31 March 2009

We're In Good Company

Share
Sometimes people who agree with me feel afraid to share their opinions. The media have us believe that most of America (60%) supports the President and that conservative ideas are outdated. Many of the things I choose to tackle are considered controversial, and so people don't want to alienate friends or lose connections.

However, the more I read, the more I come across extremely controversial ideas put forth by great thinkers who in general agree with me. We Conservatives share our ideas with Bastiat, von Mises, Smith, Locke, Montesquieu, Adams, Jefferson, Plato, Cicero, Moses, etc. Our ideas are time-tested and shared with people whose names are not unknown to the world.

The Envirostatists yell very loudly that we are wrong. Who's on their side? Marx, Lenin, Trotzky, Nero, Hitler, Mousollini, Putin, Castro, etc?

We are in the right.

A man may be known by the company he keeps. We share our ideas and ideals with the greatest thinkers and philosophers of all time. There is nothing wrong with us.

30 March 2009

Truth in the Darkness

Share
While looking back through my pictures from DC, I found this one that I wish to make one of my campaign slogans, special thanks to IKEA furniture. I didn't expect to find such an indelible truth like this in the shadow of the Obama inauguration...

Photobucket


Like it or not, if we want to fix this country, it must begin in the home of every good American. Years ago in a radio address, a great American, President Ronald Reagan, said this:

All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.

If we are going to change the direction America is headed, it must begin in the home, with the rising generation. I was talking to a friend earlier who asked me if I was ready to bring children into this world, and I asked her if she could think of any better man than I to birth children into this world. Yes, there is work. Yes, there is heartache. Yes, there are rewards. My life is testament to the rewards of a life of virtue.

The girls of which I lately wrote are being taught the wrong things in their lives. They are probably not being corrected at the dinner table. Many parents turn their kids over to Wii and TV to babysit and entertain their children instead of seeing to their responsibility to raise up virtuous men and women of character.

Instead of going home and paying homage to the paper, House, CSI, and the like, entertaining though they may be, I urge Americans to make an investment in the intellectual heritage of this nation and take the reigns of education in their families. Remember that tyranny is built from the top down. Liberty begins at home. That's where values are learned. Don't make them wait 20 years to come to a person such as I in a classroom who has to turn back 20 years of ignorance in a paltry 33 hours maximum of class time during the semester. There's only so much I can do.


This image is proprietary, but the theme is copyright of IKEA Corp.

29 March 2009

Dangers of Climate Change Legislation

Share
Last night I overheard some teenage girls making a ruckass during the Hour of Darkness garbage proposed for 830PM Saturday night. They stood adjacent to a freeway overpass, and they were trying somehow to "inspire" drivers on the freeway to heed this asinine event. For several reasons I took occassion to their ignorance and decided to comment on the banality of their exercise in futility.

Their encouragement took the form of cursing and cadjolling. Instead of giving people a positive reason to participate, advocates of this event will as these girls result to personal attacks and profanity against those who choose not to participate.


Ironically, the target audience of their efforts cannot possibly acquiesce to their request as they drive down the freeway with their lights on. Obviously ignorant of the dangers, these girls stood alongside the freeway asking drivers to turn their lights off at night on the freeway. If the girls weren't careful, they could have been killed. If the girls were successful, they might have occassioned the death of someone else.

Fact of the matter is, these girls were obviously ignorant of the minute impact they were having on the whole. What hubris of man to assume that he can change the climate of a world much more complex and powerful than he. We can't predict the weather a week ahead of time; how can we predict climate as a whole next year, next century, or millenia hence? How can we alter it? Outside of the microcosm of a small experimental cylinder, we cannot control anything, and the little bit of difference a single person's reduction in use might exert on the earth as a whole is statistically significant. Do you know how many more coyotes, pronghorn, desert tortoises, and the like could be killed by motorists on NV roadways on any given night if motorists drove around with their lights off?


People want to feel like they're doing something that matters, so they sign up when Hollywood starlets and rich CEOs from WWF, the Sierra Club, and other organizations endorse something. However, these people don't actually do anything to change the world. They pretend for a living, or in the latter cases, they convince other people to do it themselves. Most of them would never roll up their sleeves to muck out a stable or help an old lady change a flat. They want you to do the work, to pay the costs, to fit the bill, and give them the credit.


In the end, the irony is that if we don't use the energy someone else will. If we don't burn the oil and coal, China will, and they have zero environmental controls and regulations in place which means that if other countries burn the fossil fuels, there will be MORE total pollution than if they were burned in our country, fewer American jobs, and more suffering in general in the world. Listening to Hollywood starlets who PRETEND to do something all day instead of actually contributing to society will not deliver us to the promised panacea. These people say whatever their employers tell them to. They work for the highest bidder. They are, in other words, paid to lie.


Don't change society for a lie. Don't pass dangerous laws predicated on half truths and whole lies. There's too much danger to risk that.

27 March 2009

They Say They Want Balance...

Share
Today I was listening to how Bobby Jindal governor of Louisiana signed a bill into law that allows creationism to be taught in schools. Some people are really outraged by this. How dare we possibly do anything they don't want, but when they want something we don't want, we're being "unreasonable", "radical", "intolerant", "selfish", etc.

This bill did not replace evolution with intelligent design. They still teach both in LA schools. We do not overwrite their views in favor of our own matrix, but that's what Envirostatists want to do. They cannot abide alternative viewpoints. Conservatives don't care if both views are presented; there's nothing wrong with that, but the Envirostatist must have his propaganda proselytized exclusively or it's not "fair".

Quite frankly, many things that we have permitted in the educational bastions of statism don't belong. Crap science like global warming doesn't belong. We need to stop teaching Ebonics and Spanish versions of classes to encourage people to assimilate since the common language is English and the common currency is the Dollar.


When the Envirostatist stand up for their agenda, they mash their opponents into the ground. For them, although they want coexistance with nature, there can be no coexistance with alternative views. They attempt to make their enemies look weird, narrow-minded, and bigoted when in reality their opponents are the exact opposite because they consider allowing those things to comingle with their own ideology. Conservatives are all about live and let live.

For socialists in America, there is no real choice. It's a lot like Disney's version of Peter Pan where Hook's crew tells Wendy to join the crew. "You'll love the life of a thief, you'll cherish the life of a crook. There isn't a boy who won't enjoy working for Captain Hook..." In that story, there was a "choice": join the crew, or walk the plank. That's how the Statist operates. Choose to join us or die. Henry Ford first phrased this ironic state of affairs well when he told automobile purchaseers: "You can have a Model T in any color as long as it's black." But color is another story entirely...

26 March 2009

Hail! Seizer!

Share
Since my mind works weird with words, I often hear things incorrectly. My sister probably remembers when I thought Celine Dion was singing, "Steal the Wine" instead of "Still the One". As a result, today I had an interesting thought that segued well to the topic in mind.

Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Rome as part of my reading of Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws. I think it's Part 3 where he talks about the Roman Republic, and of course as a result I think about gladiators, baths, and Ceasar. The president was saying something yesterday, and I found myself saying, "Hail Ceasar" when I lighted upon another thought. Obama is the Great Seizer- he will take anything and everything from anyone and everyone.

Despite his massive wealth, he donates less than 1% to charity. His brothers still live in poverty, and I heard his aunt is about to get deported. He has great
health care, school choice, and a black limosine. He just doesn't want YOU to have those things. We should give them our treasure, pay reparations, because we suck and need to apologize for what we have done to the rest of the world. If only government had more of our money, they could use it far better that we could (unless you're Tom Daschle). Obama wants to cut back on emissions which has and will continue to result in layoffs at automobile plants, steel factories, and coal mines, even though those people voted for them.

I saw the old version of the Manchurian Candidate the other day, and one scene really hit home. The Chinese guy, while plotting the overthrow of Western society, talks about how he's headed to Macy's to shop for his wife. Once he gets his way and America goes socialist, such a notion would no longer be possible. They despise our society in the midst of profitting therefrom.


Pretty soon, we'll all be marching around in crisply ironed brown shirts like the Hitler Youth. Beware the dyes and starch!

25 March 2009

Inspired by Watson and Crick

Share
I just finished reading James Watson's memoirs of his discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. As a result, in class this week, I was able to comment on some of the main tenants of science, as well as what appeared to be the take home message of Watson's having written this memoir.

Many people don't like Watson. I had a few students who didn't, and I know that a while back when he claimed that blacks were intellectually inferior they took away his Nobel Prize. Obviously, they have never read his book. Hardly a single coherant sentence escapes their mouths before they begin assaulting the character of the man instead of arguing against his substantive scientific argument.

Aside from the science for which I recommend this work I also encourage it because it taught me the following lesson that I underscored to my students:

Don't let anyone dissuade you from what you know to be right.



Watson didn't know how he knew. He didn't know why he was right. By degrees, he came to that knowledge. All of his colleagues told him he was barking up the wrong tree. Rosalynd Franklin adamantly held her position that the crystal structures didn't support his assumptions. In the end, they DO support the final model.

Stand fast in your values. Stop listening to uneducated yapping dogs who don't know much about History, don't know much Trigonometry, don't know much about Science book, don't know much about the French they took... As you grow in knowledge and experience, you will find the strength to weather the tide and do great things. I was inspired, and I know you will be too.

24 March 2009

All For One and More For Me

Share
Just before my jog this morning I got some distressing and irritating news. The good result is that I ran my 10K in 52 minutes. The bad news is that if Geithner and Obama get their way, they will have lain the foundation for the death of the western world.

Note the language of the article. He SEEKS POWER to SEIZE. So, he admits he does not have the power or the right, and he would have to seize, or take forceably. Where in Sam Houston did he get the idea that he can take power unto himself? Government gets its power from the people, and I don't know about you but I don't have power, despite the stock shares I own, to force any company into federal receivership. There is zero constitutional authority to do this.

King Obama I, this idiot, thinks that just because he defeated McCain in 2008 that he now has power and brains to run everything everywhere better than anyone anywhere despite lacking any evidence in support thereof. He has never run anything successfully, not even a presidential campaign. He won because McCain was lousy, not because he was good. Obama doesn't have a degree or any practical experience in any field except for his law degree, but all of that changed last November when he suddenly became clairevoyant upon election to the presidency. All he does well is party and nationalize industry. Shoot, even I can bowl higher than 129.

The NEvada Highway Patrol turned me away because I lacked a degree in criminal justice. Yet the president, bereft of any experience or education in business, wants us to think he can do anything we can do better. That about sums up the argument of what Mark Levin refers to as Envirostatists. He believes in government.

Obviously, Obama has never read Montesquieu. Montesquieu, from whom the Founding Fathers took much of the framework for our Federal Republic reminds us that the created is never greater than the creator. Perhaps that's why Envirostatists are also generally atheists, agnostics, and environmentalists- in those religions, THEY are gods unto themselves, but I digress.

Last Spring, I went to William Penn's home. There, I read the following:

Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them; and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them are ruined too. Wherefore governments rather depend upon men, than men upon governments. Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.

Government is spoiled. Obama will ruin your life. People in industries who voted for Obama will suffer under spread misery of a concerted effort to control men and make them poorer. You are not real to Envirostatists. You are a disease. If you succeed, you are a cancer to communism. They will march on listening to what they want to hear regardless of its truth. They will put coal miners, steel workers, automobile assemblymen, ad infinitum out of work, in the middle of a recession and take that as license to nationalize everything they can.

Obama and his ilk are wrong. They are idiots. Their lust for power cannot be slaked. God save us.

Next year, every one of you needs to become an American Aristocrat. I believe it was John Adams who defined an aristocrat as he who controls more than one vote. Get out and talk to your neighbors. Get them to go vote, and educate them so that they can vote correctly. Stand for freedom. Stand for the Constitution, before Obama, who took an OATH to defend it, rips it to shreds before our eyes. I have stood in the Archive Rotunda. It is real to me, and so are each one of you.

23 March 2009

Bonusgate Scandal

Share
Some people seem shocked that I’m not bothered by Bonusgate. What bothers me most is not how AIG pisses away $165 million but how the Obama Administration under the guise of fairness will piss away $10 trillion. AIG will “waste” about 1/10th of 1% of what Obama proposes to waste through fraud and abuse.

My last employer gave bonuses for performance. Although we earned a competitive and fair wage for our hourly employ, certain work benchmarks were designed to allow us opportunity to share in the profits of our labor. However, due to mismanagement, it inevitably ended that we, the hourly workers, rarely if ever received tuppence for our work. Rest assured management pocketed their bonuses. That’s probably partly why they refused to promote me (because they’d have to replace their #1 hourly worker and take a lower bonus) and refused to fire me when I spoke up to bad leadership. However, their neglect of my concerns, which were shared among the general working body, kept us inexorably in a position where due to accidents, training, damages, and the like we never qualified for a bonus.

Relatively soon after I left, but not necessarily due to my official letter of resignation, the home office terminated the general manager, who had been with the company for seven years. The organization had languished with problems in turnover and productivity, and although I had nothing against D.P., since he bears ultimate responsibility, they replaced him. I hope things are looking up, but I doubt it. The 600 of us they hired were the top 1% of applicants, and many of those they hired were no prize. If they don’t do something to reward the people who get the job done, ultimately this locale if not the corporation entire will fold under the weight of incompetence in high echelons.

In a privately run organization dependent on customers who purchase products to furnish monies to the operating costs of a company, the manipulation of a bonus system can only go so far before the assets of the company fold and it collapses like a house of cards. The reason why I worry more about government is that its revenue stream depends not on the quality of the goods and services it produces but upon the size of its population and the industry of each individual therein. Under a government that awards bonuses and pelf on false pretenses, it can collapse only when the people are so wasted that there remains no product of labor to bequeath to each feudal vassal or that the people rebel there against and overthrow the government. Business poorly run eventually collapses under the weight of mismanagement. Governments poorly run can only be overthrown in exchange for the lifeblood of their people. When that sad moment comes, the most vibrant and productive members of society will be spent in heaps upon the ground, their potential gone, their lifeblood useful for nothing more than fertilizer upon ground in which to hopefully plant a successful subsequent attempt.

When my employer cited me for “insubordination”, I told my manager that the only recourse remaining to me was to leave the organization. When I left, the general manager asked me what he could do to change my mind and keep me. I told him, “You should have been doing it for the last year.” I have never been easily replaceable. Not many people will give 130% as a RULE for 100% of the pay, and Americans sure as shooting will not invest 200% the effort to keep society working for the drones and losers who constantly gripe about apparent slights and wouldn’t lift a finger to get the job done. They “deserve” nothing. They drag down our entire society. I don’t know what the people at AIG did to get bonuses, but I know that sometimes deserving people receive them and that also sometimes deserving people get shafted.

In Tolkien’s novel, Gandalf responds to Frodo’s objection that life isn’t fair with this statement, “Many that live deserve death. Many that die deserve life. Will you give it to them?” IT is not for us to be fair and equal. It is for us to be JUST. Justice in the end demands that the laws be followed. Obama would do well to remember that.

God’s justice will be done.

21 March 2009

Searching for Truth in Science

Share
A few weeks ago, one of my students stayed after we were done with the day's activities to ask me some questions. She had caught hold rightly of the impression that I don't think much of most scientists. I spend time during the first or second lab period of every section instilling a healthy dose of skepticism into them about science, scientists, and the scientific method, and she wanted some advice per se.

That particular week, I had handed them back the workbooks and pointed out a particularly poignant way in which a student, novice that he is in science, worded his conclusion. At the end, he noted, "We accept it for now", a concession that given the small sample size and limited means of measure it could hardly be extrapolated to be the rule in every case on every scale under every condition, and I wanted them to see it done correctly.

Much of science is ego. Everyone wants to publish this or that and win fame and fortune and accolades. In the process however this very attitude makes of us all enemies and discourages cooperation and collaboration since we basically descend to the state at which we pursue cutthroat competition in a hasty effort to beat others to the punch. Such is the sentiment expressed by James Watson, Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the Structure of DNA, in this statement from his own account of the aforementioned endeavor:
A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull but also just stupid.

This man recently lost his Nobel Prize for a "racially insensitive remark". What he actually said was this about the African race:
"All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"


We have built a societal norm on sameness because that's what we want it to be. We don't want pain or differences or struggle. We want to be the same, regardless of the truth. In her novel "The Giver", Lois Lowry addresses that this choice to ablate the obvious fact of the matter is to do the greatest injustice intelligent beings can do to one another- lie. All the claims are lies, and scientists, who themselves excel thereat, complicit in that campaign ignore the truth in order to avoid pain.

Fact of the matter is that the truth is sometimes painful. Just because a man has a PhD or an MD doesn't make him smarter than you. Just because he's published papers doesn't mean he's right. After all, Francis and Pauling thought genes were made of proteins and not DNA.

Scientists have an agenda- they want to be right, even if they're dead wrong. Do you want that kind of a physician caring for you- one who'd rather think he's right because we awarded him high marks or one who really is right because he paid the price for greatness? Dr. Watson is a brave man. In this way at least, he is to us a Giver.

20 March 2009

Homebuying 201

Share
I'm looking for my second home but this time I'll be buying a certified pre-owned home aka a foreclosure. It's been a singularly interesting experience.

The agent to which I was assigned used to sell new homes and as such has never done a resale, let alone a bank foreclosure. She was very kind but very novice, remarking at one point that a particular home needed a lot of work. She even took me out to lunch. I've never had a girl pay for a meal before, and it was quite interesting ;)

I learned a lot. People took a lot of things with them when they lost their homes, and some people described their homes in interesting ways. One of the most important things was leverage: there are so many homes for grabs in the area that I have quite a bit of bargaining power depending on how desperate the bank is.

I found two homes I particularly like and took my parents back to see them. One is basically a plug and play with very room left for change and the other will need a lot of work on the yard but has much more in the way of possibilities. Neither home was as nice as the one my parents own now, but both seemed better to me than ones we've owned previously.


No matter what I pick, a resale foreclosure will need work. I guess I don't really mind that; it will give me something productive to do.
The two homes I like the most so far:
Updated 23 March
But not in particular order.

19 March 2009

Healthcare and the Military

Share
Barack Obama has only announced one cut thus far in his administration yet claims he will cut deficit spending by 25%. The military budget, even if reduced to zero, would not accomplish this goal. What's worse, he's also talking about cutting off healthcare to soldiers wounded in the course of duty. That's a crime.

Illegal aliens can walk over the border, into a health facily, and demand treatment. The military, already citizens and wounded in the line of duty, are now going to be expected to pay for their own healthcare. The former did nothing to earn it; the later earned it but will not receive it.

Nobody I know cares more for veterans than I. My father served in the first Iraq war. I myself tried three years running to join the military and my kid brother is in ROTC trying to enter the USAF as a pilot. We know patriotism, and this is a crime. So also in my opinion is it a crime that UT taxes military retirement...of all states, Utah...

The only thing Obama wants to cut is the only thing Obama ought to be concerned about augmenting. I seem to recall there was a rebellion during the Washington administration about this. We owe the veterans more than that. They have after all, unlike the foreign aliens, earned it.

18 March 2009

Legitimate Government Expenditure

Share
My mother made a comment to a post of mine expressing some concerns and alarm at some of my phraseology. Let me start by saying that I have zero objection to legitimate functions of government. However, any usurpation of authority and plunder by the government to fund projects to which the government has neither right nor authority is in fact stealing.


Anyone who comes out and says I don't support legitimate functions of government misunderstands what I write. I oppose the wanton casting of coinage to the wind after the fashion exemplified in the current administration's fiscal policy. In point of fact, they spend trillions of dollars on pet projects, pork, and peculiarities while cutting the military 10%. If I were the president, one of the first things I would do is increase the DoD budget 10%, including 10% across the board raises for our soldiers. Defense of the nation is a legitimate government expense, and I support it.


As to roads, public facilities, emergency responders and the like, I challenge anyone to show me where the Constitution provides for federal support, control, and fiduciary responsibility for any of those programs. If localities want to provide those as a means of attracting and supporting residents, that is their business, but in the local area for those so inclined there are myriad planned communities where people pay $100-250/month to avail themselves of private amenities. Since I'm paying for public facilities, I choose not to pay that extra fee on top of taxes levied against me. Public facilities do not run efficiently or operate in the black. Public transportation like Amtrak regularly and routinely requires bailouts. The government never does anything as well or efficiently as the private sector, and if people really want those things, an entrepreneur will arise to satisfy that demand instead of everyone being forced by fiat to fund it.


Don't get me wrong. I don't think that every person in government wastes money. I have, as I previously posted, striven to save the University thousands of dollars henceforth and in perpetuity. I was just granted $6000 to buy a machine that will pay for itself in a year and allow us to save $5000/year for as long as we teach Microbiology courses or until the machine breaks for good, whichever comes first. My mother knows full well from personal experience however that agencies as a whole have not taken good care of me, despite the monies exacted from me by force via taxation. I have not had good experiences with law enforcement. I have been stonewalled by federal agencies. All this, and I'm a relative nobody.


Take this personally, and you're bound to disagree, but a dispassionate analysis of this and some accurate introspective into your own experience should help you recall experiences after the same fashion where you have not gotten a good return on your money from the government. Private firms on average, driven by a profit motive (whether ecumenical or fiduciary), always do better than public ones. Government has neither right nor license to interpolate itself into highways, education, recreation, and the like without first receiving permission from the people. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has taken it unto itself, and that's my largest protest, let Henderson/Las Vegas do what they may.

17 March 2009

Governor Gibbons' Street Cred

Share

I read with some irritation that despite having asked all other state workers to swallow a 6% pay cut, the governor’s staff will merit net pay increases in our budget crisis. He makes two arguments for this.

The governor's staff has taken on additional responsibility with the elimination of seven positions
My department has been working below minimal staffing almost since I started working here, and I was hired just before a hiring freeze. Our university has 10% higher enrollment over two years ago, so we’re already doing more with less. My boss has made the Chair and Dean aware of my cost-cutting measures and stood up to faculty who insisted on cost-prohibitive measures in the classroom.

He has not exceeded his office’s budget for wages
I suppose that makes sense, not. We're supposed to present to the governor proposed cuts up to 45% depending on the budget cut, and he's allowed to spend up to the limit for his office's budget. We're not allowed to hire new people, get merit/longevity bonuses, or hire up to full staffing, but he can give someone a pay raise that is half my annual salary. In my department, when I manage to buy $5000 worth of goods for $3000, someone else just spends the $2000 I saved on something else. I guess that's what this really boils down to in his mind- reallocation of assets.


I disagree with the governor's justification. Good leadership and staunch conservativism on which he campaigned (I felt it was a ruse, but what do I know?) depend on clear principles. His taking an inconsistent stance in pay leaves him with zero street credability. Those of us who defended his cuts to education and in other areas, basically across the board, did not support that so that he could reallocate resources into his office. A secretary in his office is getting a $20K pay raise next year, a secretary for crying out loud!


You don't ask people to cut expenditures and then use those funds to bankroll your own pet projects. The governor showed that he's just a demagogue like most politicians, telling us what we want to hear while using largess to purchase votes and loyalty.



Enjoy your single term as governor sir. You shall never have my vote again.

16 March 2009

Geitner Gabbs and Gloats

Share

Sunday, I overheard part of Geitner’s comments to the G20 summit on the economy. Truth be told, it was very hard for me to listen to him. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy “Tax Cheat” Geitner claims that the US Economy depends on a strong global economy. He bespeaks ignorance, willful or otherwise. Facts of the matter clearly demonstrate that the global economy rises and falls in response to our own and not vice versa.

15 March 2009

Slave Trade

Share

Last week, as student of mine came to class wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed her as an ex-slave. Aghast, I asked her at what time she’d been enslaved, to whit she admitted it referenced her ancestors. Quite frankly, this incessant racism inherent in reminiscence of a bygone vexation irritates me, because I know for a fact of the matter that none of my ancestors ever owned a slave and that none of my students and few if any of my fellow citizens were ever in slavery, least of all those born and bred in these United States.

Fact of the matter is that the principle ancestors of most Americans didn’t start the slave trade and weren’t behind bringing it to the Americas. Any idiot with half a brain can Google “West African Slave Trade” and find that out. I quote from Wikipedia…

When slaves first came to America, it wasn’t on account of the British, and they were peppered throughout the Hispanic world. To quote Wikipedia,

The first Europeans to use African slaves in the New World were the Spaniards who sought auxiliaries for their conquest expeditions and laborers on islands such as Cuba and Hispaniola…The first African slaves arrived in Hispaniola in 1501.[53]



Slavery came to replace a different practice among the peoples of sub-saharan Africa. Like the Aztec in the New World, they previously sacrificed war captives to their gods, but the European imperialism created a commercial outlet instead. Again I quote Wikipedia,

The kings of Dahomey sold their war captives into transatlantic slavery, who otherwise would have been killed in a ceremony known as the Annual Customs. As one of West Africa's principal slave states, Dahomey became extremely unpopular with neighbouring peoples.[58][59][60]


Most slaves enslaved by African blacks, regardless of who bought them in the end. According to Wikipedia,

They would actively favor one African group against another to deliberately ignite chaos and continue their slaving activities.[3].”


Ergo, despite accusations of racism, it was blacks who first enslaved other blacks, and not Europeans. Liberals, however, obsessed with race, continue to make mountains out of molehills and perpetuate an offense we did not give against people not alive to be offended. Now, I can’t blame this girl. She only knows what she was taught. Now you know there’s more to it if you only take five minutes to search the internet.

One more thing I want to note: America was the first nation, despite its relatively young age, to abolish slavery, and hundreds of thousands of men died to bring that to pass, and don't you ever forget that the sin of slavery was redeemed in blood, and it's time we let the stain be washed from the nation.

14 March 2009

Liken the Lichens

Share
On my hike Saturday, I made an interesting and silly observation. Referring to scripture to liken things unto us, I decided to Liken the Lichens. Notice how they cling to the Rock of their Redeemer for a strong foundation on which to grow. Yeah, I know it’s silly, but it’s true.

13 March 2009

Finding the Founding Fathers’ Fathers

Share
When I first started researching the Founding Fathers, people asked me if I was related to George Walton, signer of the Declaration of Independence. Cool as it would be, I have thus far been unable to prove any genealogical association with that man, although he may very well be related.

Like George, I found it fascinating that so few of the Founders left descendents, let alone of their own namesake. Many of them had no children or outlived theirs due to war, disease, and the like brought on by George III and the revolution. Even if George and I are relatives, I do not sadly descend from his loins.

Just today I wondered suddenly why we never hear about their parents. I wonder what Washington’s and Jefferson’s fathers thought about the path they undertook. At the time of the revolution, they were men of middle age, in their 50s or 30s respectively, so their fathers might very well have been around. How did they react to what their sons undertook? I wonder this because I have been thinking about how my parents react to my political inclinations, how in our area the Hafens support each other for political office due to family ties, and what that means for the future.

Resolved: in my copious free time, research the Founding Fathers’ Fathers, which should give me some idea of from whence they came so that I can recognize the next generation thereof when it of necessity arises.

12 March 2009

Why I Love Being a Teacher

Share
I don’t earn a ton of money. However, I love what I do, and I believe it’s more important to do something you love and at which you are good than something that earns you a certain amount of money. In the end, you have to love what you do more than you love the money to make it work, which is mostly why my ex-wife’s business ultimately failed.

My students have paid me several compliments over the course of this semester. At the end of class the first week, one of my students told me that he’d worried it would be another boring class from a lame professor but that I was actually pretty cool. Another student who came in for extra help once told me that she could tell that I was passionate about what I do; that it showed that I was not just there for the money.

At the end of every semester, I take memories with me. Back in graduate school, it annoyed my Principle Investigator that I devoted so much time to the students. Fact of the matter was, I devoted time to the things I enjoyed, and as much as I love learning, I loved teaching more than the research rigmarole. My students get nicknames, they’ve brought me cookies, we know about each other’s personal lives, and we acknowledge each other outside of class. One of them even asked me for a letter of recommendation, and one asked me in November what class I was teaching so she could take my class again (it didn’t work out, but it was flattering).

Unfortunately, some of them turn to me for advice and extra help too late. Many of them wait until the last possible minute to get my help, and ten weeks into class, there’s little I can do. Even if they just learn how to do better when they retake this course next semester, I feel like my students actually learn something, and science, and what it teaches us, becomes real to them.

Besides that, I have made myself an asset by being willing to teach these lab courses. Some of the full time faculty hate teaching the classes I teach, and since most have families, they don’t want to teach early morning or late at night, almost vouchsafing for me courses to teach in perpetuity.

I feel like I’m making a difference, and I’m meeting a whole slew of people who learn not only the subject matter but also from my personality. My best friend in High School made a comment recently:

I can only imagine the impact you are having on the students as a professor Doug! Perhaps that is what the Lord had in mind for you... not that your personal agency was ever negated, but that he knew that was where you could do the most good and be happiest. :)

I thank God for curbing my original plan and putting me into a place where I do something I love for an honorable wage.

11 March 2009

Tort Reform

Share
For some time, I’ve tossed around an idea to do away with frivolous lawsuits. I’ve had a few good lawyers, but they, like Lincoln, don’t make much money. In fact, people probably liked facing Lincoln because they knew he wouldn’t defend a guilty man, so if he resigned as counsel, that was probably a good sign that the man was guilty.

People often sue because they have much to gain and little to lose. As such, one good deterrent to people like King of the Hill character Lucky would be to impose rules that dictate that the loser pays all court costs. A man bereft of employ or tangible goods would learn very quickly the folly of frivolity in lawsuits if compelled to pay $50000 for which he could not pay.

My main plan for tort reform works on a tit for tat idea. I propose to limit the amount for which you can sue based on the amount of personal liability for which you pay over the immediately previous time period. For example, if you carry $100,000 in personal liability on your house, that would be the maximum damages for which you could sue. The total liability would be the average carried for the immediately proceeding twelve months, preventing people from taking out large policies immediately precedent to the incident and allow insurance companies to flag risky behavior. For instance, if I upped my coverage from $100K to $10 million, it might indicate I intended to sue. My credit card company does this with charge amounts. Stands to reason insurance companies should do in kind.

This would force people who sue to pay, and give them a stake in the game. It would keep people from suing who held no insurance whatsoever and put more money in the pot for legitimate lawsuits or damage claims and strengthen holdings of insurance companies. It’s not a pariah, but it’s better than wanton frivolity.

Get insurance. Take responsibility.

10 March 2009

Home Ownership is Still a Good Idea

Share
Although a home may not make a terribly good investment, I still think homeownership has its advantages. I just filed my income taxes, and I took it in the throat because all I had was the standard deduction, putting me in the 25% tax bracket. In addition to a tax shelter, a home offers the following advantages for me:


Privacy: I don’t have to share a wall, a yard, or a front door with anyone
Garage space: rental units that come with a garage go first and at a premium
Yard space: since I have dogs and want a garden, this is a must
Equity: since I can buy a home for less per month than I could rent comparable space, I might as well be earning equity so that I can get some of that money back when I sell
Tax leverage: I would love to get back into the 15% tax bracket, so if I’m going to be spending the same amount of money as a rental, at least I can use a home to get some of my own money back from the federal government
A place of my own: if you are working towards owning a home, some day it may be yours. In an apartment, you can be evicted for any reason any time, but kicking you out of your house if you’re paying on time is more difficult.

So, I really hate articles like this one I read yesterday, which claim that home ownership isn’t a good idea. It may not be a panacea, but it has myriad advantages.

On to address the author’s claims:
Houses produce lousy returns compared to stocks.
If you buy a home intending to use it to make money, he’s right. Houses are extremely illiquid, and they tie up money. However, as I said before, I can own a home for the price I’d pay in rent, so why pay rent and get a negative return?

House prices will continue to fall
House prices will rise some day. Everyone needs a place to live, and those who can stay where they’re at until the market recovers will be just fine. This is only a problem if you’re looking for ROI from buying a home.

Houses today are built to waste money
This isn’t so much a function of the homes as much as it is a function of pop culture. Keeping up with the Jones’ may be your thing, but I’m looking at a home in which I can raise my kids (assuming I ever have any) to adulthood. I don’t own much stuff (everything I own fits into a 10x10 storage unit), and I’m intending on initially at least getting a roommate to help offset costs. This way, my home becomes an income generator, even if it just compensates for the increased costs. Also, HVAC units in all the apartments I’ve rented were poorly maintained and cheap models. I do not need a castle, but I don’t need the antiquated systems put in by rental landlords either.

Big houses=higher taxes
You can mitigate this by buying what you need and not what you want. Since I live by a conservative fiscal mantra, I’m buying for future expansion but also way within my means. Also, taxes will go up no matter what you do, especially under the current administration, and you’ll pay more whether you rent or buy, because, as the author points out, renters pay as part of their rent some portion of the landlord’s total tax. As taxes rise, so do rents.

Neighborhoods change

Yes, they do, and they can change just as much whether comprised of homes or comprised of apartments. This is a nonsequitor. My dad works with people who have stayed in the neighborhoods and seen the demographics cycle. If you buy long term and lock in low prices and low rates, then a home makes more sense than renting. Most people do live vehement lives full of upheaval, and so renting may make more sense, but don’t let these people talk you out of buying homes.

That’s just going to prolong the housing crisis.

To answer these critiques, I recommend
The Two Income Trap, which I thoroughly enjoyed and for which endorsement I have received zero compensation (yet).

09 March 2009

GOByN

Share
Another reason why good men don't run is that in order to win elections, you must surrender your allegiance to the political apparatchic. Many of our Founding Fathers opposed the party system for this among other reasons. A man who owes someone else something for getting elected to office is beholden less to the people than to certain members thereof and is therefore already sold out.

I do not belong to the GOByN (Good Old Boy Network). In order to get elected to office in Nevada, I would normally have to apply to certain families, certain corporations, or certain other socio-political organizations to win their endorsement. I am not rich, not well-known, and not a regular devotee and invitee to the various social events at which the movers and shakers move and shake.

Unlike them, however, I know you. I have more than likely been to your town. I have taught or learned with your children. Perhaps I even dated one of them once. I've lived alongside, worked, and chowed with your sons and husbands. I attended your schools, traveled your roads, shopped in your stores. Shoot, I've even eaten at the Nugget in Searchlight.

Unlike Reid or anyone who might be promoted by the party apparati, I am a real person. I drive my own car, change my own oil, drive the same roads, shop in the same stores, pay the same bills, and attend the same churches. We are despite my moral and religious and political code of morays more alike than you think. We should focus on where we are the same and not on where we differ.

You know what your state needs. Vote for someone who agrees. In the end, it will take a grass roots effort going door to door, neighbor to neighbor, town to town to win an election for a good and brave and true statesman, Battle Born. If you don't think that man is on the ballot, then get on the ballot and run that kind of campaign. I spent two years going door to door as a missionary in Austria. How bad can this be?

As for the GOByN. I will meet you anytime anywhere for a debate in the arena of ideas. Bring your intellectual seconds.

08 March 2009

Everyone is attracted to everyone else

Share
After working with a close friend on scientific principles of Galileo, I came up with a new theory on attraction. Physical attraction is a natural phenomenon, and it’s far more overarching than we ever considered.

If you think of the forces of magnetism and other attractive forces, everyone is really attracted to everyone else. These electromagnetic forces are the forces that keep the moon close to the earth while centripetal forces would hurl it out into the solar system. These forces account for the astronomical theories of moon capture by planets like Jupiter which can capture passing comets or planetoids and incorporate them into their orbits on account of their mass.

When two people tell me they’re attracted, I’m not surprised. What surprises me is that some people can avoid attraction, since it’s purely a mathematical relationship of quantum origin. Everyone is attracted to everyone else, and everyone is repulsed by the same when the mass of another comes to close to our solar plexis, because we cannot possibly occupy the same place.

06 March 2009

First Year Deliverables

Share
During the campaign, our president promised us Hope and Change. What I see instead alarms me. Every day I hear a gloomy outlook on the future, and in the White House I see retreads from previous democrat administrations. Hardly a fulfillment of his promises.

So, what would I promise if elected to office? I’ve given that question some thought, because the people expect politicians to do things FOR them, and they judge success of government by what government gets done instead of by what prudence advises government should do.

Obama’s government promises to take care of you. They never promise to take good care of you, but you’ll have some food, some shelter, and something to do, even if it’s rice in a shack sewing shoes. I don’t know why he’s hung up on creating jobs. What do we need jobs for if the government gives us everything already?

I will not promise to do myriad things for you. I promise only to free you to act for yourselves as best you see fit. Good civilization starts in the home and not at the highest echelons of the bureaucracy, despite what sweeping promises the president makes. Society after all is created from the bottom up; tyranny comes from the top down.

05 March 2009

Important in His Own Mind

Share
My mother sometimes criticizes my writing for the fact that I talk above a lot of people. Instead of talking above other people, David Frum talks down at them. I found it hard to listen to David Frum during his interview with Mark Levin. David kept talking even when Mark would turn the microphone down, and he avoided answering questions. His behavior seemed more like a liberal than a conservative.

When he did answer, his answers resembled that of Elizabeth Swan in Pirates of the Caribbean. I head a ton of words but no meaning whatsoever…them’s a lot of long words, and we’re not but ‘umble pirates… Using a lot of big words and complicated phraseology is a tactic undertaken by intellectuals with MDs and PhDs who want others to know how insufferably smart they are. Many of these people grow very frustrated when I understand the nothing they spout and follow up on their mealy-mouthed montage. Circles around the issue to make people think like he has a plan and is making a difference, but he still neither gives ideas nor substantive contributions. Mark kept having to lower the volume on him because he wouldn’t shut up, and even when the volume came back up you could tell he had not ceased to pontificate despite having lost access to the audience.

David’s incessant talking in circles demonstrated his true purpose in coming on Mark’s show. He’s not interested in a discussion, he used his appearance on Mark’s show as a platform to protract his ill-advised and poorly grounded assaults on Limbaugh’s character. At every attempt, he tried hijacking the discussion and attempting to hijack the party not on principles but on perception.

Finally, David went down the talking points list, as if reading from Moveon.org or Media Matters for America. Like Obama, he says absolutely nothing but uses large words that make an impression on people who say, “big words, this guy must be smart. We should listen to him.” In the end, he resulted to personal attacks on Mark and on Rush. Unable to attack the ideas, he attacked the person, calling them losers, dragging skeletons out of the closet of which I was not aware and which bear no relevance whatsoever on the topic.

Self-proclaimed conservative thinkers like this tell us that we have to stop being what we are, that the only thing wrong with us is us. They are entitled to their opinion, but indemnification and slander of character is a crime, not a debate, and it just went to show how inconsequential this man really is except in his own mind.

04 March 2009

March Forth

Share
Today is the only day of the year that is a command. I love language, but I hate what some people do with it.

You hear a lot of people talking about what "we" can do. I have some close friends who are enamored with Glen Beck and want me to watch his program and get involved with the 9-12 project. However, Glen Beck is a talker. He won't "do" anything. If he motivates them to act, then great, but if they just talk or feel, then in my opinion it's nothing more than a collossal waste of time.

The Founding Fathers didn't wait for other people to get to work. My bishop, Steve Walton, told us in a priesthood meeting once that "If God had other people, he would ask them to do these important things, but he doesn't have other people. He has us." It is our job. Those with the capability have the responsibility.

Don't tell me "We've got to." You have to.
Don't tell me you can't do it. Of course you can.

Remember the well quoted but misattributed Edmund Burke line "All that is necessary for the success of evil in this world is for good men to do nothing."

So what can you do? Get out and talk to people. Educate your children around the dinner table. Run for office or at least support someone for office you actually like, but in the general election, get behind the party nominee. If you don't like that, you can make calls, write email, and mail fliers.

Voting is no longer enough.

03 March 2009

Why Obama Won in 2008

Share
Ever notice that with rare exception Democrats always get behind their candidate? Months into the worst presidency in American history, we still have dumbasses driving around with Ron Paul stickers on their cars and talking about "next time we need to do something". The primary is the time to pick your candidate; the general election is the time to get behind the enemy of your enemy.

In my own district, many people refused to support Jon Porter because of his socialist voting record. As a result, in November, he lost, and an even more staunch socialist took his seat. The time for picking the candidate you want is the primary. In November, unless you back the party nominee you will split the vote and guarantee that the other party will win.

I'm not a fan of McCain or Porter, but they are infinitely better than Ried or Obama.

Until we learn to stand together, we will die alone.

Democrats NEVER split the vote. That's why they control all three branches of government. If you don't have a good candidate, be the miracle and run yourself. If you find one you like, get behind him. I have canvassed, mostly for local offices, and although it may not be easy, if you bring one more person the day can be won. Most of these races are not won by 10-20% margins. A few hundred or a few thousand people can tip the scales.

That's what we can do. That's what we must do. The time is now.

02 March 2009

No Representation Without Taxation

Share
The first year I wore contac lenses, my parents wisely required that I pay for them myself. I have never since taken as good care for them as I did that first year, because at $40/box with me earning $3.75/hour at work, it constituted a great cost to me. My parents knew that inasmuch as I paid the cost, I would also pay the price to keep them or I would pay the price to replace them.

However, our current government operates by a different agenda. Over 40% of the population doesn’t pay any taxes…they will never not vote for things that transfer wealth to them. Therefore, much as others will find this posture offensive, I maintain that it’s not only appropriate, but advisable.

If you don’t have anything vested in the game, losing doesn’t hurt very much. Yet, millions of Americans regularly vote to take things away from other people. Current political theory endorses a system of legalized plunder. James R. Evans, in his inspiring book, "The Glorious Quest" gives this simple illustration of legalized plunder:
"Assume, for example, that we were farmers, and that we received a letter from the government telling us that we were going to get a thousand dollars this year for plowed up acreage. But rather than the normal method of collection, we were to take this letter and collect $69.71 from Bill Brown, at such and such an address, and $82.47 from Henry Jones, $59.80 from a Bill Smith, and so on down the line; that these men would make up our farm subsidy. "Neither you nor I, nor would 99 percent of the farmers, walk up and ring a man's doorbell, hold out a hand and say, 'Give me what you've earned even though I have not.' We simply wouldn't do it because we would be facing directly the violation of a moral law, 'Thou shalt not steal.' In short, we would be held accountable for our actions."

Any American who does not own property, a bank account of some size, or who receives all of their income tax refunded should not have the right to vote. Unless the right to vote costs them something, they will not value it. Said Thomas Paine, “That which we obtain too easily, we esteem too lightly” or in our day, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney said, “It is easy to take Liberty for granted when it has never been taken from you.”

"A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship" ~ Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

The majority will vote for whomever promises them the most pork. That’s why I have probably already lost the election by stating this belief of mine, but it is criminal for us to take from the mouth of labor and give to him to which it does not belong. In Paine’s Common Sense, we learn that men “surrender a portion of his property to furnish protection for the rest, and this he is induced to do by the same prudence that in every other case advises that of two evils he choose the lesser.” If someone needs a helping hand, I don’t have a problem with that. I oppose the tyranny of those who have nothing vested in the game.

In class last night, a student of mine claimed that her life was hard, that I was jinxing her fortunes by holding her accountable for information in the biology laboratory I teach. I object. I have been through much by way of privation and opposition and overcome in spite of: a vengeful ex-wife, a bitter coworker, a handful of pompous professors, a patronizing supervisor, a self-righteous detective, a labor union, the Nevada Highway Patrol, the Department of Homeland Security, several USAF recruiters, and dozens of other individuals who conspired and combined against me to hold me back. Every man is the sole author of his condition, and he who cannot govern himself or who contributes nothing should have no say in the disposition of my soul.

Obama says everyone should have something vested in the success of America. He should put his money where his mouth is.

01 March 2009

I'm Rich Enough for a Tax Hike

Share
I obviously don't know what a "typical American family" means under Obama's tax plan, because I'm not getting a tax cut. As a matter of fact, I haven't filed my 2008 return yet because I'm getting only a few hundred back as a refund because I crossed into the 25% tax bracket without any itemizable deductions and took it in the teeth. For the first time in my life, increased financial prosperity has visibly cost me money, and I'm not happy.


So what does the President intend to do? Now that he's spent us into an irrevocable debt, he's going to raise taxes. These taxes will not going to pay for the debt; the government will use it as justification to expand expenditure.


  • I have no children, so even though I earn less thatn $50K, I will not get all of my money back (the IRS gets to keep $3600 for 2008). AND IT IS MY MONEY! They stole it from me.


  • His stimulus package gives "most working people" a tax credit. I don't qualify. So, I won't even get my $8/week extra on my check because I don't qualify for that program. Don't spend it all in one place if you do qualify for it.

  • Since I lack children and don't attend college, I don't get child tax credits or increases in the deductable tuition expense.


  • Furthermore, next year when I file, now that I finally will have mortgage insurance to deduct which brings me over the standard deduction, I can itemize only at 28% instead of 39.6%, meaning that it might not be enough to bring me over the standard deduction after all. Wouldn't that be a hoot?


They say the limits only extend to the top 5% of earners. Well, since 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes, I think my $46K/year puts me into the top 5% of earners per capita. Since I'm single, I get $46K per person per year, as opposed to a family of five earning $200K, which earns $40K per person per year. That makes my household richer per capita and puts me in a higher tier of earnings than that family.


The fact of the matter is summarized here:



Single filers with no children would be hit with even bigger tax increases.

Your taxes are going up; your deductions are going down. Your prices of goods will go up as the availability of goods goes down. You wanted hope and change; now you're paying for it through the nose.


I never thought I'd ever be "rich", and I didn't publish a book that earned me millions like the President, who in his entire life up until he ran for president gave less to charity than I do every year.