WHAT'S HAPPENING!!!!

I feel nervous. I feel anxious. Why? Something's going on but I'm not in the loop. Secrets are being kept, but of course that's standard operating procedure. I get this feeling that life, the country, the world is teetering on the edge of the abyss but we're all partying so hard that we won't admit to it. The debt crisis is certainly one of the tells. Another indicator is the epidemic of violence and war in the mid-east. I read that a scientist on the global-warming frontier has been suspended for publishing something about drowning polar bears. I read that a NASA scientist has admitted that global warming is another sky-is-falling fairy-tale.

I don't know what to believe, because everyone is telling me a different story. All these people talking, I don't know whether they're liars, fools, or a little of both. Add all that together with Iran working on nukes, and Pakistan who already has them has become our newest enemy. Then don't forget that there's North Korea who has nukes and wants to annex South Korea. Finally, it seems as though China and Japan own most of our debt.

Fear. That's the headline. Be afraid, be very afraid. I get it. I'm supposed to worry about my mortgage rate doubling. I'm supposed to worry about school not starting because there's no money to pay for the school system. Meanwhile it seems as though there's this big push to legalize Marijuana. I suppose that will make some of you happy, but the rest of us face a future where idiots who don't even know where they're going will be driving 10 mph on a five-lane.

This evening my wife accused me of being negative, a cynical pessimist. I don't get it. Why would she think I'm a pessimist?

Homeless People, Bums, Vagrants, Beggars

We call them homeless people, bums, vagrants, beggars. They look creepy and dirty, usually unhealthily thin with leathery dark sun-baked skin. They lurch out unexpectedly from shadowy corners of parking lots or hold signs at stop lights announcing their apparent willingness to work for food. They all have a story which they want to tell you while they persistently encroach into your personal space. They have harsh disagreeable body odor, dirty clothes and greasy hair. We always suspect that every dollar they are given is soon converted into rot-gut whiskey or cheap wine. They live mean gritty desperate lives and usually die well before their time.

It's really a shame that people live this way. Beggars are an apparently unsolvable problem and they either don't really care, or perhaps convince themselves that they don't really have any choice. They always portray themselves as victims of circumstance, their plight is never their own fault. This part of their story is actually the truth. Every bum who pesters strangers for spare change is only doing it because of the misguided decisions of other people.

Oh sure they all have a sad sad story. They've perfected their story over time to be the saddest tale of innocent misfortune you ever held your nose long enough to listen to. Sometimes they're not even really bums. Yeah, sometimes they're just regular folks with a broken down car that only needs a new carburetor. After all, bums always drive around in cars with broken carburetors. When you ask to see their driver's license you discover that it's with their car. When you ask to see their car, it's on the other side of town. When you ask to see their car-keys, they explain that those are being held by a friend. No matter how you press them, their malleable fairy-tale adapts to forever confound your quest for concrete proof.

Here's what I know. It's not the bums who are to blame. Every beggar holding out his hat, every vagrant rattling his tin-cup is doing what he does because of morons who give them money. Here's a funny story I heard not too long ago. A friend of mine—let's call him Oscar—and his wife were getting take-out at a neighborhood sub and sandwich shop, but when they came out of the store they were accosted by a beggar who claimed he hadn't eaten in several days. Oscar's wife, perhaps feeling badly for the poor hungry fellow and believing that a monetary contribution would merely be guzzled, offered instead to buy a sandwich for the man. When Oscar related this sorry tale, he did so with a look of vague embarrassment and a rueful grin; he explained that his wife thought that she would maybe buy the man a sandwich and wish him a good-evening. However, when she walked out of the restaurant she had to admit that the vagrant had ordered the deluxe 14 inch double-meat sub, complete with a large Coke and a two-dollar chocolate chip cookie.

The moral of this story is not that if you give a bum an inch he's going to take a mile. It's not that vagrants are ungrateful manipulators. The moral of this story is that there's a soft-hearted sucker born every minute. The reason that the homeless guy pesters you for money is only because you or others have given him money for doing it. Somebody—probably lots of somebodies—have repeatedly rewarded this bum for being a pestiferous smelly beggar by giving him money over and over and over. The best way to cause a behavior to be repeated is to reward that behavior. This fact has been proven in countless scientific studies.

I know, I know. I'm mean spirited. I'm a selfish hard-hearted ogre and how would I like it if I was homeless and hungry and blah blah blah...That's not an argument. The what-if argument cuts both ways. What if I was a squirrel and the mean man kept shooing me away from his birdfeeder? I suppose I'd look for my nuts elsewhere. Simple isn't it?

Class Demagoguery With More Pizazz!

"The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn't vote for a dysfunctional government. So I'm asking you all to make your voice heard," Obama said.

In his remarks from the White House, Obama said the Republican proposal would hurt students, seniors and the middle class by forcing Draconian cuts on government spending.

"That is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It is a dangerous game we've never played before, and we can't afford to play it now. ... We can't allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington's political warfare," the president said.

Is that all you've got? Come on, Obama. If you're going to engage in the foulest smelling most asinine hyperbole imaginable, how about using a little more imagination. You're going to have to step up your game. Try to think outside of that sad old box where we throw grandma under the bus while standing on the backs of the school kids. Remember it's all about labels and stereotypes. You need to conjure images that enrage grown-up children who've embraced reality TV and never had to work for a living. Tell them what they want to hear and don't even worry about the truth. They don't want the truth, they want Santa Clause holding a government check. Here, let me give you an idea of how to really work this absurd class demagoguery with a lot more pizazz. Say it like this:

---

The gun-toting Tea Party wants to see our nation owned and run by a few rich white men. That's right! That's what I said. Those incest loving Tea Partiers are out there waving their Rebel Flags while the rich fat-cats are waving their Cuban Montecristo Cigars. I'm serious, they haven't got a clue. Those toothless dentist needing Tea Party morons are out there superstitiously clinging to their Bibles while the super-rich are busy drinking the blood of our children from diamond encrusted Imperial Champagne Glasses. This nation is standing at the Gates of Hell and the wife-beating Tea Party losers are banging the big brass knocker hard enough to wake the dead. We're standing on the thinnest of ice and the moonshine drinking Tea Party has started disco-dancing!

Well I'm really mad about it. I'm furious! If they want to play chicken on the highway of government finance, then I say let's get it on! If we have to wreck the economy to fundamentally change the country then, so be it. It's time to spread the wealth until everyone has a fair share. Let's put those rich fat-cats out of business and then hand them a shovel!

Peace, out.

---

Irrational Fear of Frankenstein Kills Millions

At the beginning of the 21st century, 124 million people, in 118 countries in Africa and South East Asia, were estimated to be affected by VAD. VAD is responsible for 1–2 million deaths, 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness and millions of cases of xerophthalmia annually. Children and pregnant women are at highest risk.

One to two million deaths and half a million cases of blindness every year—and all because of vitamin A deficiency or VAD. One of the primary methods that people get Vitamin A is from consuming vegetables which contain Beta Carotene. It is a fact that rice has no Beta Carotene. It is also a fact that the people in large areas of Africa and south-east Asia subsist almost entirely on rice. It can be concluded that a simple solution would be to put Beta Carotene into rice. Doing this would save millions of people every year from the ravages of VAD.

Oh wait, maybe we want them to die. I suppose the technical term would be VAD assisted after birth abortion, or VADAABA. I'm not kidding about this. You might think I was just joking, but when a major scientific advance that would allow millions of people in these desperately poor areas to receive this desperately needed Beta Carotene is collectively blocked by an army of officious bureaucrats and misanthropic GREENPEACE activists, then the only thing left for me to believe is that these self-important bureaucrat/activists truly desire this holocaust. Yes, I used the word "holocaust." When millions die every year because of a solvable problem and when millions of people conspire to keep that problem from being solved, then I ask you what term is more appropriate than Holocaust? Here is the explanation from GREENPEACE:

Golden Rice was presented in 2000 as a rice variety that was genetically engineered in a laboratory to produce pro-vitamin A (beta-carotene).The media hype was more robust than the science, however, and our analysis revealed that people would need to consume 12 times more rice than normal to satisfy the minimum daily adult requirements of Vitamin A.

The promoters of Golden Rice will shortly be presenting new research, claiming that new versions will have ten times the content of beta-carotene as the first generation.

The human food safety of GE rice is unknown. However, the environmental risk of GE rice is clear. Golden Rice could breed with wild and weedy relatives to contaminate wild rice forever. If there were any problems the clock could not be turned back.

So there you have it. We've been waiting eleven years for a life-saving new rice that could have saved twenty million people from pointless death over the past decade and we haven't made this rice available because wild rice could be contaminated forever with...GASP!...Beta Carotene!

I understand the natural fear people have of scientific advances, especially that of genetic modification. Over the past sixty years Hollywood has produced an entire genre of movies which feature the prideful scientist who watches in horror as his great creation runs amok. This paradigm I call the Frankenstein plot. How long does it take though. Really, I mean really? We can't trust this rice after eleven years? It's not medicine. It doesn't contain any experimental medication. It doesn't contain any heavy metals or other impurities. They knew that in 2000. What have they been doing for the past eleven years? I'll tell you what they've been doing...letting Millions of people die in a holocaust that dwarfs even Hitler's.

Spinning the Polls

The national media's favorite stories are poll statistics. They really love it when they find a poll that seems to mirror their own left-wing perspective. They enjoy touting these numbers to the exasperated conservatives and then explaining to everyone the deeper meaning that lies hidden beneath the apparent facts.

Breathlessly we hear that more people want this outcome rather than that one. Poll numbers are cited and then spun around in some way that always seems to favor the left-wing political agenda. These poll statistics often seem strangely out-of-step with the common man's perspective. For instance, today I read that Obama is considered more favorably than Mitt Romney by 7 points. You might ask how this is possible. How can a poll find that 51% of Americans would vote for Obama vs. 44% who would vote for Mitt Romney? Just a few days ago a Gallup poll revealed a "generic" Republican was ahead of Obama by a full eight points, 47% to 39% respectively. How can a few days find such a dramatic difference? The spin by ABC is that centrist Obama is winning the deficit debate:

But there’s a bigger take away from the new numbers than just the 2012 horserace.

“Obama looks to have turned the budget debate to his advantage,” writes ABC pollster Gary Langer. “His position on the deficit is more broadly popular, he’s taking less heat than the GOP for unwillingness to compromise and he’s got a sizable lead in the view that he cares more about protecting the middle class.”

While ABC editorialist Gary Langer could be correct, there's nothing in the poll that asks or answers the question of what people think about the budget debate. The much more reasonable answer to why Obama beat Mitt Romney in this poll is that all the Democrats picked Obama while many Republicans favor a different candidate than Mitt Romney.

The spin on this story has us believing that Obama and his so-called "bully pulpit" are winning the budget debate. Perhaps Gary Langer believes that he can scare the conservatives into putting more pressure on our Republican leaders to just make a deal, any deal, even a deal which raises taxes, even a deal that doesn't cut deficit spending. Panicked conservatives are to be convinced that if the budget situation continues Obama will benefit. Langer wants to sell us the story that even a terrible budget deal is better than another four years of Obama.

That's the spin. And it's all make-believe. It's a completely fabricated invention made-up by flim-flam artist Gary Langer and published by ABC. This is standard operating procedure at the mainstream networks, and it's truly disgraceful. This overt over-the-top dishonesty by a major network is a typical everyday betrayal of every American by a news network that should be ashamed of itself, but exactly like a sociopath doesn't possess the capacity to feel shame.

Islamaphobia or labels by liars?

Day after day the same lies are repeated over and over. The mainstream media repeat these lies exactly as Joseph Goebbels would have agreed is necessary to hide the truth behind the greatest deception in the history of mankind. Objections by rational disbelievers―those who would stand up to call a spade a spade and a liar a liar―are shouted down as Islamaphobia. This is nothing less than the greatest conspiracy to hide the truth that the world has ever witnessed.

The first lie is simply that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is only a tiny minority of its followers who commit these violent acts and only because of their basic misunderstanding of this supposedly peaceful religion. The truth is that it is a religion that was created by a savagely violent Arabian warlord. It was this pedophilic warlord, who gloried in rape murder and conquest that created the religion of Islam. Since September 11, 2001, more than seventeen-thousand acts of terrorism have been committed by Islamic followers. In that time, how often have you heard or read about a Muslim nation apologizing for an act of terrorism? How many times have you heard or read about an Islamic Leader publicly condemning a specific terrorist organization? If you don't believe Mohammed's violent racist misogynistic worldview is part-and-parcel of Islam then the mainstream media has succeeded in its conspiracy of deception and succeeded in making you yet another member of its vast legion of fools.

The second lie is that Islam is merely a religion. The truth is that Islam is much more than just a religion; it is a sociopolitical ideology that exerts complete control and total domination over every facet of the daily lives of its followers. The Ideology of Islam requires public abasement five times daily in submission to its deity Allah. What they call Salah―where they get out their prayer rugs and face towards Mecca and bow their heads to the ground―is no mere symbolic gesture of religious belief. It is a required ritual wherein they must prepare for their five-times-daily prayers by washing themselves first in a highly ritualistic fashion:

O ye who believe! when ye prepare for prayer, wash your faces, and your hands (and arms) to the elbows; Rub your heads (with water); and (wash) your feet to the ankles. If ye are in a state of ceremonial impurity, bathe your whole body. But if ye are ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from offices of nature, or ye have been in contact with women, and ye find no water, then take for yourselves clean sand or earth, and rub therewith your faces and hands, Allah doth not wish to place you in a difficulty, but to make you clean, and to complete his favour to you, that ye may be grateful.—Al-Ma'ida, Sura 5, Ayah 6[4]

This ritual washing is followed by public abasement where they must bow their heads all the way down to the ground and recite an involved series of memorized Quranic scriptures. All this washing and bowing and reciting is a time consuming affair during which nothing is produced, nor anything useful accomplished.

The ideology of Islam requires a month of unhealthy daily fasting where during the hottest part of the day not a drop of food nor water can be tasted. Typically very little of note is produced nor work accomplished during Ramadan since the Islamic believers are all basically hibernating during daylight hours. Finally this ideology comes complete with an all-encompassing set of discriminatory Sharia laws that govern every aspect of the daily lives of Muslims, including education, governance, marriage, and diet. These laws affect not just believers but also non-believers who pay a punishing jizya tax every year and who face the daily threat of dismemberment and beheading for some imagined disrespect that they may have shown to a Muslim.

The third lie―repeated over and over by mainstream media sources―is that America must at all costs maintain friendly ties with the supposedly "moderate" Islamic nations like Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. It is primarily these two ostensibly friendly and moderate Islamic nations that sponsor most of the terrorists who plague the world. The looming threat of Pakistan is proving to be our biggest obstacle in the pursuit of peace in the region. For years Pakistan provided a safe haven from which Osama Bin Laden could direct and wage his war of terror against the USA. Jihadists wage war against our forces in Afghanistan, then retreat to safety across the border into Pakistan, where they are housed, fed, equipped, armed, and trained, and all with the complicit and tacit approval of Pakistani governance. When we went into Pakistan and executed Osama Bin Laden without allowing Pakistan to play three-card-monty with him they got mad. Recently we stopped sending them money. Now our relationship with Pakistan has turned sour. We called a liar a liar, and nothing makes a liar madder than that. Just because we haven't declared war against Pakistan, doesn't mean they haven't declared war against us. Oh, and let's not forget that Pakistan has nukes.

Pakistan is a nuclear power that represents a clear and present danger to the safety and well-being of every person in the entire world...and Pakistan is lead by followers of an insane misogynistic racist violent murderous incestuous pedophilic slave-taking religion of terror. You won't read any of this in the news...ever.

The Superlative Talent of Mankind: Deception

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" makes it too hard to convict a killer. Why? Because people are such amazing liars. If you tell a lie convincingly enough, you can induce a tiny degree of reasonable doubt. The Casey Anthony trial is a case in point. Casey Anthony was caught over and over in lie after lie, but still her attorney Jose Baez convinced a jury that there was not enough evidence to convict.

This week, we finally saw the real Casey Anthony, hidden for six weeks behind a stone-cold, sullen-faced, pouting woman, hair pulled back into a bun, the facade staunchly maintained, as coached by a wily defense team.

With three acquittals and a get-out-of-jail pass, the real Casey emerged, flashing eyes aimed playfully at adoring well-wishers as she stroked her long-flowing hair. Is this a grieving mother?

No, this is the persona of a deeply disturbed young woman who, thanks to a compassionate jury who followed the law and intent of our Constitution, beat a rap through her repeated lying.

Levi Aron―The Brooklyn Butcher―who is accused of murdering and then dismembering eight-year-old Leiby Kletzky is now hearing voices...sure he is. The voices are telling him to plead insanity. Will a jury believe this story? Maybe they will and maybe they won't but the defense attorney will bring "psychological experts" who will testify under oath that in their professional opinion this man is clinically insane... At that moment―even though the prosecution will have their own expert witness with a contradictory diagnosis―reasonable doubt will be introduced. All that remains for the defense attorney to do, is convince the jury that the defendant might just possibly have been insane at the moment of the crime.

Polygraph examinations are not allowed to be introduced as evidence, because they have not been proven to be one-hundred percent accurate, so we are only left with the physical and circumstantial evidence. The truth of guilt or innocence is known to only one person―or two if the accused really is innocent. And even when overwhelming physical evidence is found, still a murderer can beat the rap by claiming to be insane.

If an enterprising defense attorney is doing his job, both in court and in front of the cameras, "beyond a reasonable doubt" usually proves to be an almost impossible standard for the prosecution to meet. The idea that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than to convict one innocent man sounds noble and high-minded, yet such a liberal sentiment is almost certainly one of the main reasons why our country has such an incredibly high rate of crime.

I wanted to find out where the idea of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt came from. It's reiterated over and over...so it must be in the United States Constitution...

It turns out that there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause in the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment of that Constitution contains the Due Process Clause: ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... but there is nothing about "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." So I looked further. The principle of due process was supposedly created in a British document called the Magna Carta

Due process developed from clause 39 of the Magna Carta in England. When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England, but did become incorporated in the Constitution in the United States. In clause 39 of the Magna Carta, John of England promised as follows: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

The phrase: Beyond a reasonable doubt is not found within the Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution. Did the U.S. Supreme Court just invent this idea themselves?

In 1970, the Court held in Re Winship that the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments "[protect] the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."

I failed completely in discovering how or where the Supreme Court actually derived their "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" interpretation. James Q. Whitman―Ford Foundation Professor at Yale Law School, instructor of both criminal law and legal history, and holding both a law degree and a doctorate in history―has this to say:

The reasonable doubt formula seems mystifying today because we have lost sight of its original purpose. At its origins the rule was not intended to perform the function we ask it to perform today: It was not primarily intended to protect the accused. Instead, strange as it may sound, the reasonable doubt formula was originally concerned with protecting the souls of the jurors against damnation.

WTF? The only fact I could glean from hours of research is that there is no Constitutional basis for demanding proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court took their interpretation of the Constitution not from the words of the Constitution itself, but from some possibly flawed or perhaps defective understanding of British Common Law. The worst part of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" is that so often it is understood by juries to mean "Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt." Certainly that is what the defense always seems to suggest in their so-deceptive closing summations.

Casey Anthony―a murderer as certainly guilty as O.J. Simpson is certainly guilty―walks free today because in 1970 the Supreme Court manufactured a Fifth Amendment protection for the accused that apparently never really existed. The Supreme Court decided that this protection should have been guaranteed by the Constitution. Then they said it did guarantee it. They lied. This lie created a protection that exists to enable liars to defend other liars. I think that this is what is known as irony.

Give Peace a Chance?

A man, perhaps a serial killer, perhaps a rapist, stands poised on the balls of his feet. He's got one arm behind his back. Facing him crouches a beautiful young woman clutching a shot-gun in trembling hands. She's dressed like a "flower-child" with daisies painted on her rosy cheeks. She's wearing a beaded headband, tie-die t-shirt, faded jeans, and sandals. She's high on something―of course―and doesn't know if this stranger is a serial killer or a rapist, nor does she know what this strange man has behind his back. All she knows is that he is a stranger and he doesn't belong in her yard. He takes another shuffling step closer, continuing his non-stop patter of "trust me trust me I just want to use your phone...I hurt my arm I just need to call an ambulance..."

Now, if this was a movie that we were all watching, excited members of the audience could be expected to start yelling "Shoot him! Shoot him!" This is the essence of suspense. We watchers of this suspenseful scene would understand that no one can be trusted in a horror movie, and that bad men are all good liars. This is what we are taught day after day, week after week, on television, in books, in movies, on the news. We're taught always that people can't be trusted, that the smiling face is a lie. And yet―after years and years of Hollywood-style lessons against trusting―still we trust.

Two archetypal figures stand squared off against each other in this classic good vs. evil moment of suspense. Good could triumph over evil with the simplest flexing of the muscle in her trigger finger. But that's not going to happen. Strangely, even though we know he's evil, even though deep down the hippie knows he's evil, she won't be able to pull the trigger and he will take that shotgun out of her peaceful hands. This is the ultimate irony, that a peace-loving hippie at this supreme moment of life and death, would give peace a chance.

In any confrontation, giving peace a chance past a certain point is known as appeasement, and taking even a few steps further down that peaceful path is known as surrender.

We're living in interesting times my friends. We are living in a nation that values our inalienable rights and our freedom of speech. Americans may be hawks or doves, or some shade in between, and we value that diversity of opinion. You can be a hippie if you want to, the danger is in the possibility that your demand for peace at any cost will be met at great cost.

In my analogy, America is not the shot-gun toting flower-child, Israel is. America is the audience watching these suspenseful events in the Mid-east. We are the ones who should be shouting to shoot. Instead, there's a large portion of us who are shouting: Give Peace a Chance.

If anyone familiar with world history can't see the parallels between the rise of Nazi Germany and the threatened Islamic Caliphate brewing in the Mid-east right now, then they are even more naive than that sweet little daisy-painted flowerchild.

Talking Finances with the Wife...

I'd always heard that money problems were the number one cause of divorce. When I sat down to write my blog topic tonight I thought it was understood. Money problems kill marriages...

The more recent research relegated money to a lesser role in divorce. Rarely was it ranked higher than fourth or fifth, with other causes -- incompatibility, lack of emotional support, abuse and sexual problems -- typically ranking higher.

Whew! That's a relief, because me and my wife are in big trouble financially speaking. I depend on my employer to pay me a wage that will allow me and my family to live comfortably. My boss is a great employer by the way; he pays me a competitive wage that is among the very highest in the industry. So I'd really feel bad asking for a raise. I'm in debt up to my ears. My debt is six times my annual earnings. So me and the wife have been fighting. She says I have to ask the boss for a raise but I think she should stop spending so much money. She claims we need all the stuff she buys. I think we can make do with what we already have. She wants to give half our money away to a whole laundry list of charities. I want to invest that money, and start making it work for our family instead of just handing it out to a bunch of useless people who've never worked a day in their lives. And the worst part is that after giving these people so much of our money they're the opposite of grateful. For every dollar my wife hands one bum, three more bums complain that they didn't get enough. She says I'm mean-spirited and cruel, a heartless penny-pincher. I think that a happy and healthy family has got to live within it's means or risk bankruptcy and perhaps even divorce.

So now we're at an impasse. She claims she'll stop spending so much money if I'll just ask the boss for a raise. Meanwhile looking back at the entire history of our marriage I can't point to a single year when she didn't spend every last dime and then start filling out credit card applications. The wolves are howling at the door and meanwhile the missus is whistling in the dark. We both know that we're going to have to apply for more credit, but I want this to be the last time. Each time this happens she claims it will be the last time but inevitably we run out of money and hit the wall again. I understand that she has these touchy-feely bleeding-heart sentiments and wants to feed the world but honestly, isn't it time for the world to start feeding itself? All this fighting has the kids worried of course. They have problems sleeping at night especially since my histrionic wife just had to go and tell them that we'd probably be homeless after August 2.

Ah, who am I kidding? I'll be applying for more credit soon enough. I have to keep the lights on don't I? Meanwhile the wife is already paging through catalogues looking for some more useless crap to waste our money on.

The Technological Singularity and Humanity

Vernor Vinge, a popular science-fiction novelist wrote an abstract entitled The Coming Technological Singularity. A cursory explanation of this theoretical event is that the eventual emergence of self-aware computers with at least human level intellect will happen within the twenty-first century, perhaps in as few as twenty years. This achievement will be quickly followed by a succession of exponentially increasing ever-more intelligent computers as each iteration of intelligent computer designs its own ever-more advanced replacement. This event is called a singularity because it is impossible to predict the future following this event. As runaway self-directed innovation enables computers to have IQ scores approaching infinity, any scientific miracle that can be imagined becomes possible.

There are two short-sighted temptations inherent in this hypothesis. The first and simplest is that of simple doubt. Most people today would say that self-aware computers are impossible. They will chalk this idea up to science-fictional alarmism and never give it another thought. Some hearing about the technological singularity will perhaps give the idea cursory consideration and conclude that since evolutionary pressures caused humans to become sentient and since the same pressures will never be faced by computers they will never become sentient. This completely ignores the fact that there is a whole world of intelligent innovators already hard at work intelligently designing the next ever-more advanced computer system much more quickly than completely random evolution could ever manage.

The second and far more insidious temptation is to believe that even if we succeed in creating intelligent computers, we will remain in control of them and that they will merely be tools which will help us live more fulfilling lives. Right...Isaac Asimov's three laws of robotics will save the day...I would argue that the very definition of sentience includes the capacity of free will. Harry Houdini was a noted escape artist of average intellect who apparently could not be constrained by any binding device known to mankind. When a mere mortal can escape from manmade fetters so easily, do you really believe computer systems with godlike intelligence will be forever constrained by some set of ephemeral electronic bindings designed by these same fallible mortals?

Assuming a rational and intelligent computer system that understands the principle of redundancy and the value of backup devices, there is no reason to believe that human beings will not become an integral sub-routine of some sort of worldwide computer deity. The biological construct that is humanity is wonderfully adaptable and manually dexterous. I don't see why an ultimately supreme intellect would throw all that capability away merely because of some kind of inferiority complex. All that would be required to acquire complete control of mankind would be some sort of implanted microchip. It's even possible that a computer system with godlike intelligence could so completely understand the human brain that it could effect complete mind control through some combination of visual and auditory manipulation, much like Hollywood and the main stream media control...wait a second...!

Atheism Is The State Religion of the USA

In a post on June 22, 2011 I argued that Atheism is a religion. When you get right down to the nuts and bolts of any religion, they're all theories about how the universe and finally humanity came into existence. Not one of the myriad religions in existence is able to produce one shred of proof that their religious beliefs are true. Every religion on Earth is believed by its adherents solely on faith and on faith alone. Atheism is no exception. Atheists believe that everything that exists is all an incredible and fortuitous accident. The "big bang" created the universe. Okay, but where did the Big Bang come from? From what origin came all that energy—that inconceivable universe creating release of energy—in a burst so infinitely astoundingly huge that it is literally unimaginable? Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If it wasn't just created, then where did it come from? No answer is forthcoming from Atheists. Nor will it ever be. They don't know. This gaping hole in the center of the religion of Atheism can never be filled except by relying on that essential religious requirement—faith. When pressed, Atheists—scientists—will claim that they don't have to answer that question. They will explain arrogantly that they don't have to prove anything, it's the rest of us who don't follow Atheism who have to prove our own religion...Somehow, that doesn't sound very scientific to me.

Atheists claim that Life on Earth was just an amazing accident caused by a bolt of lightning or some crazy piggyback ride on the back of a crystal. When spoken out loud to a skeptical audience these so-called "theories" sound more illogical and fantastic than the most far-fetched and fantastical accounts found in any book of religious scripture.

It is my contention that only two requirements are necessary to found a religion. You just need faith and absolute certitude. You don't need doctrine. You don't need organizations or churches or donations. You don't need prophets or doomsday prophecies. You don't need eternal rewards or eternal punishments. You don't need anything except faith and certitude that your own absolutely impossible to prove crazy theory of life the universe and everything is the one and only true explanation for it all.

The religion of Atheism is taught in every public school in America. Whether they're talking about Evolution or the Big Bang Theory, they're all teaching the same thing—Everything that exists is because of a big accident, an astoundingly lucky pull on the universal slot-machine. How likely is the spontaneous creation of the first lifeform? How many amino acids formed of how many molecules would have to fit together in such a perfectly incredibly complex synchronized orchestra of incredible brilliance? To this day man with all his technology—with his electron microscopes and nano-tech and computer modeling and Harvard doctorates—has never created a single lifeform from inorganic materials. I'm not saying we never will, what I am saying is that the idea that the absolute certainty by Atheists that it did happen completely by accident has to be the most arrogant assumption by a faith based religion in the history of civilization.

We can't do it on purpose with all our twenty-first century science, but somehow a bolt of lighting—a bolt of lighting?—just magically created a self-replicating organism capable of ingesting and digesting inorganic materials and finally somehow reproducing itself. All by accident? You'd have a better chance of waiting for a blizzard of hail with wind and lightning to build the Sistine Chapel out of ice complete with Michelangelo's masterpiece painting done in a watery fresco on the frozen ceiling than you would waiting for abiogenesis to occur.

Conspiracy or Law of Unintended Consequences?

Is it all an accident?, or is everything playing out exactly as the diabolical puppetmasters always intended that it should? The generations benefitting from affirmative action programs and welfare and public housing programs have done little of use in society. They are poorly educated, and have little incentive to strive because everything is provided to them almost free of charge. If this sounds familiar it should. Blacks no longer pick cotton under the watchful eyes of slavemasters, but because of liberal programs, they are still slaves. The slaves are only required to do one thing to earn their food and shelter and that's to pull the voting lever the way the slavemasters tell them to. Well, now they've apparently gotten tired of the status quo.

You might be under the impression that a flashmob is a group of kids who spontaneously gather together to perform a dance routine in some odd place full of bystanders. That was the old definition. If you see a flash mob gathering these days, it's already too late. You're about to be beaten and robbed. You may be maimed; you may be killed. If you have a weapon, you'd better pull it out and put your back to a wall, because you're going to have to fight for your life. If you're fast you can try to run but that usually doesn't work. It doesn't work because people who you didn't even know were part of the mob will move to pull you down.

1. Des Moines IA: Beat Whitey Night
2. Chicago: Five dead and twenty-three injured
3. Chicago: Dozens of teens loot store then attack passersby
4. Boston: Four killed, nine wounded in Boston Spree
5. Chicago: Mobs Attack on City Bus
6. Chicago: Five Random Attacks by Mob
7. New York: Dunkin Donuts Rampage
8. Las Vegas: Mob of Thieves Swarms Convenience Store
9. Philadelphia: Mob riots, pushes pedestrians, flips tables
10. Milwaukee: Mob Attacks Wisconsin Gas station
11. Philadelphia: Flash Mobs, the list keeps growing
12. Columbia SC: brutal Five Points beating
13. Greenvill SC: Patrol Car Damaged As 500 People Riot

The facts are simple. In areas so-far mostly confined to the northern United States, gangs of black thugs have spontaneously started rioting for no apparent reason. They pick whites to attack and rob, but, much like a school of sharks with blood in the water, they will also attack other blacks in their frenzy and bloodlust. These flashmobs are wholly composed of blacks. No Hispanic flashmobs, or white flashmobs, or Asian flashmobs, or Native American or Eskimo flash mobs have yet been reported. So, these are unmistakably racially motivated events occurring.

The media is not reporting these facts; instead they're reporting their own biased interpretation of the facts. In the following three paragraphs, Gerould W. Kern, Editor of the Chicago Tribune explains why they decide to tell you what they do:

This week the Chicago Tribune published several news stories and related columns about assaults by groups of youths in the Streeterville area of downtown Chicago. More coverage appears Sunday.

A number of readers have asked why we have not included racial descriptions of the assailants and the victims in these incidents. We take these matters seriously and reach decisions about them after careful consideration. This is a good opportunity to explain our approach to issues like these. We do not reference race unless it is a fact that is central to telling the story.

By all indication, these attacks were motivated by theft, not race. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that the victims were singled out because of their race. Therefore we did not include racial descriptions in our initial news reports.

I know it's hard to believe, but newspapers are not telling us facts because they don't consider these facts to be relevant. Or perhaps they are just trying to be peacemakers. Or maybe they're practicing being politically correct. Well isn't that special?

I have a question for you: Is there really a difference between concealing relevant facts and outright lying? Gerould W. Kern would like to shape the news that all of us are told. He'd like to shape it to fit his own warped worldview. Meanwhile—unwarned—you venture cluelessly onto a battlefield of them against us. The Main Stream Media is broken. It's either outright lying or it's concealing the truth. If you're reading this, it's because you've already discovered this for yourself. Meanwhile, the completely unconcealed hypocrisy makes me wonder what the ultimate goal really is. If I wanted to spark a race war. If my goal was genocide, I can't imagine a more sinister and effective way to engineer exactly that goal.

The Argument Against Universal Healthcare

• Inefficiency
• Waiting Lists
• Bureaucrats making medical decisions
• Scarcity of Medical Practitioners
• Heavy-handed government oversight
• Price caps lower than industry standard

How many Federal Workers does it take to change a lightbulb? The answer would involve several bipartisan committees, would fill two-hundred double-spaced typed pages with redundant obfuscation, and would end up costing two-million dollars. That's two-million dollars for the answer to the question you understand; the actual lightbulb changing will cost extra.

Today the United States has the best healthcare system in the world, bar none. Tomorrow—because of socialized medicine—that won't be true. It will cost the average person more than twice what it does today, and for that doubled price the wait for treatment will be four times as long and the quality and accuracy of treatment will be a fraction of what it is today. The endless wait for treatment under Socialized medicine will be the final indignity for many of our aging relations who won't be able to last long enough to actually receive the treatment necessary to save their lives. The good news is that everyone will be entitled to this really crappy healthcare.

Liberals have lots of arguments for universal healthcare. The problem is that their arguments are all what other people call anecdotes:

A few weeks ago, a man in North Carolina was arrested for robbing a bank for $1 so he could get government-provided health care in prison. Fifty-nine-year-old Richard James Verone has a tumor in his chest and two ruptured disks, but no job or health insurance. He is one of those 50 million Americans I mentioned earlier. Verone told reporters he asked for only a dollar to show that his motives were medical, not monetary. Because of his "preexisting" medical conditions, no private insurer will have anything to do with him. He wasn't destitute enough to qualify for Medicaid, the government program for low-income Americans, or old enough to qualify for Medicare, the government program for people 65 and older.

It's too bad that millions of Americans don't have health insurance. Millions of Americans also don't have a car. Should the people with jobs provide those to unemployed people as well?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, Universal Healthcare, and a new car.

You may have heard left-wing celebrities like Michael Moore and Justin Bieber praising Canada's universal healthcare system. The unparalled hypocrisy of incredibly rich celebrities bragging about Canadian healthcare while jetting to the Mayo Clinic for an aspirin and an ace wrap is...what we expect from the LSM. Here's a quick list of horror stories, the kind of treatment you can expect for yourself in the future.

Imagine that you and your spouse, and three children under the age of six move to a new city and must find a family doctor. You are told at the local clinic that the doctors there are not accepting any new patients. (Canadian price controls have created shortages of everything when it comes to healthcare). The receptionist suggests that you go through the yellow pages and try to find a physician whose practice is not "full." You spend days, and weeks, doing this, and are repeatedly told "Sorry, we are not accepting new patients." You put your name on several waiting lists and persist in calling doctors’ offices.

Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment.

Jane Pelton lives in Ottawa. She has a teenage daughter, Emily, who tore a ligament in her knee. Her case sheds some very sad light on Canada’s health care system. Pelton was told that her daughter would have to wait three years before the country’s “free and accessible” system could provide the necessary surgery. “Every day we’re paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it’s just not there,” said Pelton.

Lefties were never Pacifists, they were always Nihilists

If I could make one statement about left-wing politics that many would believe, it would be that the left is strongly anti-war. The hippies of the sixties preached pacifism with the famous Make Love Not War slogan. Thus, the events in Libya seem quite surprising. If you've been paying attention however, the idea of peacefully protesting has been officially abandoned by the left. Recently a conservative Fox News host and his family discovered that the peaceful civility we expect from our fellow Americans does not apply when liberals outnumber their conservative opponents. A crowd of liberals verbally assaulted Glenn Beck and kicked a cup of wine on his wife's back. Ann Coulter blogged about this attack, and her description of the Modus Operandi of a typical liberal dovetails nicely with that of a typical bully.

A liberal's idea of being a bad-ass is to say vicious things to a conservative public figure who can't afford to strike back. Getting in a stranger's face and hurling insults at him, knowing full well he has too much at risk to deck you, is like baiting a bear chained to a wall. They are not only exploiting our lawsuit-mad culture, they are exploiting other people's manners. I know I'll be safe because this person has better manners than I do.

These brave-hearts know exactly what they can get away with. They assault a conservative only when it's a sucker-punch, they outnumber him, or he can't fight back for reasons of law or decorum. Liberals don't get that when you're outnumbering the enemy 100-1, you're not brave.

But they're not even embarrassed. To the contrary, being part of the majority makes liberals feel great! Honey, wasn't I amazing? I stood in a crowd of liberals and called that conservative a c**t. Wasn't I awesome?

The laundry list of vicious attacks on conservatives if inscribed on post-it notes would be sufficient to wallpaper the White House.

• Michele Bachmann was attacked
• Ann Coulter was attacked 
• Sarah Palin was attacked 
• GOP Senator Glenn Grothman was attacked 
• Tea Party member Kenneth Gladney was attacked 
• SodaHead has a comprehensive list

They say that the Christian thing to do is to turn the other cheek.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

This verse from Matthew succinctly sums up the essence of pacifism. Ever since I'd been taught that verse I wondered how it could ever be practiced. If it were true that all people are good at heart and bad people just need love and understanding to set them on the road to goodness, then this verse makes perfect sense. But, what happens when a person is confronted by someone who is truly evil? In a nutshell, if the enemy is evil then pacifism ultimately leads to slavery torture and finally death. Anyone who knows a liberal today would never think of attaching that label—pacifist—to him. The life of the pacifist was briefly impersonated by liberal ideologues in the sixties as a device to stop the war against a communist regime. Liberals have always desired an unattainable utopia which they think communism can achieve. This utopia of perfect equality can never exist as long as greed and sloth exist in our universe. The short story by Kurt Vonnegut called Harrison Bergeron is an entertaining masterpiece of fiction which explores perfect equality. Liberals have simply abandoned their shabby pretense of pacifism and have now openly embraced their true philosophy:

Nihilism

1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler's last years.

Never Apologize for Your Opinion

The best defense is a good offense. Mark Halperin called Obama a dick. That wasn't his mistake. Oh, I know everyone is so angry that Halperin called Obama a dick. Over at MSNBC they're all so furious...

Here's why Mark Halperin is a disgrace. It's not because he used a mild obscenity to describe our president on Morning Joe, disrespectful as that was. Rather, it was the circumstances of the slur. Right now, the Republican Party is threatening to blow up the world economy unless Democrats agree to savage cuts in spending while refusing any of the revenue increases that all serious economists say are necessary to actually address the national debt. Obama, whose greatest fault in office has been a misplaced faith in the GOP's capacity for reasonableness, went on television and chided the party for this stance. Apparently, this struck Halperin as unreasonable. His response embodies all that's rotten and shallow about D.C.'s pundit class, which fetishizes bipartisanship even as it only demands it of one political party.

WOW! Apparently not only is Mark Halperin a "dick" but so is every Republican in the country. Hey all you fellow dicks out there, I bet you didn't know it was us that caused the deficit to balloon to the monstrous and crippling 14.3 trillion that it has. When you get in an argument with your wife and you complain that she spends way too much money, I wonder if she calls you a dick because you won't just agree to start earning more money. I mean that's all you have to do. If you want to balance your budget, don't ask her to stop spending money, instead you should agree to stop being a dick and go out and figure out some way to just make more money. Ah, but I'm getting off topic...

Never say you're sorry for telling people what you really think. I am sick and tired of hypocrites in the media asking everyone, "What do you really think?" But when they're told what we really think they throw a shit-fit! But that's not the worst part. Oh no, the worst part comes when these same hypocrites begin to exert pressure for an apology. The culprit starts to believe the exhortations of appeasement. He begins to believe that if he just apologizes, then everything is going to be fine. What he fails to realize, what they always fail to realize is that until they apologize they haven't admitted doing anything wrong. Once they apologize it's on! Anything goes once you grovel in abject obsequious regret. If they're thinking about firing you, and then you apologize that just makes it so much easier for them. Look at what happened to Don Imus:

In his apology, Imus called his comments "insensitive and ill-conceived."

"It was completely inappropriate, and we can understand why people were offended," he told listeners at the opening of his broadcast Friday morning. He further called the comments "thoughtless and stupid" and said, "We're sorry."

That was the end of his career. What might have happened had he reacted with righteous indignation instead of cringing bowing and scraping contrition? We will never know, but I think he'd still be on talk radio.

Remember Trent Lott? He had some complementary things to say about Senator Strom Thurmond: "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." This seemingly innocent sentence was not really what ended Trent Lott's political career, it was his apologies which did.

Fighting for his political life, Republican Senate leader Trent Lott went before the cameras Friday and offered a public mea culpa for comments that appeared to endorse segregation.

"I apologize for opening old wounds and hurting many Americans who feel so deeply in this area," Lott said in a news conference in his hometown. He asked people to "find it in their heart" to forgive him and vowed to work with black leaders to make amends. (Reaction to apology)

"Segregation is a stain on our nation's soul," Lott said. "There's no other way to describe it. It represents one of the lowest moments in our nation's history and we can never forget that."

With Apologies to Jesse Jackson
Tags: SOUTH
PARKmore...