Darwin's Cathedral, Evolution, Religion and The Nature Of Society

http://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Cathedral-Evolution-Religion-Society/dp/0226901351/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1457489612&sr=1-1&keywords=darwin%27s+cathedral

After seeing the subject book by David Sloan Wilson referenced in a number of other books I've read, I finally got around to reading it. Certainly not a "page turner" -- lots of evolutionary terminology. "Group Selection" is the biggie -- the idea that when groups have characteristics that are more "adaptive", they will be "selected" -- meaning more babies, more babies that live, conversion of other groups, etc.

"Since Darwin's theory relies entirely on differences in survival and reproduction, it seems unable to explain groups as adaptive units. This can be called the fundamental problem of social life. Groups function best when their members provide benefits for each other, but it is difficult to convert this type of social organization into the currency of biological fitness". 

The author is attempting to resurrect "group selection" by putting it on a continuum called "multi-level selection theory" ... genes, cells, organisms, groups -- selection happens across any and all, but what is most interesting to the author is clearly groups, and how religion is a core mechanism of that selection.

 "Moral communities in larger than a few hundred individuals are "unnatural" as far as genetic evolution is concerned, because to the best of our knowledge they never existed prior to the advent of agriculture. This means that culturally evolved mechanisms are absolutely required for human society to hang together above the level of face to face groups. 

At least if you reject any potential for "divine revelation" -- just where DID Newton or Einstein come up with their initial hypothesis? ... just kidding, mostly. The point is, for a pure atheist scientist, there had BETTER be SOME explanation why "unnatural things" are happening with human groups!

The other big evolutionary discussion is the "argument from design" and "functionalism". Naturally, an atheist scientist assumes that the "design" is "random", relative to some function that is adaptive (as opposed to there being a "designer")  He uses the example of a can opener relative to functional design. "The design features that identify an object as a can opener provide such a strong argument that we don't even call it an argument, we call it self evident".  He then points out that a specific religion "Calvinism" is DESIGNED to provide the function of allowing a group larger than "natural" to function -- interestingly, "designed" by Calvin.

On page 228 he really gets down to brass tacks.

" It is true that many religious beliefs are false as literal descriptions of the real world, but this merely forces us to recognize two forms of realism; a factual realism based on literal correspondence, and a practical realism based on behavioral adaptiveness."  

"Rationality is not the gold standard on which all other forms of thought are to be judged. Adaptation is the gold standard against which rationality must be judged, along with all other forms of thought."  

and then ... "... factual realists detached from practical reality were not among our ancestors. It is the person who elevates factual truth above practical truth who must be accused of mental weakness from an evolutionary perspective". 

I could do a MUCH longer review, but I think this is the core. For those that assume there is no God, the fact that humans are able to function in groups larger than a couple hundred people at most is a HUGE problem. It clearly happened, but HOW did it happen?

The answer is just what I harp on -- religion. In the West, Judaism and Christianity -- which CLEARLY were the  "most adaptive", or "divinely inspired" if you are a believer. If you are an evolutionist, they realize that they had damned well better figure out that "practical realism" is FAR superior to "factual realism" (or at least what the consciousness that we have no clue as to what it is THINKS is "factual") from an ADAPTIVE POV!

 Having the "facts" right, but turning up dead (as in "our culture")  -- meaning that you are NOT "among the ancestors" of the future doesn't fit well with having a "superior" brain -- even if you DO feel really great about gay "marriage"! "Superior" means staying in the gene pool in the evolutionary world!No matter how "good" something may be for your own moral reasoning, if you drop out of the gene pool, your "good" fails the test of survival.

Is it even POSSIBLE to have civilization as we know it without a huge majority of the people in that civilization fervently believing that the basis for their civilization is divine and sacred, or at the very least "exceptional"?  From what we have seen to date, not without massive coercive force as in National Socialist Germany, USSR, China, North Korea, etc. It remains to be seen in a couple cases if brutal force can be a substitute for belief. Even if it CAN, is that REALLY what our "factual realist" scientists find to be a "good idea"?

All in all, a good book -- most could read the first 20 pages and the last 20 and get 80% of the value out of it. It is worth at least that effort.

Heisenberg Cut From a Nut, Data vs Meaning

Why Gravitational Waves Are Red Herrings:

Deepak Chopra isn't really any more of a "nut" than me -- and he is a better educated nut in any case. It just rhymed well. I find his brand of spirituality to be too amorphous, "I'm OK, You're OK", "just be and it will all be OK" sort of the kind of spirituality that promises everything but demands nothing, and seems to have no real "there, there".

He is however fascinated with the interaction between things like the "Heisenberg Cut"(HC), the "boundary" between Newtonian and Quantum Physics, as am I.  My analogy for that boundary is like the hardware / software interface in computing, although sort of the "reverse". Above hardware interface in computers (the instruction set), all is "software" or "data" -- software is just data in a special format that the hardware recognizes as instructions.

Above the HC in the world, all appears to be "matter", but we know that it is also "energy". Below the cut, our attempts to discover if things are waves or particles becomes probabilistic. The answer seems to be "both", which may mean "neither/something else", but we don't know what that is. We may figure that out, but my guess is that at the below the HC, we are getting at least very close to the "stuff" (or non-stuff) of God -- meaning "spirit". Software runs on hardware, matter and our world might run on "spirit". At least I like to imagine that.  It has a weird symmetry.

Third, until reality is united into one whole, science cannot justify its claim to understand nature. This isn't simply a piece of grumpy skepticism. The Heisenberg cut raises a wall inside the human brain, because the brain is both a large object and totally dependent on quantum events taking place at the very most fundamental level of brain cells. Being unable to fuse the two domains of reality comes to a crunch every time you think a thought. At the large scale level of classical physics, your thought can be detected as increased neural activity that "lights up" on a brain scan. Yet this isn't the same as reading your mind. Only you know what your thought is.

Last I checked, there wasn't any real "evidence" that thought requires quantum effects, but there certainly are quantum effects taking place in each and every atom in the brain. Are there "special types" of quantum "operations" taking place in some of the specialized cells in the brain?

If you were watching the registers of a computer flit through millions of instructions manipulating millions/billions of bytes of data without access to a huge hunk of the software that was running and other programs which allowed you to trace the operations against source code, only a TINY number of people in the world would have any hope of discerning what was happening in the "big picture" of the program. Modern RISC instruction sets are hopelessly compressed and obscure from a human logical POV ... they are meant to run efficiently on specific hardware and rely on sophisticated optimizing compilers to generate streams that fit the specific hardware structure. That optimization makes the meaning of the instructions flitting through still more obscure from even an expert human POV.

How much more difficult is our situation in watching neurons "light up" under a "Positron Emission Tomography" (PET) or some other scan? For a computer CPU, we can look up the spec -- how many registers, what is the instruction set, etc -- for the brain? We are men blind from birth painting a picture of something that has never been described -- consciousness. "The feeling of knowing" indeed!

On the face of it, you'd never connect the fantastic achievement of LIGO with the utter confusion that exists when it comes down to how the brain works. Yet they are intimately connected, simply by the fact that doing science is a brain activity. If you don't know how such activity produces consciousness, and then how it goes on to produce the image of a four-dimensional world, you can't claim to understand what reality actually is. Instead, you're like someone in closed room who hears banging on the walls from outside. This banging can be measured in all kinds of ways, but everything you can say about it cannot be confirmed, because you'd have to escape the room to really find out what's going on.

There is a group of us in this closed room. We can all verify with each other that we are hearing, seeing, measuring a whole lot of stuff. We all have feelings, and we have verified that feelings are required for us to make any decisions (people that lose feelings / emotion are unable to make decisions). When it comes down to what all the measurements "mean" or "why" we see and feel the things we do, there is a lot of disagreement.

Mr Logic: "The data just IS, try to use what we learned to make us money, pleasure, more data, etc"

Mr Feeling: "There HAS to be a why! Think about what this might MEAN!"

Mr Logic: "Quit thinking about that! Try to use the data to help us LIVE LONGER, we are all going to DIE, even our children might die! We have to get BUSY, PLEASE get BUSY! "

Mr Feeling: "Why live longer if there is no purpose?"

Mr Logic: "Pleasure you fool! Pleasure will make you happy! Long life and pleasure, that HAS to be the reason we are here! Besides, why die? We can find ways to live FOREVER! "

Mr Feeling: "This work is hard and demanding. If pleasure is the answer I would rather spend time with my loved ones and watch the sun go down. Why even live one day longer if there is no meaning? ".

Mr Logic: "Damn you! I can't complete this work alone! Less and less people are willing to do the important work of making our lives more pleasurable and hopefully longer! I can't understand why this has happened!"

Mr Feeling: "Then you DO understand that "why" is an important question?"

... and so it goes.


'via Blog this'

HAL, Google Click Brain

Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic:

I enjoy Nicholas Carr as a writer and it was fun going back and reading my Blog on "The Big Switch" from March of '08.  The world was a lot more positive back then, I was still more hopeful of technology advances helping our futures, and less worried about downsides. His predictions of computing moving to "The Cloud" are very much coming to pass.

I've also read "The Shallows" on which the linked Atlantic article is based, but did not blog on it (yet) ... I'm probably going to give that one a re-read, although it already obvious that the Atlantic article is a pretty darned good summary, right down to the "2001 A Space Odyssey" references ... in particular:

The Carr thesis, going back over a decade at least, is that our technology changes us in unpredictable ways, and we ought to be aware of that. His view on the Internet and Google in particular is that we are losing our capacity for "deep reading" and "deep thought", and are being "distracted". Like HAL, we are "losing our minds".

He recognizes that it goes back a long way. One of the fairly recent (in terms of history) pieces of technology that totally changed the world was the clock. To wit ...

The clock’s methodical ticking helped bring into being the scientific mind and the scientific man. But it also took something away. As the late MIT computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum observed in his 1976 book, Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation, the conception of the world that emerged from the widespread use of timekeeping instruments “remains an impoverished version of the older one, for it rests on a rejection of those direct experiences that formed the basis for, and indeed constituted, the old reality.” In deciding when to eat, to work, to sleep, to rise, we stopped listening to our senses and started obeying the clock.

Being a Lutheran, I recognize one of the other "big ones" as the printing press. Without it, Luther would likely have just been another heretic burned or hung to save his own soul at the behest of the Roman Church. Instead, 500 years ago in 1517, the printing press (invented 1436) allowed his arguments and eventually the Bible itself, to be put in the hands of the common people in their own language. The central power of Rome was de-centralized, and much of what happened with democracy, republican government, the rise of commerce and science, etc was a direct result.

However, as this blog laments, wisdom is much more dear than knowledge, and one of the many challenges with "artificial intelligence" is just what is "intelligence"? These are not new problems ...

In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates bemoaned the development of writing. He feared that, as people came to rely on the written word as a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads, they would, in the words of one of the dialogue’s characters, “cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful.” And because they would be able to “receive a quantity of information without proper instruction,” they would “be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.” They would be “filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom.” Socrates wasn’t wrong—the new technology did often have the effects he feared—but he was shortsighted. He couldn’t foresee the many ways that writing and reading would serve to spread information, spur fresh ideas, and expand human knowledge (if not wisdom).

Since 2008, I've become aware of at least SOME of the dangers of my own auto-didacticism (self teaching with no program of study) in the areas of philosophy, politics, theology and areas of science (primarily cosmology and mind / consciousness study).

I would argue that being "filled with the conceit of wisdom instead of real wisdom" is pretty much the "disease of our day". I'm sure that the invention of writing was a contributor, but I'd argue that the abandonment of honor for history/tradition, infatuation with "the latest and greatest" as well as the pell-mell rush for "knowledge" (with abandonment of "values") and forced abandonment of "wisdom",  since it may slow the headlong rush, was a decision -- not "inevitable". As in the case of most of our modern decisions, it is hard to call it a "conscious decision" because we seem to firmly avoid thinking with enough depth to make those sorts of determinations, and have for a lot longer than the Internet has been around.

Some parts of the technologies are as McLuhan said, endemic ... "the media is the message". Mass radio and television begat mass marketing and everyone standing around the water cooler discussing what was on Carson last night. Airplanes trumped battleships and nuclear missiles made it clear that no visible nation could get away with isolationism unless you had "cover" (that used to be the US, prior to Obama). It seems that is a lesson that will apparently require a few more millions of deaths to re-learn.

While Carr seems to think that "technology is destiny", I prefer to believe that **IF** we, FIRST considered meaning, wisdom, culture, human frailty, Gods will, tradition, etc, and THEN made use of technology with those goals in mind and primary, we could avoid at least the most onerous of the losses due to technology.

We **CAN** still enjoy an evening around a crackling fire, and we can still shut off the lights and have a beautiful candlelight service at church, and as I often do, we can settle down in a nice easy chair in front of a big window looking over the backyard with a remote / thermostatically controlled fireplace to keep us warm while we read in depth.

It is completely true that before the invention/discovery of tools, fire, language, writing, printing, computers, Internet, etc, we had less choices and "things were different". What is far from clear however is that we can abdicate our responsibility for making appropriate use of technology and blame the problem on "the technology made us do it". I agree with the following quote from the column on the fact that we are creating a lot of "flat people" these days, but I find it to be a choice rather than our destiny.

Before even the first crude spear, God enabled us to have "Free Will" -- the rest of the creatures only have instinct on which to rely. We need to quit thinking we are "apes with tools" and recognize that we are uniquely blessed to be human with the divine gift of consciousness!

I come from a tradition of Western culture, in which the ideal (my ideal) was the complex, dense and “cathedral-like” structure of the highly educated and articulate personality—a man or woman who carried inside themselves a personally constructed and unique version of the entire heritage of the West. [But now] I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self—evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the “instantly available.”

'via Blog this'

The "We're Not Worthy" Civilization

Seeing the West as worse - The Orange County Register:

A society that no longer believes in its core beliefs cannot prevail against rivals who, although less wealthy and far less technologically advanced, embrace their core ideals. A West that rejects (and sometimes is unaware of) its own heritage cannot overcome those who, for religious or national reasons, have a powerful belief in theirs.

Seems pretty obvious does it not? What is it that we are supposed to believe in here in "middle north america?". Global Warming and Republicans are the greatest threat to our "civilization"? You mean the baby killing gender confused cult of shopping? THAT "civilization"?

As the great 15th century Arab historian Ibn Khaldun observed, societies that get rich also tend to get soft, both in the physical sense and in the head. Over the past two centuries, Western societies, propelled by the twin forces of technology and capitalist “animal spirits,” have created a diffusion of wealth unprecedented in world history.

Soft in body and soul -- the current essence (such as it is) of the tattered remnant of a once great civilization. The linked article could have been trimmed a good deal in my opinion, but it is generally well done. It closes as follows ...

Ultimately, we can only confront the challenge from authoritarian forces – whether in the Middle East, China or Russia – when we once again embrace our cultural values as important and worthy of protection. Our opponents – and that’s what they are – may be fundamentally weaker than us, but can count on the advantage of belief in their destiny. To save ours, Western culture needs to stay, not be put away.

For those that don't understand the title reference, a bit of comic relief ... because when you have a ringside seat for the end of Western civilization, a little laughter is REQUIRED!

'via Blog this'

The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt

http://www.amazon.com/The-Happiness-Hypothesis-Finding-Ancient/dp/0465028020

I blogged on this once before, but since only a couple of people read it at that time I decided to update and post again.  It is one of my favorite books relative to both ancient wisdom and what science is finding about the way our brains are organized.

The subtitle of the book is "Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom" and the author is Jonathan Haidt. I LOVED the recommendation from the father of the Positive Psychology Movement (Martin Seligman) who stated; "For the reader who seeks to understand happiness, my advice is: Begin with Haidt." ;-) (it actually isn't pronounced "hate", it is pronounced "height" ... but still funny)

I love the metaphor that he uses and the picture on the cover, a shadowy view of a rider on a swimming elephant. Haidt had gone for a trail ride in the mountains as a youth, and has the horse neared a particularly steep cliff, he panicked that he didn't have the horse under control and didn't know what to do. For a brief few seconds he debated jumping off as he realized what he thought was his peril. Of course, the old trail horse had done this trail thousands of times and had no interest in going off the cliff. She calmly negotiated the turn and life went on.

The analogy is to show the the relationship between our consciousness (rider), a fairly recent add to our wetware package (in the evolutionist view), and the vast majority of our mental apparatus honed by millions of years of successful selection. Our chances of controlling "the elephant" (subconscious) by force are zero. Our only hope is to learn how to lovingly train the elephant to operate more as a team with our consciousness. The theme of the book is how this has been relatively understood for millennia and there is much wisdom on how to do this which can now be validated and improved upon by modern science.

Shakespeare said: "There is nothing either good or bad but, but thinking makes it so". Buddha said: "Our life is a creation of the mind". Unfortunately, science shows us that we are biased to think the wrong things. We tend to focus on threats that aren't there and useless worry. Three techniques are proposed for dealing with this problem: Meditation, Cognitive Therapy, and "Prozac" (SSRIs Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitor drugs). All of these work to varying degrees and all can work together. The objective is for the conscious mind and the "elephant" to learn to work as a team rather than fighting -- all three methods help calm a nervous or morose "elephant" (subconscious).

There is a chapter on reciprocity, which is basically "the golden rule". It turns out it really does seem to be written on our souls, and there is no better way to get people to do something for you than to do something for them (or in the case of politics, promise to force OTHER people do something nice for them!). One of the big problems with human society is that of the "free rider" -- someone that doesn't follow reciprocity. Sanctions, gossip, and possibly a lot of our brain size is involved in operating as a cooperative group, but minimizing "free riders" -- at least it WAS that way up until Bernie Sanders! ;-)

I liked the explanation of "naive realism". "Each of us thinks we see the world as it really is. We further believe that the facts as we see them are there for all to see, therefore others should agree with us." We see everyone else as impacted by ideology and self interest -- but WE are unbiased!  As I try to point out, this is INESCAPABLE -- the best we can do is be aware of it and do our best to understand the arguments our "opponents" use. If you are in the dominant ideology position, it is MUCH harder to see the "other side", since it tends to be simply discounted as it is less popular, and in modern times we have been drilled to believe that "the most votes is right! At least until they elect "the wrong guy", like Reagan -- then the masses are "manipulated", "poorly educated", etc. Our founders of course chose to form a REPUBLIC not a "democracy" because they agree -- the mass can be wrong!

Late in the book there is a chapter that discusses how we are "wired for religion". Since Haidt is an atheist,  and a pure evolutionist,  the reason we are that way must be "group selection". It turns out that religion and it's shared rules are an excellent way to make much larger groups of people operate more optimally. Even better when it is backed up by perceived supernatural sanction.

I chuckle a bit here -- sadly, that a brilliant pure evolutionist sees pretty clearly that large groups of people that believe in a supernatural God that has provided them with rules that they all must follow even when nobody's looking, and has eternal significance is BETTER, as in "more adaptive". So the universe "randomly" works out so that the most adaptive course of action happens to be belief in God -- so "smart people" should fight that naturally occurring adaptive concept! Perhaps they ought to give up sex as well? (it is also natural and adaptive)

Twist your head over to environmentalism and the LAST thing that ought to be done is "fighting nature"! If it is "natural", the assumption of the left (and science) is that "going against nature" is EVIL! The only consistency in situational ethics is that it is inconsistent.

While Haidt clearly doesn't say it, that means that that Christianity USED to have an "adaptive advantage", which we managed to kill in the west -- really a double advantage, since kids were a blessing and having large families was a good thing. Now Islam has that advantage -- and hmmm, it is on the rise! Doesn't seem that one would need to be a particularly brilliant evolutionist to explain that one!

In any case, the book is EXCELLENT! It is one of my top recommendations for understanding human nature.

Happiness Is A Serious Problem, Dennis Prager

http://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Serious-Problem-Dennis-Prager-ebook/dp/B0014Y09OI

An alternate title for this excellent book would be "Wisdom About Happiness".  I'm not wired to be a particularly happy person, nor am I wired to be a thin person -- so I do the best I can to play the hand I have been dealt. While neither diet books nor happiness books are likely to make me thin or happy, they help me understand my wiring and predilections so that I can possibly be a bit wiser, and compensate where possible.

Nearly anything written by Prager seems to at least border on excellent and this book is no exception. It walks through a lot of the many  misconceptions on happiness. I'll put a few more quotes in than I usually would, since this book is chocked full of short, well-written and to the point statements.

Everything worthwhile in life is attained through hard work. Happiness is not an exception. 

But not working AT happiness -- and especially not at YOUR happiness. As you look back on life, you will almost certainly realize that you were most happy when you were enmeshed in some "cause" or "project". In my case, the big development projects at IBM and raising kids were the largest examples. Hopefully writing will continue to develop into another.

But the purpose of life is not to avoid pain. That is the purpose of an animal’s life.

Many of our problems and even false desires about happiness are due to forgetting that man is not an animal. If we were, the rich, successful, beautiful, etc would actually BE the most happy -- but we see examples all the time in which this is not the case. Animals don't know human happiness -- they know relaxation, satiation, pleasure, etc -- all of which humans feel as well. A simple definition of hell for humans is mistaking the pursuit of animal pleasures with happiness -- addiction, obsession, disaster are terms associated with these, certainly not happiness!

whatever brings the most happiness can also bring the greatest unhappiness.

Ask a parent who has lost a child, or just has a child that has returned the love and care of the parent with disrespect and derision. Ask the loving spouse whose life partner has died. We know this to be true -- one whole chapter, chapter 25 is titled "Everything has a price -- Know what it is!". How much wiser (and happier!) the world would be if just a tiny extra percentage of our fellow man understood this simple truth!

The problem in our time is that maturity is not high on the list of goals we offer the next generation. We stress happiness, success, and intelligence but not maturity. And that is too bad, both for society, which suffers when too many of its members are immature, and for the individual who wants to be happy. For happiness is not available to the immature. And one of the prominent characteristics of immaturity is seeing oneself primarily as a victim.

"Maturity", defined as "wisdom, self control, perspective, having a philosophy of life (or even having a clue what philosophy is!)" When "maturity" is defined to mean some combination of the terms I listed (and I believe that to be his intent), then the quote above is true.

The "sage" can be "happy" in the sense that they have access to and make use of many of the "secrets" of this book, but when they live in a culture that often glorifies sensation, immaturity, mixing ends with means, substitution of animal senses for human wisdom / maturity / development, they are going to feel regret for the rest of humanity.

Yes, there is a “secret to happiness”—and it is gratitude. All happy people are grateful, and ungrateful people cannot be happy. We tend to think that it is being unhappy that leads people to complain, but it is truer to say that it is complaining that leads to people becoming unhappy. Become grateful and you will become a much happier person.

The problem with the "secret" to happiness is expectations. We don't feel happiness when expectations are met, we feel happiness when they are exceeded, and our human nature is to expect A LOT! Our culture, media and education system is all about telling us of our "rights" and how much we ALL "deserve" this and that. We are each so VERY special and deserving!! Our expectations are sky high -- for products, events, teams, friends, spouses -- EVERYTHING!

Grateful? To who or what? The order of the day is entitlement -- and nobody is ever grateful for what they are entitled to! So modern western man is saddled with the greatest unhappiness in world history -- gravely wounded soldiers in terrible wars have been grateful to be alive, modern man is often distraught and grossly unhappy if their Facebook "Friends" fail to put a "like" on their new rainbow profile picture!

There is a lot more in the book -- Prager does a characteristically insightful and compassionate discussion of medications and being wired toward depression.

If we are, in fact, “built” this way, we no longer have to blame ourselves or loved ones for our unhappiness. There is something worse than depression—blaming it on yourself or a loved one.

For those of us with such wiring, this is possibly the most important day to day advice -- because the depressive wiring comes with self-blame as a "feature". How strange that even the modern "progressive" would likely agree with Prager on this relative to depression, but find it TOTALLY WRONG for someone with say a tendency to homosexuality to seek to understand and control that "wiring".  Does the depressive, alcoholic, or even narcissist NOT have some sort of a responsibility to be "true" to themselves and "authentic"? Consistency remains a non-sequitur for the "progressive".

I highly recommend the book even if you are a very happy person. It is an excellent broad-brush skim of some of the more important, but often forgotten today, wisdom for a meaningful human life.

Sanders USSR Honeymoon, Moose Report, You Decide

The 25 best things we learned from Bernie Sanders' book | MSNBC:

George Will did a good little column on the death of Robert Conquest that mentions Sander's honeymoon in the USSR in 1988. I'd never heard that, so I did a bit of Googling ... noted right wing news source MSNBC reports (linked above) that this is covered in Bernie Sanders now very hard to get book:

19. Sanders honeymooned in the USSR. Sanders married his current wife, Jane, in May of 1988 and the next day left for their “romantic honeymoon” to Yaroslavl, in the then-Soviet Union. The trip was an official delegation from Burlington to cement the two cities’ sister-city relationship. “Trust me. It was a very strange honeymoon,” Sanders writes.

However, if you live in the strong "anti-Fox" area of the left wing universe, Bernie never went on his honeymoon in the USSR and it is all made up by "Faux News":

The problem is that, with Fox News, what you learn each day just makes you more stupid than you were the day before. 

The origin of the this made-for-Fox fallacy was a 2007 interview of Sanders’ wife, Jane, by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. In the interview she was describing how she and Bernie met and some of their early engagements which were almost entirely related to their shared interest in community affairs. They were so involved in these sort of activities that she joked…

“The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day Parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslovl with 10 other people on my honeymoon.” 

The context was obviously humorous. Who could possibly read that and come away thinking that she seriously meant that they honeymooned with ten other people who were implementing a sister city project? Well, apparently Weinstein and others of his ilk came away believing just that. Weinstein likely picked up the lie from uber-conservative John Fund who wrote an article for the National Review containing the same misrepresentation of Sanders’ diplomatic trip. 

We are going to have to get used to wingnuts hyperventilating over the political labels attached to Sanders.

While I'd love to say that more right wing news sources are never wrong, I'd by lying. I'm sure there are some fables on even Moose Tracks, although I try very hard to check accuracy from multiple sources. I'd say that in general if you listen to a single source for your news -- ANY single source, or even just CURRENT news you will have a bit of the effect that the "Faux crazies" point out above ... "The problem is that, with Fox News, what you learn each day just makes you more stupid than you were the day before."

All sources are biased, and the MOST insidious bias is the progressive bias -- the idea that knowledge and history are moving somehow directly toward "better / smarter / fairer / more enlightened" (Whig Theory of History). The secular universe claims to be created by randomness -- random means random. It CAN'T have a direction! Not ANY direction!

We used to live in a teleological (directed ... by God) universe. In THAT universe, one could say that the future was at least part of "God's Plan" ... but a cursory study of eschatology (end times) tells the faithful that "Gods ways are not our ways" ... outside of the admonition to seek to assist in God's plan, there is ZERO reason to subscribe to "progress" = "better". It is a stated equivalence of two unknown terms.

Philosophy and Religion were once the center of what it meant to be an educated human. They were the center, because living every day without a creed of any sort is like travelling with no destination -- you have no idea of what transportation to choose, which way to go, or even to move or sit still. You are directionless.

The vast majority of modern man lives with no thought of where they are going nor what they seek -- except possibly "pleasure", or "ease" or some such vague awareness. No matter where they get their "news", they to a great degree "get stupider every day" simply because of information overload. They are bombarded with supposed "crisis", "breaking news", "historic events", etc, but they have no context in which to place these supposed momentous events.

So mostly, left and right, they assert the superiority of their tribe. Man without civilization is tribal, and civilization **IS**  Religion and Philosophy -- FOLLOWED by literature, music, art, politics science, etc. Even carefully studied and varied sources of "news" are only fitted into a tribal context of the kind from the "anti-Fox" source above -- one more opportunity to call the other tribe "stupid", while having no concept of what it really is that supposedly makes your own tribe "intelligent".

The saddest thing to me is what I slowly discovered starting in the '80s -- that Western civilization wasn't "declining" for me personally, it was DEAD -- or more accurately, it did not exist since I did not understand it!

When I first opened "The Closing of The American Mind", I realized I lacked the most basic of tools -- vocabulary, exposure to classic literature, basic concepts of meaning and philosophy, etc in order to even BEGIN to understand the very basics of the greatness of Western civilization that was supposedly my civilization. I was a college graduate, but really just a technician in a tiny corner of a very specific modern technology.

I've slowly clawed my way to a rudimentary (mis?)understanding of "a little", but it is all self-taught with all the dangers that entails ... and it is generally a very lonely road. Especially lonely because part of "liberalism" is to cut off people that disagree with you.  The forces of "progressivism" are so powerful they have thoroughly wrecked most of the community of wisdom -- a few lists of "great books", biographies of great men, and of course The Bible, are all that remain -- and memories, lots of memories.

Progressivism will continue to root out all of civilization it can -- for it primarily lives by stealth. Destroy meaning, destroy wisdom, return humans to blind tribes of savages -- all be it with Internet, MSM and public "education" (indoctrination) , rather than drums, witchdoctors and spears -- but tribal savages just the same. When life has no meaning beyond at most your tribe, then people are very easily led.

I'll report, you decide.

'via Blog this'

"Escaping" Our God Given or Random Advantage

I tried to escape my privilege with low-wage work. Instead I came face to face with it. - The Washington Post:

The author of the column definitely successfully escaped any advantage he had as a writer -- or probably he just never had any natural advantage (talent) in that area. Either God created a system in which those with advantages flourish, or such a system arose out of the chaos of randomness for unknown reasons. In any case, advancement, and even survival demands that advantage be discerned from disadvantage and the advantages be utilized toward what those with working advantages deem proper  -- either to follow the will of God, or to just thumb our noses in the face of a cold and random cosmos.

There must however be a "human lemming" switch built in somewhere that forces a human culture, once it has achieved sufficient (clearly temporary in the US case) dominance, to declare itself "unfit / unworthy" and go the suicide way. Let me "escape" any advantage I have -- certainly my "privilege".

Somehow I can't see a cheetah cursing it's speed and deciding to wear weights on its ankles because it has "a speed privilege it can't escape". It is absolutely clear that Vladimir Putin is not soon going to wash his hands of health, wealth and a strong character just because he feels bad for what a weak fool BO is. ISIS is likewise not going to be giving up any of their advantages just because BO thought they were "JVs", but now says "it will take a wider and longer approach" to defeat them. Apparently the US has REALLY been successful in giving up any military advantage we might have had -- we are now locked in a long term undefined struggle with the "JV team"!

I'm quite certain our "friends" the Iranians will sort out the mideast to whatever form they feel to be their advantage once they successfully have the bomb -- with nary even a first thought, let alone a second, of if they are justified in using their nuclear privilege, so generously bequeathed by their benefactor BO!

The race goes to the swiftest, the strongest, the smartest, or sometimes just to those that wait for fools to hand over the advantages they have with no thought that tomorrow's "privileged" may not be so inclined to benevolence.

In fact, one needent read much Islam to KNOW for certain that our options are "convert or die" -- they are more than fine with either choice.

Hope and Change indeed.

'via Blog this'

Escape Mass Delusion, Love and Laughter

How To Escape The Age Of Mass Delusion:

A very important article that I suspect points to an important book, "The Rape of Mind" by Joost Meerloo.

Meerloo testified to this feeling of disorientation: “Many victims of totalitarianism have told me in interviews that the most upsetting experience they faced in the concentration camps was the feeling of loss of logic, the state of confusion in which they had been brought – the state in which nothing had any validity.” 

That’s because in the mass centralized state, “peaceful exchange of thoughts in free conversation will disturb the conditioned reflexes and is therefore taboo.” On a hopeful note, Meerloo writes that “love and laughter break through all rigid conditioning.”

I bring up "Man's Search for Meaning" a bit too often -- but it also makes that point, that it is REAL MEANING that is what ultimately makes life worth living. It is much more FUN with more people sharing the same meaning, but if you lose the meaning, you have lost life.  I find the following hits far too close to home:

As more people succumb to PC conditioning and cede their freedom of thought, it becomes more difficult for the rest of us to maintain integrity of mind. Our audience shrinks. As we encounter more and more drone-like personalities in daily life, the world seems to sink into surrealism, like so many in Rod Serling’s old “Twilight Zone” episodes.

 The line that anyone that is still not under the spell of the totalitarian state probably finds most sad is: "That’s because in the mass centralized state, peaceful exchange of thoughts in free conversation will disturb the conditioned reflexes and is therefore taboo.” Few things are more sad at the end of freedom and culture than this somber truth.

We see it happen to friends and family members one by one. They lose the old meaning of life, the ability to "peaceful exchange of thoughts in free conversation", because they MUST follow the absolute strict dictates of the State, or lose what they have now taken to be meaning -- the advancement of state power over all aspects of life and their relations with others of that belief.

There is no way for them to maintain faith in God, love of family, tradition, history, personal responsibility, character and certainly not truth under that onslaught. Any step away from complete State orthodoxy on gays, warming, gender, taxation, choice of media outlets, God, or values brings the glazed eyes, and the end of conversation.

Like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"  they one by one succumb to the new popular mob acceptance -- they are "proud of Jenner's courage", they "don't see why Indiana can't love everyone" ... and then they are lost to any real conversation and contact. Conversation with them becomes a minefield with an ever increasing set of items that are off-limits -- "the peaceful exchange of thoughts in conversation" has died. All that remains is extremely bland talk, if any contact can be maintained at all. The effect to a still free-thinking religious traditional American is as if the former friend or loved one had "joined a cult".

But the minority and the "cult" is clearly those of us who retain even the thought that the weather is just the weather, or now that boys are boys and girls are girls. Such ideas mean that we are now "not of the liberal body", and therefore not worthy of being truly accepted by those who ARE of the liberal body. The pressure to remove all references to anything not in alignment with the state grows larger with each day as the purview of "safe speech" gets smaller -- along with the knowledge  that "hiding out" is not really an option.

Maybe it is your kids lecturing on gay "marriage", or Jenner's "courage"-- or some friend that you "thought was still reasonable" doing the same  -- but at some point, you at least wrestle with the idea that maintaining your connection with God, tradition, country, self-respect, truth, etc is becoming too expensive.

Then the first steps are taken. Mostly first, just silence -- "if I don't speak up maybe they won't notice". Then the tacit little "yes, I agree ... with something".  The "something" may be "many definitions of courage", "we can never know how someone else feels", "there are lots of views on that" ... but certainly there is no defense of "God created us male and female, some things are not man's to change". We start by failing to stand, then we fall. Each step is small, and they become easier.

You feel you MUST "get along with the people in the majority" -- after all, they were your friends and still are your family, although relations with them have become strained and distant. So with each small step the change becomes more "natural" -- soon you find yourself saying things like "I can understand how it must have been difficult for Jenner" -- and feeling a lot less concern or understanding of  the runner up for the "courage award", a tri-athlete who lost an arm and leg in combat. We all have gender -- and have sometime wondered what the other gender feels like. Very few of have lost multiple legs in combat -- the "Mass Delusion" is so much more ... "accessible".

It is indeed VERY "accessible" -- in fact EFFORTLESS! It takes no courage at all to follow whatever whim rises up from the cesspool of the human heart and have your picture draped on the cover of a magazine. Any idiot knows you **MUST** want that, or your picture would not be there! The Mass would like to convince you differently, or that someone that is willing to risk violence to show pictures of Muhammad must "want to be beheaded". The Mass LIVES by getting it's followers to acceed, even violently, to things that they know to be false.

The supposed happiness of the mob is never real. Our souls aren't made to worship the mob, and the mob has ZERO real interest in our souls (or their own -- they gave their souls up to join!). Screw up relative to the mob and there is no "forgiveness" or consideration of "I will stand by him, I've known him for years", or even "that is my mom or dad". No, when you buy the meaning of the Mob, you buy **ALL** the meaning -- which means no honor save compliance, no independence (you say what the mob says), no freedom (you follow the mob), no true emotion (your emotions are what the mob tells you). And no love.

You certainly can't be a Christian and declare gender changes to be "courageous", nor stand up for gay "marriage", nor abortion. God is nothing if not wise. You CAN'T serve "God and mammon" -- the Mob and it's sin is what he wants to save you from!

So as our family, friends and even children turn to the Mob, what they most need is for us to continue to stand as an alternative. While the Mob will never repent, INDIVIDUALS can repent -- they can turn from serving mammon and return to actual love and laughter. BUT, there has to be somebody that hasn't given in to the Mob.

John 4 verses 7 and 8:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love

A person not of the Mob but of Christ can (and WILL) painfully continue to love those who have left Christ and joined with the Mob. The Mob will love nobody -- ever.

I use the Bible and Christian images because that is who I am. One could use the Constitution, the writings of Hayek, Orwell or Burke. Even of Solzhenitsyn.  Find SOMETHING!

Most of all ... "Never, never, never give up!" (Winston Churchill)

'via Blog this'

Incompetence, Against Our Nature

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131125-why-the-stupid-say-theyre-smart

Donald Rumsfeld  once made an astute observation once that included the phrases "known unknowns, and unknown unknowns" ... the whole quote bears repeating.

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Naturally, the press found the whole discussion to be another "proof" of Rumsfeld's stupidity and ignorance. This article gives a good insight into the  basic science behind why they would react that way. (note, it isn't because they were correct in any way)

What the article covers is that when we are incompetent, we generally are not aware of it, and the more incompetent we are, the more our general tendency is to radically over-estimate our competence even when faced with evidence of our incompetence. To know and accept "unknown unknowns" is on the path to wisdom ... a path we are not wired to walk.

With a moments thought, the fact of our general incompetence is completely obvious. Let's name a few fields -- engineering, medicine, economics, plumbing, electrician, pilot, florist, motorcycle racer, farming and  bar tender.

We could go on for pages -- listing specialties, etc, but the above list ought to be enough to convince the non-politicians among us that we are grossly incompetent in more than at best a few listed, BUT, the article tells us we almost certainly VASTLY overrate our expertise in the ones we are least competent in! It's called "human nature" -- what we DON'T know VASTLY exceeds what we do know.

Rather than running around fully conscious of this massive inadequacy, we simply kid ourselves. Why feel like a total dunce just because you ARE a total dunce. Right? We LIKE to feel good -- so we lie to ourselves! It is something that humans EXCEL at. We are basically all certain that we are above average drivers -- which rationally makes no sense at all, but we ARE NOT rational! We are RATIONALIZING!

I poked fun at politicians above, but it applies equally well to media people, in general to managers and any sort of "leader".  NOTE, I'm NOT saying that we don't need leader types, nor that many of us don't need to assume those positions at times, only that like anything else that humans do, leadership / authority is strongly adversely affected by our basic natures.

BO more than once commented that he was better at any job that those that work for him.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign, according to The New Yorker. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

BO is an especially egregious case, but we ALL have this basic problem, and it gets WORSE as people rise in power / leadership. Almost certainly you have hired contractors that you felt you "could have done as good or better a job as". My advice is to sheet rock, tape and paint a room yourself -- take your time, do the best job you can! To do it right, you need to live with that room a few years -- get to know the flaws. Remember how hard you worked to get it right.

Then, ideally, hire a set of Spanish speaking illegals to show up and sheet rock, tape/mud a much more complicated room. WATCH THEM ... and keep track of the time, then look at the finished job. After you get done crying, you ought to be significantly smarter about your incompetence! But it STILL will not be your nature -- that is wired in. It can't be fully fixed by mere experience.

The big civilization killing problem is that we end up with leaders like BO that have NO CLUE about their incompetence, and they are reported on by reporters who are just as blind!!!

Our founders understood this. They assumed a people that recognized God and thus had at least the base for wisdom. They provided a Constitution and separation to limit the damage that guaranteed incompetent leadership (there is no other kind, we use humans!) could cause. They tried very hard to protect us!

The senselessness of "progressive" thought -- the idea that the latest thought is always the best, as well as the extreme danger of government size and power growing can be easily understood by observing this one easy to understand and easily verifiable fact of our shared nature.

If we were rational beings, we could all agree on this -- but it is against our nature. We got to where we were when we landed on the Moon because well over half of us understood that "The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom".

The scale has tipped the other way -- so now we foolishly decline.

Man's Search For Meaning, Viktor Frankl

link to book

Personal events of the past week have yet again brought this book off my shelf and I realized that I have never directly reviewed it in the blog.

Dr Victor Frankl, trained as a psychiatrist before suffering years of life in the brutal concentration camps of Nazi Germany where he lost his young wife, parents and of course millions of others (including many more of his friends and associates), has a level of authority that is hard to ignore.

Beyond his experience in the horror of the camps, he founded a school of psychotherapy called "Logotherapy", derived from the Greek "logos" or "meaning". It is considered the 3rd school of Viennese psychotherapy, contrasted with Freud's "will to pleasure", and the Adler/Nietzsche "will to power", it talks of a "will to meaning" in the existential manner similar to Kierkegaard.

Logotherapy speaks of "existential frustration", where the term "existential" has 3 related meanings:

1. Existence itself in the way that humans experience it.
2. The MEANING of existence
3. The PERSONAL SEARCH for that meaning

Where Freud, and largely the American Founders thought that "happiness" or "pleasure" is what is to be pursued, Frankl believes that life provides each of us a task that is specific and unique for each person. Every human has value because each has a unique task that will likely fall under one or more of three headings:

1). The completing of a "work" -- art, innovation, a family, ideas, business, etc ...

2). Experiencing or encountering someone or some thing -- the love of your life, care for the poor, the elderly, the sick ... or maybe just "baseball", or "riding motorcycle"

3). Suffering -- facing inevitable suffering and turning it to triumph. Very much looked down on today where we tend to make people "ashamed for being unhappy". Note if the suffering CAN be removed, then that is what should be done, but if it is a terminal painful condition, or someone close to you is lost -- or if you are in a concentration camp, then human suffering CAN have dignity.

A well known quote from Nietzsche comes up a couple times in the book "He who has a why can bear with almost any how." The message of the book is that it is meaning that is primary (the why). Happiness is a RESULT not the immediate objective, and in fact, the pursuit of happiness as a primary goal is often destructive as it fails to realize that RESPONSIBILITY ... inescapable responsibility to answer the question that life asks us, is the natural human state and it REQUIRES tension ... effort, risk, loss, pain.

The idea that happiness is a worthy "pursuit" and some would even say "a right" is a sham, because of what Frankl calls "the tragic triad" that is part of each of our lives:

Pain, Guilt, and Death. 

Part of each of our "question" is how do we say yes to life in the face of Pain, Guilt, and Death. His basic answer is "A human being is not one in pursuit of happiness, but rather in search of a reason to become happy".

I'm going to include his "imperative", even though it is one that does not speak to me as well as much of the book does:

 "Live life as if you were living for the second time and had acted as wrongly the first time as you are about to act now". 

To try to give readers a chance to follow this better than possibly I do, I will quote a bit more:

" In fact, the opportunities to act properly, the potentialities to fulfill a meaning, are affected by the irreversibility of our lives. But also the potentialities alone are so affected. For as soon as we have used an opportunity and have actualized a potential meaning, we have done so once and for all. We have rescued it into the past wherein it as been safely delivered and deposited. In the past, nothing is irretrievably lost, but rather, on the contrary, everything is irrevocably stored and treasured. To be sure, people tend to see only the stubble fields of transitoriness, but overlook and forget the full granaries of the past which they have brought into the harvest of their lives: the deeds done, the loves loved, and last but not least, the sufferings they have gone through with courage and dignity." 

My belief is that the reason this does not speak to me to the same extent is that I did not suffer in a concentration camp, nor lose a young wife that I loved, all my family and most of my friends to the Holocaust. To Frankl, his life prior to, and even the experience of the horror of the camps is so much a part of his soul that he has had to integrate that as "treasure", somewhat in order to live, but possibly more so in order to honor and keep alive the memories of those he knew and loved that were lost so early in his life.

The book is not directly a "religious book", although to believe that "life" asks each a meaningful question, there is only a short step from "life" to "God". If one has Christian Faith, much in the book is quite easily to translate to that context.

Needless to say, I highly recommend the book, ESPECIALLY for those suffering ... and in human life, eventually, that includes all of us.

Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver

https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Have-Consequences-Richard-Weaver/dp/022609006X

This book was first published in 1948 and it is scary to see how far we have tumbled down the predicted cliff toward the ultimate demise of Western Civilization since then.

Weaver points out that without first principles, there is no way to know where we went astray or why, and he is very clear and simple on the causes.

"This was a change that overtook the dominant philosophical thinking of the West in the fourteenth century, when the reality of transcendentals was first seriously challenged."

Since man moved away from the idea of transcendentals to the idea that "man is the measure of all things", the Whig theory of history quickly developed -- "the belief that the most advanced point in time represents the point of highest development".  Today this banner is carried by "progressives" -- the firm belief that the last drop of  hootch to be excreted from the still today is better than 40 year old Scotch.

"For four centuries every man has been not only his own priest, but his own professor of ethics, and the consequence is an anarchy which threatens even that minimum consensus of value necessary to the political state." 

At least he isn't always his own bartender! Weaver links transcendentals primarily back to Plato, although the connection with religion obviously seeps through. For the common man, the doctrine of Christianity is what would be infinitely more beneficial to both the eternal soul and temporal existence here on earth than the worship of the relativist pagan state.

"The issue ultimately involved is whether there is a source of truth higher than, and independent of man; and the answer to the question is decisive for one's view of nature and the destiny of humankind.  The practical result of nominalist philosophy is to banish the reality which is perceived by the intellect and and to posit as reality that which is perceived by the senses."

"The denial of everything transcending experience means inevitably -- though ways are found to hedge on this -- the denial of truth. With the denial of objective truth there is no escape from the relativism of man is the measure of all things .... The witches spoke with the habitual equivocation of oracles when they told man that by this easy choice he might realize himself more fully, for they were actually initiating a course which cuts one off from reality. Thus began the "abomination of desolation" appearing today as a feeling of alienation from all fixed truth". 

"Nominalist" meaning denying that things that transcend the physical universe exist. ("matter" is all there is) Not simply however "god" -- since our own abstract thoughts and to some degree language stretch the old meaning of "physical".

It is a book I could go on and on quoting from, but that breaks my promise to explain what the book means to me and encourage others to read it.

Ideas set humans apart and make us what we are. When we are focused at the highest levels of our brain --- reason, abstraction, ultimates, patterns, relations, connections, etc, we are most human in the sense of unique from animals -- with an eternal soul, a soul that wants those transcendentals. It drives us to look for ultimate and eternal causes, the explanation for WHY things are as they are.

When I was in college, a favorite professor described the difference between the university and the vocational school up the hill as basically "Down here we learn WHY the computer works as it does, up the hill they learn only HOW to operate or program following a specific path, not the reason why that path may be optimal, easy, efficient or what alternatives there are to the specifics being taught".

The reference is at about 7:30 in if you don't like the lead up ...

When there are no transcendentals (ultimate reasons "why"), then one way is hard to defend one view from another and we arrive at "my truth and your truth". It is all relative -- it is todays sense data that counts,  because it is assumed that is all there is. The physical shared reality (although that is less certain than it once was). We may be able to do a lot of "technology", but as is also covered in the book, much of it will only do more to distract us from that which is of ultimate value.

"Ideas" is a critical book about first principles to understand the universe, our place in it, and how to reach for "the good life", as in the spiritual life that has eternal meaning (although it is not a "religious" book).

"Ideas" is a cornerstone of what I'm re-reading and attempting to weave together as my personal "Canon of Christian Conservatism" at this point in my life -- the basis of what I have come to believe about life, the universe and everything! It was previously discussed here, as well as here.

At its base "Ideas"  is "God" (transcendence), Yes or No, and what is likely to happen to both you and your civilization depending on how you choose!

Income Inequality, Working Poor, Wealthy, The Party

This is a topic that I run into in my personal life, and one which I see articles on that claim to be causes, but are actually effects. "Jobs moved overseas" is a great example -- companies don't move jobs overseas because they somehow "hate American workers", they move them there because American workers have become non-competitive due to policies of the government or decisions that the workers have made.

I suspect this topic will take more than one blog post, and I'll be looking for articles in support, but I'd like to get a start at the big picture framework -- my order or precedence may well change as I move through the topic (sometimes I change my blog posts after they have been posted).

My top level simple summary is that we have vast income inequality and working poor because runaway consumption fueled by debt and orchestrated by politicians seeking to buy votes from an ever larger dependent class creates few winners and many losers. 

Those that provide the consumables, the credit (usually backed and/or aided by the government in one way or another) and orchestrate the politically favored wealth transfers become wealthy, while those that borrow and consume become poor -- so poor that even though they typically have a house, a car, smartphones, flat screen TV, internet, eat out regularly, gamble, etc, they are so cash strapped that they have to resort to payday loans, food pantries, etc to cover the most basic of needs at times.

They are marketed and sold a lifestyle that they are supposed to be "entitled to", taught nothing of delayed gratification and thrift, then further lied to with assurances that their problems are due to "the wealthy", "the 1%", etc. and will be "solved" by some version of government transfer payments.

That is the simple sound-bite answer, now for a tiny bit more depth on specifically how we got here.

1. The Consumer Society -- During the latter half of the 20th century, America became a country based on CONSUMPTION. There are lots of things a country can be focused on -- excellence, personal responsibility, independence, learning, beauty, cleanliness, godliness, future generations, thrift, competitiveness ... the list is endless, but the US managed to make a very clear choice, and with the advent of radio, TV and finally the internet, this choice became so ubiquitous that most Americans are like fish in water relative to it -- not aware they are wet. We used to be a nation of fiercely independent hard workers with pride in quality output, now we are a nation of "consumers".
   
   Entertainment is part of that consumption. Americans have next to zero attention span these days, which makes any sort of understanding of any issue by any significant number of them to be nearly impossible. The vast bulk of people have arrived at the state where life involves constant entertainment -- sports, music, TV, web surfing, smart phones, etc, all of which is laced with sophisticated advertising telling them to buy, buy, buy. "Work" if they do it, is a nasty necessity where many of them want to stay plugged in to at least music, if not continued web surfing or other distractions while they bide their time at a job that they see as a "necessary evil". Working is seen as an obstacle to constant entertainment and consumption.
   
   Our nation is focused on a vicious cycle of advertising laced entertainment encouraging more buying that consumes more of the life of the "consumer" -- Americans have largely been converted to 24x7 consuming devices rather than people.


2. Credit -- Shakespeare says "Neither a borrower or a lender be, For loan oft loses both itself and friend, And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry". America is sad proof of that maxim, and our knowledge of "husbandry", or wise use of resources, is so dull as to be non-existent. Not only have we been told to consume, consume, consume, but the primary means for that consumption is borrow, borrow, borrow -- as individuals and as a nation we are awash in debt and show no signs of any ability to extricate ourselves.
   
   Indeed, given the consumptive base of the economy, it is hard for most to even visualize an alternative. Mortgage, auto, consumer debt always flirt with new all-time highs, and Americans borrowing and spending more is considered "good news". Local, state and federal government run up ever more massive debt in numbers too big to even really fathom -- hundreds of billions a year, trillions a year, 17 trillion in debt, 60 trillion in unfunded liabilities for FICA, Medicare, and now BOcare. The total red ink hemorrhages to levels where it makes us sick to even consider it -- so we don't, and "nobody can explain" why we have "income inequality" and "working poor".
   
   The most basic reason is because the folks providing the consumables and the credit to the "consumers" build wealth,  while the consumers get "stuff" (soon worthless) and debt. Anyone who consumes all they make are effectively "the working poor", those that consume MORE than they make (debt) are even poorer. No matter how high the income, they are a paycheck away from financial disaster, and no matter how big their home, shiny their car, large their TV, etc, they are actually poor. The typical dual income "good job" US family is a microcosm  of how our government operates -- over extended with ever ballooning payments due.
   
   
3. Government -- The big daddy in all this is bloated government at all levels. Government is an EXPENSE. It produces nothing on it's own, and right now the layers of government in the US are taking something around 40% of our GDP and rising. Most of our population has consumed itself into being working poor, and the government that is somehow supposed to "fix this" is poor as well.
   
   Ah you say, the government is the "only friend of the average American". Well, yes if you consider the pimp, the pusher and the loan shark to be "friends" of those that believe themselves in "need"  of those services. In fact, when I was watching TV as a child in the '60s Dragnet, Streets of San Francisco and such often arrested guys "running the numbers" -- today, the states "run the numbers" in lotteries as one more way to fleece their citizens.
   
   The primary business of government in the US today is the transfer of payments from the pockets of one set of people (mostly the young) to another set of people (mostly the old) -- entitlements are 75%+ of current US government "spending" -- which is essentially calling what Jessie James and Billy the Kid did "spending" rather than stealing. Stealing is taking money from one person by force and allowing another person to decide what to do with it. The purpose of government transfers is to buy votes for the ruling party (TP "The Party, Democrat), so the allocation of the funds is random to completely adverse to actual productivity. Productivity which would build capital, lower prices and provide the hope of an actually better future is replaced by an economy of buying more power for TP.
   
   The price of everything purchased is increased by government -- regulations, fees, taxes, licenses, permits ... each is a cost and each is added to the cost of the product. One of the larger lies of government is the constant direct or indirect promise of a "free lunch" -- as in raising the minimum wage. When the wage is increased, the price of the product goes up, labor is reduced by automation or less service, or the production moves offshore ... most likely some combination of all three.
   
   What about the businessman making less profit? Very unlikely -- most small businesses are largely based on the idea of building up equity in a going concern. The dream that they can work hard, not take much income out, plow profits back into improving the business and build a better future. Government is certainly fine with killing that dream and putting another entrepreneur out of business ('you didn't build that"), but for those that had the gumption to go into business in the first place, it is a hard dream to kill -- they will try to raise the prices or increase efficiency.
   
   It works no better for the large business. Increase the cost of production in the US, tax profit, etc and first the jobs leave the US, and eventually the entire business (see Burger King moving to Canada, Medtronic and many others). The government policies make the US a poor place to invest, so the business goes elsewhere and the US has less jobs. Another win for TP since DEPENDENCE ON GOVERNMENT is what the TP agenda is all about!
   
    Prior to FDR, a common view of financial life for a person in the US was "work hard, spend less than you make, and invest the difference in something that goes up in value". Such a view is likely to create largely successful people and a largely successful nation over time, which makes it a hated view for TP.  TP grows in power by the creation of ever more dependence and resentment in a greater and greater percentage of the population. That is their bread and butter in building their majority and power.
   
   Replacing "work hard, control spending and invest wisely" with "join a union, spend everything you make, and the government will take care of you when you are old" was and is the core brilliance of TP in gaining power. As unions and government priced the American worker out of the world market with ever higher wages, more benefits and more restrictive work rules, TP faced a challenge. Their solution has been brilliant -- ever increasing unemployment benefits, re-training payments, "disability" payments and out and out income support for less and less output (Earned Income Credit). Over 50% of our population is now receiving a government payment of one sort or another -- the TP voting bloc is ever more secure.

I see those three legs of the stool of dependence, debt, poverty and eventual economic collapse as being the main aspects that need to be understood in approximately that order -- one could argue that government is #1, and that 1 and 2 are EFFECTS of the designs of TP as well, I'm not really that concerned about the order, because all three legs have to be basically repudiated for the nation to move forward, and they are all very much linked ... and largely unknown to the average constantly entertained "consumer", more and more afraid and "bitterly clinging" to the supposed safety promised by their keepers -- TP, and it's wealthy elite. 

Who and where are "the wealthy" in all of this? The favorite bogymen of TP? In general, they are quite happy members of TP -- unless you are a VERY brave wealthy person, you nearly have to be lest the IRS, Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, one of the myriad of anti-discrimination agencies, or some other in the alphabet soup of TP enforcers takes you down -- HARD! So the Gates, Buffets, lawyers, finance and entertainment types play the TP game -- let "the marks", the consumer debtors believe that TP is somehow "hard on the rich" if it makes them feel better. There are only 1% of them anyway ... they have control of education, the media and largely the political discourse except for FOX news, talk radio and some renegade bloggers, so it is very easy to control the story line that the typical low information voter is indoctrinated with.

The way out of this morass is simple, however the hole that has been dug is massive. As individuals and as a nation we need to work hard, consume less than we make and invest the difference in things that go up in value. At a basic level, I believe we all know this -- it is one of the reasons that the constant distraction of the media machine is so critical to the continued power of TP.

TP and it's supporters will naturally scream "well, EVERYONE CAN'T do this" ... Indeed. Much as the old joke of the two folks facing a bear when one guy starts putting on tennis shoes. The other says "You don't really think you can outrun that bear do you?" The guy with the tennis shoes says "I don't have to outrun the bear, only you!"

How cruel you say. Indeed, it is a joke of course, but the message is that winners and losers are inevitable. Right now TP and the 1% are the ever increasing winners and the 99% are being eaten by the bear. Break the stranglehold of TP, consumption and debt, and something like 80-90% of the population and the nation as a whole become far wealthier, the future begins to look like prospects of ever increasing wealth, and the US becomes ever more competitive against "the bears" on the world stage. The BIG loser is TP and the current 1% -- who will be replaced by a different set of 1, 10, 20, 30%ers with far more wealth than the current concentration enjoys.

Ah, but what about "the bottom"? As Jesus said "the poor will always be with us", BUT, rather than 40, 50% and much more of the population living from hand to mouth and demanding help from TP and it's minions, 10 or 20% will still be at food pantries and needing support -- there will just be a lot more REAL resources (not borrowed) to provide them with true basics -- not continued consumption and dulling mindless entertainment to be "consumed".

Much like what it used to mean to "grow up", being an adult in a non-TP America would mean focusing on responsibilities vs "rights".  We have lost our way, but the way out is actually far more meaningful and conducive to human happiness and growth than the false narrative that has been sold to most of us by TP in it's drive to destroy the fabric of America to be replaced with their own raw power. 

45 Years Ago, The Pinnacle and The Premonition

Forty five years ago I was a 12 year old with only one thing on my mind. THE MOON! America was the nation that took on the USSR, and even though no US politician had really had the guts to say it yet, we knew in our hearts it was indeed an "Evil Empire" and eventually it would be "them or us".

Politics were FAR from my mind while in giddy excitement and a good deal of anxiety I listened to the crackly voices from Eagle as it descended to the lunar surface. We were still a Christian Nation -- there were a lot of prayers going up from the USA for a successful mission that evening. I'd felt and heard nothing but joy the previous Christmas while Jim Lovell and the crew of Apollo 8 had read from Genesis 1 while circling the moon. We knew our place in the universe -- America was great, but God was greater.

At age 12, Chappaquiddick didn't register ... (nor does it STILL register on Google spellcheck!) America was at it's pinnacle, but just like I'm sure Egypt never recognized it when they built the pyramids, Greece when they built the Parthenon, nor Rome when Hadrian reconstructed the Pantheon in like 125 BC, the seeds of our destruction were well planted.

Our nation was at once so just, so capable, so dedicated and so focused that we could go to the moon and back multiple times in that era. We were also so corrupt, venal and disgusting that we could allow a sitting US Senator to effectively murder a young woman on his staff and not report it until the next morning, YET, still continue in what was once  "The Greatest Deliberative Body" for nearly 40 years beyond his crime!

"Justice is mine saith the Lord". People ask "Why are we so divided today"? Look at the Moon and remember what we once were. In those couple days, July 18-20 1969 we see the greatness of America and it's demise, clearly and plainly laid out for any that want to see.

But mostly, we as a nation do NOT want to see, so we are "divided". Unless a people is willing to accept a higher power than themselves and their nation -- even a nation that builds the Pyramids, the Parthenon, the Pantheon, or yes, goes to the Moon, it is doomed.

History shows that nations can be great without Christ being in that position (USSR, China). Although Western civilization and especially the USA did reach the absolute pinnacle of what was possible for human kind -- in technology, power both economic and military, and more importantly vastly superior opportunity, justice and living standards for even the poorest citizens.

Nations require some version of "we hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT". Human leaders are mortal and often corrupt. Even the good ones die, and the bad ones MUST be replaced and identified as FAILED quickly and surely, or the rot expands and destroys all that was once great.

I'm so thankful to have been alive to experience the landing in '69, and to have been too young to even care about the premonition. To have been alive to see and feel what was and is possible for a great nation with purpose, meaning and FAITH! How sad to see how far we have fallen. The moon? We can't even put a man in orbit 45 years later.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" -- and losing that fear is the end.

Pin Drop Patriotism

This showed up in my mail with the "pass it on if you are proud to be an American". Having Bush named in it prominently made me reflect on  how we heard from celebrities that they wanted to leave the country when Bush was elected, how little actual policy difference there was between Bush and Clinton, and how few folks from the right you hear talking about leaving the country now. 

I suspect that the pride in America for most on the right has not changed much, since HISTORY has meaning in our constrained vision. For those on the left, "today is what counts" -- the mere election of Bush was outside of their vision and something that caused them to question that vision. For those of us that are of the constrained vision, a country picking BO is all too understandable. We see human nature as a constant, so the selection of leadership that operates against the very values of America is no surprise at all. 

I suspect that Snopes or somebody has found things to say this is "apocryphal" (like "myth") ... well, so be it. This is the sort of America that I believe in. 

We just elected a complete hoax to be president -- I'm guessing none of the "fact checking" sites will bother to point that out! 

On to the "Pin Drops"

When in England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

You could have heard a pin drop.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'  

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

You could have heard a pin drop.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English,Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was  chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English. He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'

Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied, 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

You could have heard a pin drop.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

AND

Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. "You have been to France before, monsieur?" the customs officer asked sarcastically

Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. "Then you should know enough to have your passport ready." The American said, ''The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it."  

"Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France !" The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained, ''Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchmen to show a passport to."

You could have heard a pin drop.

If you are proud to be an American, pass this on!

Imagine

Michelle Malkin: Obamanation, NRO

I was looking for another post by Michelle on BO gaffes and ran into this. Apparently from over a year ago. I always love Democrats who claim that the lives of soldiers that died in the service of their country were "wasted". On one hand, I do admire their honesty, because that is what most of them believe. I think John Lennon had the liberal view pretty close with "Imagine":

Imagine there's no Heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us

Above us only sky

Imagine all the people

Living for today


Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace


You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be as one


Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world


You may say that I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

It fits in so many ways. Here we have a guy that was worth at least 100's of millions of dollars with homes around the world singing about "no possessions". Beyond that, someone who thought that if there were "no countries" there would be nothing to "kill or die for" gets killed by someone basically just because he was famous. There would seem to be a message in there somewhere and it is doubtful that John understood it.

No God, No Country, No Possessions. Just the self lost in a meaningless cosmos. Given that, what would "wasted" be? Dying for something other than personal pleasure?

Here are the words of Marine Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, who died in a 2005
firefight in Ramadi:

“Obviously if you are reading this then I have
died in Iraq . . . I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to
do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why
we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that
they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or
vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is
why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.”

John Lennon, BO, or 90%+ of Democrats can have nothing but contempt for such words and when they are honest believe that Jeffrey Starr "wasted his life".

Imagine

Bar Stool Economics

This one has been around the net for a long time, but wisdom is worth capturing. One can't expect the angry envious left to get this, but the story is as old as the golden goose and will be with us over and over for as long as humanity exists.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men—the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “But he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.