modern world my understanding of a word is what defines that word), is a white person (only white people can be racist) who hates everyone else because they are not white like him.  Racist hatred expresses itself in many forms but the primary expression of white hatred for others, mostly black people, is the fact that white people create, operate and profit from business operations in the free market.  When white people create businesses that exist to serve the interests of consumers, including black consumers, by providing consumers goods and services for prices they are willing to pay in a voluntary exchange of goods and cash they are behaving as hate-filled racists.  Why, you might ask?  Because according to black people all businesses must exist to give money and jobs to black people far out of proportion to their representation in society lest they be deemed black-hating racists.  Anyone who does not believe in the religious tenets of socialism is necessarily a racist black-hater because he has denied the fact that black people have a moral claim on the wealth and income of white people who have created profit-seeking businesses in this envy-filled country. 
No doubt  you think I am exaggerating when I write that whites are racist by definition.  Today I will prove that point.  We all know that whites are racist when they call blacks niggers.  Only blacks are permitted to call other blacks niggers.  When a white person does that he is a racist.  We also all know that when white people mind their own business and pay no attention, either positive or negative, to blacks and treat them as if they were just like any other human being, whites are behaving racistly (I just made that word up and you have to accept it because I use post-modern language.  If you do not accept my term you are guilty of hating Welsh people.) because of the existence of institutional racism.  According to black people, institutional racism is every behavior engaged in by a white person that is in the context of some institution.  When a white person starts a business, admittedly a type of institution, he is a racist when he either sells or does not sell whatever he produces to black people.  When a white person gets a government job, like Chancellor of a government funded university, he is a racist because a university is an institution and he is white.  About the only way a white person can avoid the charge of being an institutional racist is if he becomes Robinson Crusoe and lives by himself, without a Friday, on a deserted island.  Even then, I suspect, blacks would call him a racist because he decided to go into exile without first consulting them for permission to do so.  Or if he did first consult a black prior to his self-imposed exile it would be asserted that he did so in a condescending and racist fashion. 
Until recently I have believed that blacks appreciated it when white people pretended to like them and say nice things about them.  I thought that blacks appreciated it when white people tried to do nice things for them as well.  Then, last week, I discovered that I was wrong.  When white people try to do nice things for black people that is racism as well.  Any and all whites who try to do nice things for blacks need to have their incomes confiscated by the omniscient and beneficent civil government and transferred to black people simply because those black people are all descendants of slaves and all whites are racist.  Do you think I exaggerate once again?  Not so.  Let me tell you a story.
I think we all know the story of the alleged racist events that took place at the University of Missouri (congratulations to the Royals, by the way) last week.  College students at the University of Colorado, being the sympathetic and compassionate group that they are,  wanted to show their solidarity with the black students in Missouri (congratulations to the Chiefs, by the way).  A group of white students who were enrolled in a class called "Whiteness Studies" which, according to the Denver Post, is a "sociology class on racial inequality" decided to hold a rally on campus to protest racism and show support for all oppressed black people around the country.  According to an article in the Denver Post, here is what happened:
"But when event details went public, leaders of CU's Black Student Alliance said they had not been consulted and felt as if they were being silenced by the class.  'It's not anyone that is being affected telling the story, it's only white people telling the story,' said Paris Ferribee, co-president of CU's Black Student Alliance.  She said the group that organized the rally on campus stifled the voices of African-Americans and other marginalized students at CU by shutting them out of the conversation.  'That is a slap in the face and that is practicing racism, whether they want to believe it or not.  They used their white privilege and oppressed voices and stifled voices that are experiencing this every day,' said Ferribee."
Did you get all that?  A bunch of white students enrolled in a class telling them how horribly racist they are  decided to absolve themselves of some moral guilt by showing support for black students in Missouri and the mere fact that they wanted to do so was an example of "white privilege" and extreme racial prejudice against blacks in both Colorado and Missouri.  How, you might ask, did they harm the black students?  According to the black students union at CU they were harmed by the white students because their proposed rally was somehow going to "oppress" and "stifle" the voices of black students at CU who experience horrible racial discrimination on a daily basis.  How, you might ask, could the mere holding of a rally be an act of offensive oppression?  Answer:  Because the students holding the rally are white and whites, by definition, are all racists all the time.
It is hard to imagine a more wildly stupid state of affairs than what passes today for discussion about racism.  Blacks are apparently too stupid to realize that when something is everything it is nothing.  But whites share in the stupidity as well (thankfully I am Welsh and exempt from both white and black stupidity).  After being informed that their desire to hold a rally in support of black students was an oppressive act of racism the white students in the "Whiteness Studies" class issued this statement, "We acknowledge that we should have contacted the Black Student Alliance to see what they were already planning with regard to Mizzou.  While we understand that this does not excuse our actions, we learned a lesson in proper allyship (they made that word up but that is okay in a post-modern university).  We still hope to work with the Black Student Alliance to support your efforts and to stand in solidarity with black students."  I don't know how the white students could have groveled any better before their black masters, do you?
As a Welshman I have no horse in the racist race.  That gives me the ability to have an objective view of the current state of white-black relations and what I see is quite clear to me.  Although blacks constantly speak about their history of slavery it is quite clear that the table has been turned.  Whites are now the slaves of blacks.  How can I make that assertion?  Consider the following:
  • White slaves in college must ask permission of their black student masters prior to saying anything about socio-political events around the country.  Even the act of asking permission is deemed offensive by their black masters so the white students can expect a good dressing-down no matter what they do. That sounds a lot like the way communication took place between black slaves and their white masters in the old south, only the roles have been reversed. 
  • Whites, by definition, behave immorally anytime a black person is present. Indeed, whites behave immorally anytime they think about a black person, or don't think about a black person, or forget about a black person, or don't forget about a black person.  I think you get the point.  Whites are enslaved to the politically correct speech and thought patterns of their black masters.  No matter what whites say and no matter what whites think they are always labeled racists and the more they try to defend themselves from the unjust charge of racism the more they are labeled racists.  There is no way for any white person to escape this condition of  slavery to blacks.
  • Slaves always have the product of their labors stolen from them by their masters.  According to this study, "blacks comprise 13.6 percent of the U.S. population according to the 2010 Census, but account for only 1.4 percent of the top 1 percent of households by income. Whites are the overwhelming majority of the top 1 percent of households by income, comprising 96.2 percent." Since the top 1% of the income population pays almost a third of the entire federal budget, it is necessarily the case that whites are enslaved to blacks as significant percentages of white income is transferred to black people through the wealth redistribution apparatus of the federal government.
  • White businessmen, especially in the technology field, are expected to work for their black masters.  Go here for the story about how whites are expected to serve their black masters in the business world by creating jobs for them and installing them into positions they are not qualified for.  The white business owners are also expected to pay black board members higher salaries than they are worth in order to maintain the fiction that they really know what they are doing.  Anyone who protests this situation is immediately labeled a racist and forced to recant, repent or be driven out of business.
  • Blacks can beat up on white people with impunity.  Whenever a white person does something to a black person it makes the nightly news.  Whenever a black person does something to a white person there is a previously agreed to gag-order placed upon the story. If the story gets reported at all it will be in race-neutral terms.  Go here for a perfect example of this sort of white slavery. 
  • The "Black Lives Matter" campaign is clearly an example of black master-hood over white slaves.  The simple fact that black lives matter and white lives are ignored proves that white lives do not matter.  Like the slaves they are, whites are shot and killed by the cops much more often than black people but nobody cares about the insignificant life of another white slave. Go here for the story.  Whites can be lynched with impunity, just like blacks were in the old south.
  • One of the characteristics of a slave state is the fact that the civil government enforces rules against the slaves as well as engages in a constant barrage of propaganda designed to reinforce the institution of racism that exists in the country.  Children in government schools are instructed, if they are white, to mind their place and worship and adore the black leaders who have gone before them.  No example is better suited to illustrate this aspect of black master-hood and white slavery than the fawning adoration that is given to the socialist adulterer by the name of Martin Luther King each year.  Go here and here for the story.
As a Welshman I feel sorry for both whites and blacks.  I feel sorry for whites because it hurts to be enslaved to another race that has all of the social and political power. I feel sorry for the blacks because it damages their very souls to have all of the social and political power and to use that power to subjugate white people.  Mostly I am just glad that I am Welsh and that my people moved past being slaves decades ago.  We don't even think about it any more.  We get along with the Irish, the Scots, the Brits and even the occasional Icelander.  We don't try to gain political power and privilege over them and they do the same for us.  We have moved on and we are all much healthier, wealthier and happier for it.  Maybe blacks and whites should move on too?