Saturday, September 9, 2017

DACA: Another Pox On Both Houses

     Because people tend not to comprehend, let and often not even read once they get to the point in a piece that they don't agree with, I want to start out by saying explicitly that arresting and deporting hundreds of thousands of people who have been in this country from before they could walk for say, 5 years, is wrong. Also, “There is a time and a place.” Often “Right now” and “Right here” is that time and place. But “often” doesn't equate to every time. When a hurricane is bearing down on a major city is NOT the time to pardon a racist sheriff . Likewise in the aftermath of said hurricane is not the time to issue policy clamp down on illegal immigration. When NK is doing in months what should be taking them years to advance their capabilities, it is not the time. There are more pressing matters at hand. If you do any of these things, you are a heartless, ignorant, malice idiot. So until there is a viable replacement for DACA it should be accepted as “the best solution at the moment”.

        However, “Policy is meant to be absent of compassion, emotions, and “feelings”. Politicians are not. A wrong was done when their parents crossed the border illegally. They need to be discomforted with a reasonable negative effects. Blame their parents, not the government. I am a bit crueler than I would expect most. I would have no problem having them receive a year to tidy up things before they get deported. Most importantly, over and above punishing the offenders, is understanding why that option provided the most pleasure or reduced the most pain. When a few people do something illegal, then there is something wrong with them, but when millions of people do something illegal, the law isn't addressing the issue. 

  A Pox on Both Houses:

     That said, I have mixed emotions about the DACA program and illegal immigration in general. Surprise, surprise I believe both sides are on the delusional side of the issued. Since it is the conservative side of the issue currently being the aggressive idiots, I will start with their role in this mess. 

  The Conservative Sin:
      One must question “why do some many people leave the beautiful resources rich paradises along the equator and come to America to be indentured servants and sub-citizens. The answer, the reason according to the evidence, “the US policies on trade combined with their policy on guns combined with their willingness to consume drugs” is why illegal immigration from South America is more appealing than staying in their native lands. So long as I make the case for this as a valid truth, then we have a responsibility to correct the problem. Until we , as a nation, do something to atone, we have to suffer the negative consequences of illegal immigration.

      US agricultural industrial farmers such as the likes of Monsanto, lobbied the US and implemented trade policy on the countries south of the border. Countries with less established governments, less stringent regulations, and no understanding of what was about to happen to their economies, a chain of events were set in motion. In Central and South America, cultures that had existed for 10's of thousands of years as self sustaining communities had unmodern life, but that doesn't mean unhappy were faced with a forced choice. Then, just as the Japanese did to the US steel industry in the 1980's, the US agricultural industry dumped cheap corn and soybean on the economies of South and Central America. Seemingly over night, the ability to make a living off these mainstays of the South American diet, dried up. Farmers were left with hard choices as they lost their farms. The environment was in need of a new cash crop. The crops that grew well there and nowhere else as well, plus had legality issues in other countries was marijuana and coca. These crops became appealing or the lands were selling to the cartels at prices that could not be refused. It might easy to discount this as just the ebb and flow of business.  However, as the documentary "Apologies of an Economic Hitman" was something I recently viewed (and after much digging can find nobody who can invalidate his claims) it shows our government elected by "We the People" have hardly been just passive participants in this devastation. If we are going to accept the right to vote, then we have to accept the responsibility of the people we elected, EVEN if we did not vote for them. We can't just dip in and out at our leisure. So  it is that we caused a very dangerous environment to  crop up in  these regions.

Few would dispute the notion that society has become more fragmented since the end of World War II. Family structures in place for decades—the nuclear family, extended family, one-wage-earner households, geographical stability—have been replaced by a wide assortment of patterns, movements, and trends. Divorce rates have soared. Drug and alcohol abuse and child neglect and abuse have skyrocketed. Crime, terrorism, and political assassination have become widespread, at times almost commonplace. Periods of economic uncertainty, exemplified in roller-coaster boom-and bust scenarios, have become the rule, not the exception.

      The drug farmers turned cartels had adversarial obstacles in the US war on drugs. But it was a war of hypocrisy. They wanted to sell to the US population and the US population wanted to buy, the DEA was just a facade. They needed a consumers and a sources of guns to protect themselves government enforcers and form rival cartels. The US laws and population provided both. The success and emotionallydysfunctional emerging shifting family conditions provided them with a customer base all too willing to get high, check out, and buy their products. At the same time, fueled by US government perpetuated fear from the cold war and the belief that guns are somehow “god given”, the country was awash in them. The formula was simple. Get drugs grown in the lush climates of Southern hemisphere to the willing consumers in North America, and have the money and guns returned to the point cartels.

        When all the sudden, after many generations of a lifestyle, the ruthless drug cartels started killing families, raping women, and force boys to be child soldiers, people start wanting to flee to someplace that won't get them raped, killed, or forced into servitude. That bar being pretty low, and the fact that they are a culture who know farming, makes illegal migration into the US seems a better gamble than staying. It bothers me to immensely to hear people ignorantly say “They must really like our country if they keep trying to get in.” Theirs was just fine before we f'ked it up. We set their house on fire, and they came running into ours to get away from the flames. That doesn't signfy they like being outside in the elements better than they like being in their functional home.

      To sum this up, we owe the South Americans and their generations “reparations”. Illegal immigration is the consequences of our global decimation through agro dumping, drug consumption and economic bullying. Trump has a point (and I don't admit to that often or lightly.) This should have been a legislative solved issue. There is no way I would have reported (any more than I would have “told” if I was in the military under false pretenses) under DACA if I were an illegal immigrant until they had a law on the books. But just up and ending the program without a humane plan to deal with the vacuum and dislocation it would create is self serving and cruel. It reminds me of when my father taught me to swim. By tying led weights to my waist and throwing me in the water Saying that “it would make me a strong swimmer.” My brother had to come save me. There is a lack of realism in the expectation under both accounts.

      A solution that charges the producers like Monsonto and places a tariff on them for exporting their product is a first phase would be favorable source of funding. Using that money to set up an agreeable resolution that address the immediate concerns and stops the practice in the future. Paying the drug farmers to stop growing illicit crops and using the military to protect them is another viable step. I could conceive decent resolutions all day for this issue, but I am not in a position for that to matter.

The Liberal Delusion: 

   The equally complex and propagandized view of the cost of illegal immigration from the liberal perspective is invalid. It literally takes ignorance of the most basic laws of economics. It is complex because one has to understand how these basic principles act upon in a capitalist system AND understand that the founding documents obligate the US government to grant life, liberty, environment of happiness, quality to services, protection, justice, and domestic tranquility. This is a catch 22, a Paradox.  Most disturbingly is that to swallow the blue pill, you must ignore the element of “opportunity cost” in order to accept their argument. It literally means that American citizens are one "opportunity" and illegal immigrants are a different option, and supporting the illegal  immigrants means that the government is choosing them over that of the welfare of their citizens. 
“Opportunity cost refers to a benefit that a person could have received, but gave up, to take another course of action. Stated differently, an opportunity cost represents an alternative given up when a decision is made. This cost is, therefore, most relevant for two mutually exclusive events.”

Capitalism Unguarded Secret:

    Here is the dirty truth about capitalism. It is an aggressive emotionally violent system of wealth distributions. It is the exact opposite philosophy of Ubuntu. When one person or entity “wins” in a capitalist society, one or many others loose. To understand how American Citizens are “losing when illegal immigrants “win” a job, these basic truths must be grasped.

Labor economics looks at the suppliers of labor services (workers) and the demanders of labor services (employers), and attempts to understand the resulting pattern of wages, employment, and income.

Raw labor vs. Specialization:

       Be it picking fruit, mowing lawn, catching a ball, running a billion dollar business, waiting to fight a fire, or removing viruses from a person or a computer, killing some people half way around the world because some old guys said you have to, the act of using ones time for somebody elese's needs is a product. It is not something you want to do, it certainly isn't something you would do for free. (Patriotism doesn't run that deep.) Time and psychical activity is a commodity that can be specialized with great flexibility. The difference between an Iphone and an a flip phone is specialization. Both are phones, but one has more functions. Specialization takes more up front effort, has more costs associated with it's creation, and because of that, are lower in supply and most often higher in demand. It is also variable. Meaning that two people might have the same specialization but one can do it cheaper, faster, or more dependable than the other.

        Raw labor with no specialization fetches minimum wage if monitored, less if the government is not aware of it. You can't have just raw unskilled, uneducated, common to anybody from 8 to 80 labor and expect command specialization premiums. The only thing that will raise your value if all you have is raw labor, is a decrease in the supply. Raw labor is needed, though machines are replacing more of it, but the more supply the less you can command for it. The ability to withstand pain is  a specialization, but getting paid for it, and then complaining about having to do it,  is being "jammy". 

Putting it all together.

       So whas dah heel dis alls gots tah do wit imma gration? So if you accept the laws of economics philosophy that a person willing to take a job at a lower price and live in the shadows, where they are held in check from reporting crime, live in unhealthy and cramped conditions, and causing a tax on the public systems without paying income taxes into it, robs the “opportunity” of somebody who would demand hire wages and better working conditions. If you accept that working in unbelievable discomfort unable and unwilling to say anything about it, is inhumane, but a specialization all the same. f yo believe that willingness will drive the value down of labor, then you are opposed to illegal immigration.

       Because it drives down wages to a point where Americans can't do it and live like an American". In the end, it drives down everyone's wage. The moment raw labor makes a higher wages, all specialization is relative to that price point. The best way to idealize this is to consider what would happen tomorrow if the government passed a law that “men could no longer work”. What would that do to the wages of women who could work legally? Immediately employers would have an utter disadvantage and be offering whatever it takes to get the women to come work for them. Likewise, if illegal immigrants were not an option for employers, they would have to pay more and have better working conditions. nobody is going to work and  still go bankrupt, hungry, and homeless.  Sure we would pay more at the stores for oranges, but we would all be making more. We would all still pay a certain percentage of our earnings for that orange, laws of economics are relative, not fixed on numbers.

      Unions were once strong, when there were more jobs than there were people. The factories in the rust belt were piping people in from all over the world. Raw labor with the willingness and ability to put in long hours was the only specialization at first. Then slowly the balance of power shifted in favor of the employer as technology, offshoring and immigration created a situation where there were more access to employees than there was potential employees. Anybody who has ever worked for a union that has been on strike, and had scabs cross the line, knows what it is like to think “I would mow lawns for $15 an hour..” but nope.. some hard working Mexican is doing it for $5 an hour. Guess what the value of mowing a lawn is? Guess what kind of leverage those who need 15 / hr to feed their family have when the illegal immigrant is there?None!

     Starting after “the great recession” where we had effects such as  “jobless recovery” to the condition that is impossible to really assess, known as “under employment”.  We have seen the effects of a glut in the supply of labor in the US economy. You would think that the party demanding $15 / hr would understand that. Because,  that is how people who have been off work for a long time become what is known as “under employed”. So don't tell me that “illegal immigration” Doesn't have an effect on the economy.
“The broader concept of underemployment includes all situations in which workers are not employed full-time – at the number of hours they wish to work – in jobs that pay above-poverty-level wages “

 More from the “Opportunity Cost” Desk.:

        It is commonly said that “Illegal immigrants have many small businesses”. But, as I previously mentioned, in a capitalist economy, for there to be a winner, there has to be a looser. For ever dollar an illegal immigrant earns, it is one that could have (other options would have) been earned legally. To start a business takes resources, skills, money, and a customer base. If an illegal immigrant has these things, it means somebody who is not in our society, in defiance to our laws, not illegal ,was not given the opportunity to earn these under the guise of a reasonable wage. This self delusion only works if you believe the lie about “Jobs Americans won't do” and don't add the part “for the wages that illegal immigrants will do it.”

      I have a good friend, who is an amazing carpenter with a specialty in remodeling. When he lived in Ohio, he never advertised and worked completely by word of mouth advertising. We lived in an area where million dollar homes were common customers. The point being that he is that good. He moved to California at the height of the housing boom. There was a “home flipping show” on every major network station. He had set up a business. He was making a good profit and paying his 5 or 6 employees well. Back then people (flippers) were paying quality contractors to come out and do quality work. This resulted in a premium being paid on the houses. Then the housing bubble burst. He said he saw his business dry up over night. As people shifted to cheap materials and labor, he could no longer compete with those willing to employ illegal immigrants. He lost in the capitalist economy to people who were not forced to compete under the same rules and same social restraints.

       The other lie I don't get is that illegal immigrants contribute to the economy more than they take. It takes an average of $15,000 a year to educate a normal child. One with no English language skills require even more intensive education at first. They are not citizens, that means they are getting $180,000 benefit per child, that doesn't belong to them, wasn't paid for by their parents putting in tax money over the years, at least up front. Because in the end, the money you are putting into your schools today, still builds the district for decades to come. What kind of business could legal citizens start if they were given $180,000 with no strings attached. The school thing goes deeper than that. Schools are a service completely funded by the public.

      Ask any teacher or administrator. It takes a lot of resources to educate a child in this day and age. From the building and locker space, to text books, but right down to the things that you can not quantify such as teachers attention and effects on class progress. Child to teacher ratio is one of the most important key metric for increasing academic success. The more students in a class the less each of them are receiving of the valuable benefit. Then there is college. Again, college tuition is a “product”. The price or value of that product is set by the amount consumers are willing and able to pay for it. The more customers, the more demand, the higher the price.  As a person who routinely was scraping cash together to pay for college and thus not registering until the last minute, I can tell you that I was forever discomforted by having to chose classes at in opportune times. Having to compete with an illegal immigrant for class slots is a failure of the governments obligations.So giving a DACA participant access is a theft of my opportunity.

          Last point of the many I could make is that the use of undocumented workers stifle innovation. It is a little admitted to truth that the reason we fought the civil war, was capital driven after we developed a cotton picker.  Only then did we fight the slave trade and ended slavery.  The role of the cotton Gin and Picker was to make slave labor unnecessary.  The industrial age would not have emerged so preeminently if it were not for the loss of slavery as an option. (Not like we deemed them "huan beings with equal rights" with the emancipation Proclamation.) Economic theory would have us understand that the loss of illegal immigrants will drive better methods of agricultural harvesting. The argument that “People won't pay $5 for an orange” will drive the technology and methods for growing and harvesting oranges. Just as the Cotton Gin actully lead to the increased appreciation for human rights.
How much of an impact the gin (which is short for “engine”) had on the retention of slavery in the South is still being debated. To be sure, the value of cotton as a cash crop grew astronomically in the decades following Whitney’s patent went into effect. By some estimates, the United States supplied three-quarters of the global cotton supply by the start of the Civil War.
      So to say that because they pay taxes and start businesses makes up for the negatives on our economy and society, is ridiculous. To do so you have to ignore a whole bunch of realities of economic law. Not the least of which is “opportunity costs”. We need to admit that they do cost us in these and a few other less direct ways. Because, so long as people believe they are a "benefit" they will fight the painful soultions to the problem.

In conclusion:

      The conservatives have to do something about the conditions that leads to the need for families to flee to the US. Too long they have enabled and encouraged the business that have devastated regions of the world causing displacement or the economic need to flee. The relaxed gun laws and immoral dumping of cheap corn and soy that has gone on for years along with the “war on drugs” making the reward even greater while doing very little to increase the risk have created this situation. In the same conditions, not one of them would do anything differently than the illegal immigrants are doing. Not if you love your family. However, the liberals need to stop lying about what they contribute and the actually social, economic, ad educational costs to the economy. Overall we need to get off this model that says “we have to grow”. Infinite growth is not only destroying our culture, and our economy, but the Earth as well. Likewise, we do not  have an infinite budget for public services.

      Before you think of me as removed from this situation, a little personal facts. My ex mother inlaw, whom I love dearly and is a huge part of my daughter's life, could easily get caught up in such a sweep. I would be angry and fight it with her family.  She has been here for nearly 50 years. But it wasn't too long ago, that it was discovered that my ex father inlaw had divorced her during some time of turmoil some 40 years prior.(She spent the better part of 20 years thiinking she was married and had legal  status.)  He had gotten some other woman to pose as my daughters nana. She was technically “illegal” for many years. I couldn't imagine her all the sudden getting sent back to Chili. She would lose a life's worth of work and the family would be devastated. Even if she was actually a border jumper, that would make no sense on a personal level. Likewise I have a number of friends with questionable residency status. They are important to my life. But right is always right, no matter what your personal situation is. IF we see a problem that is just a “crack” now, it is “right” to address it before ti becomes millions of people.I would never request something done onto others that I would not have done onto me.  I would go if the laws required it. 

Monday, March 20, 2017

Russian Hacking and Frustrated Parenting

To understand "how the Russians 'hacked' the US elections" requires an analogy that is far too familiar to parents these days.

Imagine you are a parent that preaches to your child the moral and ethical failings of taking drugs, as well as legal and health consequences. That is the voice, your reality based voice, that you want to influence your decision. But drugs and alcohol have their allure. It feels "good" to be "high", and there is reason for your child to not want to believe you. More than there is TO believe you.
But you are NOT the only voice. Media, peers, and even watching you get wasted during the football games, and telling stories about "sipping daddy's beer" presented a contradictory message. Hearing "the government just doesn't want us to have it", "If an adult want to do it..", and so on. The voice of their friends, media, and things said by your actions become more "believable", that it is fine and even a "right" to do drugs of any sort. So as a parent, you become frustrated when their irrational belief that the "dangers are over stated" and the voice of their friends, telling them what they want to hear, becomes the thing they believe over "reality". As a parent, you are disadvantage by telling them what they don't want to hear.
Now imagine you had a society that is full of racist, bigots, dim witted, short sighted, non-scientific, and easily manipulated (very immature in the "enlightenment" terms") that are all given an "equal vote". Enough of the electorate that wanted to hate the black president, wanted to diminish the woman candidate, and felt good to have their irrational and illogical and unrealistic suspicions confirmed by hearing it from some popular angry white men. (The same can be said of pandering to the poor, minority, and addicted by the other party.) The news stories about birth certificates, hacked emails, failed security, voter fraud, endless racist and bigoted emails and memes, false spin on unemployment numbers, contradictory to the research bodies on healthcare programs, death panels, flag pins, and on and on all saying things that a large portion of voters want to believe.

What Russia did was flood those who wanted to believe with false information inspiring baseless and false fear. With the advent of the wide open internet, a Russian state sponsored and financed operation to send false information to inspire and share among those who want to believe it.  Especially older and/ or uneducated people, who don't understand technology, but want to believe the material. They have no way or desire to "fact check" the information. And it is disseminated among their peers who also want to believe it. Inside this country we have "equal time laws" that force media outlets to give equal time to the candidates. Because our psychological research has shown "time of exposure" can shape perception and belief without regard to truth and accuracy of the information. (Or as some of you know it, if you keep repeating a lie, it eventually gets believed.)

THAT is how the Russians "hacked" our elections. The same way that some boy "hacked" the morals and ethics you had instilled in your daughter about sex and the dangers of getting pregnant. And now here she is, Knocked up, and there are very few options available for it, and she wants to "keep it". So it is with America. We got an "unwanted presidency" and very few option to deal with it, and the dammed bigots and racists want to "keep it".

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Muslim Vs. Gun Owner A Lesson in Language Arts.

I am developing a new discipline.  “Language psychology”.  Since far too often people use words with bent and stretched meanings to fit their personal beliefs and settle their cognitive dissonance, it is time to quell the practice.  If we cannot agree on the meanings of words, then we can’t continue to communicate effectively. 

  Today’s words that are often confused in the US version of the English language is “people” and “Things”.  Included will also be the use of “adjectives as a noun”. 

   So regularly streaming across my Facebook, G+, and Twitter feed as well as in the comment sections of nearly all related news articles is a statement along the lines of, “We are told not to judge all Muslims by the actions of just one, but we are expected to judge all gun owners by the actions of just 1.”  (Aside from the mathematically unsound comparison since there are 96,000 incidents of gun owners with incidents of violating other citizen’s rights compared to less than 10 by the loose definition of “Muslim” being used to assess the logic of treating a “threat”.)  I would like to explore the linguistic fallacy of that statement.

What It Means To Be Muslim
   So here is the first concept to understand is that “Muslim” is first an adjective.  Muslim describes a set of values that make up a philosophy that is partly written down and claimed by nearly 2 billion people.  Within that group there are various denominations of Muslims that believe different things and tolerate others at different levels.  What is known as “Muslim Extremist” make up less than 1/100th of 1% of all who claim to be Muslims.  But a “Muslim” is always a person.  Logically, “not al people are Muslims, but all Muslims are people”.   The one thing they all have in common is not even tangible and differ from one Muslim to the next.   A person can believe that they have a complete grasp on the philosophy of “Being Muslim” and talk with another person who also believes they have a complete grasp on the “Muslim Philosophy” and they both could vehemently disagree with who is “the real Muslim” the “True believer”.  The fact remains that there is a constant; there is outlineable behaviors associated with the teachings and philosophy of Mohamed, the founder of the Muslim philosophy/ religion.  It is most common that two people who believe they understand a religion completely both have elements that are wrong. 

   For me, it would be easier to put this in terms of “Christian” which is a term exactly like “Muslim”, only a different book and a different set of people.  There are people who CLAIM to be “Christian”.  However, that would mean that they follow the beliefs and philosophy of its founder Jesus Christ.  This would mean that they believe that there is absolutely no reason to kill and if somebody comes to kill them, they are to accept that there is a god and an afterlife where they will be greeted by family members and loved ones and enjoy the light upon death.  They believe that using a weapon to protect their lives will only lead to more death.  They don’t believe in stealing through physical or fraudulent means.  If the government wants to increase taxes Jesus taught in his beliefs that you give them what they ask.  “Christians” are taught that public prayer is considered a sign of vanity.   Divorce would be adultery since man cannot separate what god had joined.  They are to report to church every Sabbath.   They are instructed to love their enemy as themselves.  Patriotism in the form of worshiping a flag is a sin as it would be putting a false “idol” before their god.  However many of the people who proclaim themselves “Christians” join military and yield their will to a government that sends them to kill.  These Christians want an impossible duel role. To be seen as “Christians” when they are not doing any of the above, and to be seen as “Patriotic” when they are killing in the name of their government in complete rejection of their god. But then want buried in a “Christian” fashion.   The moment a person takes a life and believes it to be righteous, that moment they story being, have varied away from being Christian.  There are protocols to rejoining the ranks of Christianity after someone “sins”.  However it cannot be told by looking at them if they have done it. 

   So as you can see, “philosophy” may be well defined and stagnant, how one perceives it is fluid.  As a word, be it used as an adjective or a noun,  it is an intangible concept that translates into “one who owns the philosophy of Mohamed”.   What that means is that you cannot “Muslim” somebody to death.  If you walk into a room and pull out your Muslim, nobody will even take note of  you.   Nobody will fear for their lives.  Your kids can not get caught playing with you Muslim.  Nobody can break into your house and steal your Muslim.  It is not a tangible thing. 

What It Means To Be A Gun Owner
  Now compare that concept to a “gun owner”.  First to address is the “gun”.  A gun is a very tangible thing. It is a tool of violence.  It is a tool designed to solve a problem by either killing or injuring another living being.  While there are a few people who use them for the sport of target practice, none of them would consider leaving them locked in a secure building where they play their target game.  They desire to have the gun on hand should then need to violently solve a problem using it.  (This is despite many of them claiming to be Christians. Oh the hypocrisy.)  

  A “gun owner” is one who is in current possession (legally or illegally) of a gun.  A person can be asked, “are you a “gun owner”, and that person can say “yes “ or “no”.  But more than that, that person can prove it.  They can display a gun proving that they do own one.  They can be searched for a gun proving that they do not “own” one at that moment.  (This is different than “Muslim”. While you can kneel down and pray like a Muslim, it doesn’t mean, and there is now way to see in one’s head to know if they are, actually believing or just acting the actions they are displaying.) Policy can be made to regulate and restrict guns. In many, in fact most societies they do it.   There is actually a verb associated with launching a destructive projectile form a gun called “shooting”. Guns shoot.  But this is only accomplished with the aid of a “gun owner”.  If there were no “gun owners” there would be no guns shot.   Again in comparison to the notion that even if there were no believers, the behaviors associated with being Muslim would still exist and still be harmless without the aid of tools of violence. 

The Colonists AND The Founders Treated The Two Differently
One last thing to be noted.  The people who jumped on ships from Europe came across the vast dangers of the sea to get away from religious persecution. It was a well-established philosophy that even made it  into the founding documents that established the USA.  The notion that anybody should be able to practice their religion and believe what they wanted to believe without fear or threat from the government.  Later we would establish that no biological trait is grounds for being singled out.  Being Muslim is a religious philosophy and to deny, persecute, or otherwise hamper people based solely upon their religion goes not only against the founders of the nation, but of the colonists that laid the ground work. It was stated in many different ways throughout our history that “everybody has a right to believe whatever philosophy they want to believe. To this there is no exception.”  They made it very clear that there is to be no bias in the laws, not even positively respecting one religion.   However, who should be a “gun owner” was also addressed. It was done so very specifically.  The founding document writers could have said, “Everybody has a right to be a gun owner. “  They did not say that.  They said, “If there is a militia that has strict guidelines and regulations that are followed to the extent of being called ‘well’, then those members when acting as a unit have the right to be ‘gun owners’ while performing those duties.” 

  As demonstrated here in this text, the differentiation in treatment and value of “Muslims” in contrast to a “gun owner” has always been part of our society and as such even suffer different regulations.  So, yes the very “philosophy” that established the USA demanded that we do not treat all those who claim to be Muslims with government regulations, however, that we do treat those who wish to own guns (“gun owners”) with the restriction of government regulation. 

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Gay Marriage- Just another addiction fed, another step towards remining children

 Quick Post. 

 Another Loss For Collectivism
I have mentioned this before and this only validates it. There is a war waging among the species known as "human". The "individualist" who think their only existence is to maximize their own personal happiness and minimize their own personal pain. They trust nobody but themselves, live only for today. Polluting the world, consuming it's resources, and making zero advances toward preserving the human race is a hallmark. They drive nearly all of the global climate change, all while complaining about it. They have no connection to the past (no honor for their father and mother) and no connection to their future (treating their kids like puppies that they don't want anymore once the attention that they get from them and the "cuteness" wears off. Sending them earlier and earlier to public conditioning and thinking the little things they do is enough. Absolving themselves from how the child turns out as an adult.). Things like divorce, adultery, and of course "same sex marriage" are common. Because they are only driven by their own self preserving needs. On the other side is the collectivist. Those that believe they are only a bit part in the long and deep history of humanity. Those that believe the sum of all our parts should be more than the individual. Those that understand that "some" must endure pain and even death so that this "organism" known as the human race and live on and maybe even reach the stars one day. Some must restrain their quest for pleasure for the good of the community. This is a idea that every single living thing understands except humans. Collectivist have a strong connection to their elders taking care of them at home, listening to them, learning from their wisdom and appreciating their contributions. Their children are their most cherished resources. Things like "family honor" , tribal pride, and appreciation for their successes is a stable of collectivism. Every child is expected to bring in new members. Parents often arrange unions bases upon the honor and integrity of the potential mates parents. (These unions have been shown to be happier and longer lasting than those of "chance". ) This battle continues today. The quest for human longevity lost ground today for more consumption, more addiction and more individualism. This didn't happen over night. People today can not change who they are, but we have to ask the question of when we want to "turn back" to start being "good parents" again. As a parent, I can tell you that I say "no" far more often than I say "yes". but my yes's are appreciated much more. Governments elected by individualist are like dinner plans being made for a family of 6 with 3 totters being set by equal vote. A diet of ice cream and gummy bears can not be maintained, though you will live. As a father of a young daughter, I cringe at the examples, the voices outside of my own, my daughter has on the topics of sex, drugs and violence. My message already seemed like a "whisper upon a big gay parade scream.

Humans Telling Nature She is Wrong

Well, To my knowledge, while in the history of man, two men nor two women have had sex in an attempt to conceive. Bill never looked at Ted and said, we should make a baby. If they did, they didn't understand the science behind it. So anytime sex is engaged in, without the attempt to conceive a child, it is "sex strictly for pleasure."

Nature is a force that we can circumvent, but not without negative consequences in the long run. passing on the understanding of those consequences is the job of the "tribal leaders" and the policies they embrace. Sociologist believe nature developed the "orgasm" in men to get them "addicted" to that source for pleasure. This kept them around to protect the pregnant mother and then to raise the child. The rest of the tribe put social pressures on the male to make sure that he had anxiety about going to another source for sex. thus the condemning of rape, prostitution, bestiality, and adultery. became part of every philosophical doctrine. In some tribes, if you kill a warrior, you would inherit the responsibility of taking care of his wife and kids. Nature and natural progression has always tied healthy sustainable communities to controlling sex for pleasure. In recent times they have tied the female orgasm directly to the region of the brain where "trust" is generated. This lead sociologist to believe that it was a "reward" for picking a good father who they trust will stick around. This is the reason why nature developed sex.

There Is What Is Said By The Speaker And The Million Different Meanings  To The Listeners.

Every policy has two "meanings", two "messages". There is the meaning or message to the individual. Then there is the one that the example sets. This is true of gun policy as it is for policies on "sex for pleasure" as it is on drug use to make you "happy". Since this administration has taken office, they have been like bad parents unable to tell their whining children "no". If you were 15 and your parents and "the government" walked in on you having sex, the parents would say "no" the government would say, "it's your right." If your parents walked in on your smoking crack, your parents would say, "no", the government would say, "it's your right". If your parents walked in on you playing with a gun, your parents would say, "no". the government would say, "it's your right". Who has your best interest at heart. Who wants you to just keep feeding them your patriotism?
And that is about all I have to say about the Supreme Court Ruling. I and my family have our own addictions to deal with. This didn't make the future seem any brighter.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

NPR:Now Pedophile Friendly

Demystifying and Disarming NPR’s Passive-Aggressive Reporting  
I used to be such an advocate, believer, and appreciator of National Public Radio. I don’t know whether it was me, NPR, or (as I suspect) a combination of both has changed over the past decade. I have become aware of how their soft spoken, passive-aggressive , forceful manipulation of social issues has become more than just socially irresponsible, but even dangerous. I wrote in the past their technique of presenting “behaviors” as if they are biologically the same as skin color or disabilities and use pseudoscience to affirm their inaccurate assertions. For example, “Abortion” is presented as a natural biological process, like nothing can be done about it, and thus a “right”. They refuse to consider that the behavior of becoming pregnant with a child you don’t want is completely avoidable and the consequences is the result of behavior that should be condemned, not rectified. NPR, is a publicly funded (though very little public funds these days) entity that should not have a bias away from facts and science. And while the public funds are, today, a small amount of the budget, NPR does not exist today if it were not “built” by the people in its infancy. Much like liberals would say about a corporation, “you didn’t build it on your own.” So they have a responsibility to represent the entire public. Which is why I was so moved to lividness when I heard not one, but a few trending stories lately. The push to make pedophilia accepted as something that is “not in the control of the perpetrator” and even as if they are “sufferers” of an affliction. I know this is a huge “charge” and I had better be able to back it up. 

Lacking any sense of commitment and no longer “baffled” by their technique, I listen to NPR with the same air of skepticism as I do FOX. Most people listen to a news report expecting to be informed by an authority on facts, but when you know to look for it, you can easily spot when you are being pushed an agenda and sold opinions as facts. In the past, social issues that are far from harmless, but open to debate amongst adults. Legalization of pot, drone strikes, global climate change, governmental condoning of sex for pleasure, illegal immigration, and poverty are some of these issues. But when they turned their agenda towards accepting pedophilia as a behavior deserving compassion I lost it. 

A Quick Overview of Psychology of Acceptance  
The psychology goes like this, the first time you hear or witness something shocking, it is scary, causes reason to divert attention, and you far more clearly understand the dangers. The more you experience an idea, the more you experience “extinction” and the less aware of the negative effect you become. Some things this is good. For example, growing up in an entirely white town and area of the country, up until I got into high school, the only dark skinned people I knew were on TV. So my image was skewed and biased towards the negative traits of “black people”. The more I got to know more people of different colored skins, the more I realized that we were not too different. My fear and bias disappeared.

Cognitive dissonance cannot be overcome by shoving a complete opposing idea down the throat of a person who holds a completely differ belief. It is even harder when the idea you are trying to indoctrinate them with is not founded in reality or something concrete that cannot be denied. They will shut down, withdraw, and your message might as well be told “to a wall”. What pretty much has to be done is finding similarities to the person you are trying to convince and the perception you are trying to convince them of. If they see these similarities, they will be shown to be a hypocrite. So they will desire to adjust their belief system. Then manipulate those likenesses softly until they can accept the new reality. Marketing to adults is based upon this. This is why products are always compared to “the leading brand”. This is the approach every politician uses to convince you that he is “just like you” while the other guy is “one of them”. If you can relate to some things that are the same, you can accept that there are differences. (Deeper than this post is the threat analysis mechanisms in the psyche that have to be rectified with new information.)
To be noted, this is a tool of our psyche, it is neither a good nor bad trait. For example, meeting people who say, “I love you” to their family members might be strange to those who didn’t grow up with it, but it is a good thing. It is a trait you want to pass down to your children. However, the Cleveland 3 girls that were kidnapped and raped every day of their lives, accepted this as a reality, and became accustomed to it. But this is not something they would want to pass down to their children as normal.

NPR: National Pedophilia Radio 
As I am driving home the a few nights back, I was paralyzed with jaw dropped and locked as I hear an NPR program (that I care not to advertise for) doing a story on a movie festival award winning (I think documentary) about a dude who “Struggles with wanting to have sex with children”. The show was “This American Life”, but I will not link to it here. I refuse to give it credence. The subject of the movie claims he has never acted on his addiction. The reality is that in most cases, If he had done such a socially rejected offense, he wouldn't be able to admit it to himself. “Everybody in jail is innocent”. What incentive has he to admit that he did? He would have repressed it. But, let us give him the benefit of the doubt. The benefit that this dude “Adam” had not (yet) acted upon his impulse was the assertion. The story was focused on how great it was that he was getting help. During the entire story, even the therapist they described going to, not a single person pointed out the obvious. That tis dude, as some very young age, had been molested. That was the problem here. Through all the sappy music and empathetic silences, it wasn't mentioned even once as the result as this kid’s current state was the result of this egregious act being performed upon him. But that would have sent a contradictory message. What if his offender we also “suffering” from the pedophilia affliction? And NPR’s logic would come crashing down. In fact their logic and narrative about abortion, homosexuality, obesity, drug addiction would have all come crashing down. Since the liberal narrative is that somehow these afflictions are genetic and there is nothing that the people who have these feelings can do about them. 

Being pretty busy these days with some personal, physical type projects going on, I didn’t have time to write this right away. The very next day, on the way home, I was again listening to NPR. And there again was another story. Another justification of pedophilia!! This was about men, who as kids, were deemed “sex offenders”. They were now adults and complaining that they hadn’t did anything of the sort since they were under 18. Guess what? Most people have never done it at all. This is life, sometimes we do things as kids that effect our whole lives. Would you say this if they had murdered somebody in cold blood? If the kid wants a place to “blame” look to his parents. They obviously didn’t instruct you better. But study after study shows the disadvantages that are caused to children who are sexually assaulted at teen and pre-teen ages. Where is the story of the person that these kids assaulted? The depression, anxiety, the problems with relationships, the acts of disruptive behavior that is caused by the trauma this poor “victimized pedophile” caused? That is a life sentence for many of them. There is a case to be made that they would have been better off if you murdered them, at least the pain and suffering would have ended.

The Process Of Normalization
So if we could go back just 20 or 30 years, our ideals about drugs, sex and violence were much more stringent. The question is, “why”? Too many people will blame religion. The truth is religion is created from truths. It is often created to answer hard question in a simplistic and irrational way. It is hard to explain, even today with our advanced knowledge, the way “social environment” affects each and every one of us. What I will post is how Empathy is our strongest manipulation tool. If we can make ourselves seem the victims, we can get more people to believe our plight and protect our actions than if we are say, bragging. (Humble bragging is the least effective.) We, as a race are predisposed to follow “The golden Rule”. We can admit that there are behaviors that deserve ridicule of the society. As a general rule, society chastise behaviors that can cost the “Tribe” resources unequally and based on one’s own selfish desires. Sex when you can’t take care of offspring or it causes disease to spread is one. Drugs, as they cause people to be unproductive, distracted, and irresponsible with their energy. Violence, as it can rob the tribe of a needed member and cause waves of unrest. All of them are a sign of an emotionally disturbed member of the group. Because we live in such an artificial environment, that can’t be sustained, we don’t feel the direct effects of bad behaviors. That is where the danger lies.

First, somebody being shunned or punished for bad behavior is seen by others who don’t know the story as being “victimized”. The next phase is a group of people who have been shunned for the same bad behavior form a minority. Now this minority group is being victimized and they are larger and more vocal. They get supporters. This causes some to overreact and worse, people who don’t understand why the behavior is damaging to society start using irrational arguments. When religion is used to invalidate a bad behavior, with the discrediting of the religion (or some traditional philosophy), it becomes “credit” for the case to accept the bad behavior as “normal”. It shouldn’t, both are invalid premises, but it does. Often times they will break apart the bigger social dysfunction and say, Well this type of violation is different than that type. People often don’t realize they are on a slippery slope until they are sliding down the hill. “And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.” ― William O. Douglas

Pedophilia is part of the dysfunction caused by a society addicted to sex. Sex is the cheapest, easiest, more accessible drug we have. But it is the most devastating. Like food and water, we need to partake in it to survive as a race. But the danger of addiction and all the unhealthy and inhumane behaviors that come with it are always prevalent. How long before we start letting sex offenders off because “they can’t help themselves” . How long before the sexual abuser is on some talk show telling the world how they can’t help themselves, that is it “genetic” and we should feel pity for them.
If you are up for it, go seek out the story of “Adam” who was addicted to child porn, and the story they did about it on NPR. It made me sick to my stomach. The fact that they could “humanize” these monsters. You might be the type to think I am making much of this now, but look at how we thought about sex drugs and violence in the past compared to now. Imaging if we could remove “sex for pleasure” form our society as a “thought experiment”. What problem would go away. Pedophilia would be one of them.

A More Clearer Way Of Seeing It
So as a writer, story teller, journalist, your first question when you decide to do a piece is, “what is my purpose for doing this story. What is it that I want people to “feel” differently about when I am finished telling it. You never tell a story to leave people right where you found them. Even if you are affirming something they already believe, you are attempting to deeper entrench that belief. So what is it that you the writer of this documentary and this NPR piece was trying to “change” in you, the listener? The answer is they wanted you to “feel” more empathetic towards child molesters. This is the same exact approach they took for abortion, homosexuality, single motherhood, pot, and illegal immigration. It starts out with, “hey these people aren’t bad. Many of them are just like you, except this one flaw.” Then they slowly tell more stories until the narrative becomes, “ you are the bad bigot for chastising these people. There are so many of them that it just has to be good and normal.” Which, there are more of them because when people feel comfortable in not to repress of their bad desires, they start to “come out”. Other people with like desires start to associate and attach. This is what is happening here.

*I decided to include the link. I don't see how people can really get a sense of how despicable this is without hearing the piece.  What has this country become that we are on the path of cannibalizing even the youth in our thirst for lust. 

Pedophiles are people too?

Friday, April 3, 2015

I Prefer "Philosophical Freedom" Instead

    I am really interested in the very hypocritical banter around the "religious freedom" laws being introduced.  I would like to start out, right off the bat, that I support the spirit of these laws.  What I do not like is that they are calling them "religious". Too much exposure to the assault on the ridiculous opposing ideals of western Christians.  I think the better term would be philosophical freedom" legislation. Religion, after all, is just organized philosophy that is shared by a group of people.   Likewise, the "meaning of life" since life first sparked on Earth is to pass not only genetic, but philosophical traits to the next generation.  Battles between species and or inside the pack, is one where the strongest get to breed.  This has been the driving force of evolution for humanity for nearly 200,000 years. 

   Like an experiment in "selective attention".   One where the media, and even the bills creators, only focused on one possible application.  I think this is the case here.  The focus is on homosexuals being rejected by some business owners.  But what if I was Buddhist?  What if I don't believe in carrying weapons for self defense. It violates the first precept.  To a Buddhist, to leave the house with a tool designed only to kill, not only designates intent, but to do so contaminates ones mind and invites hostile Karma.  So, welcoming weapons into my place of business would violate my sanctuary.  Since Buddhist believe all actions as well as all speech support their path, their journey.  But not only would I have to deny guns in my establishment, but I would have to deny homosexuality.  The 3rd precept is abstain from sexual misconduct.  This refers to sex just for pleasure. In fact the actual translation is "sensual pleasure" which refers to over indulging in any act without purpose.  So, according to my Buddhist religion, I would be obligated to deny service to people who were requesting it if they were carrying guns or openly displaying homosexual behaviors. I should have the right to support my policy.  Just as any customer has a right to patronize somebody who supports theirs.

     This society in the past, has repressed people solely based upon genetic/ biological traits like skin color, eye shape, gender, and or age.  There is no doubt that this kind of judgment is detrimental to the well being of humanity.  That is not to say that certain roles in life are necessary and should be equally compensated.  If it is a trait that would require surgery for you to change or not to display, then it is clearly biological.  Despite the attempt for more than 40 years to pin some behaviors on biology, they have all failed.  The mere notion that a movement wants to have a behavior designated as "biological" and thus "not a choice" means that we understand that things that are a "choice" are subject to social criticism.  We should  not sit in judgment of things that are not in the control of the individual. 

      Behaviors are created by environmental factors, by the "message" we send people about the pleasure or pain involved with making a decisions.  Today, we still have laws that "reject" behaviors. As extreme as killing and raping, but as debatable as carrying guns, smoking pot, taking drugs, eating too much, selling our bodies, having multiple spouses, acquiring too much, or how we educate out children. We even force people who would otherwise not hold insurance, to do so. 

   This existence was created by living entities that could  not "talk". They have a philosophy that pass onto their young by their actions.   Most people who have a child understand that the words they say only embrace a small portion of the lesson they learn.  (Preaching against smoking and drinking has little effect with a beer and a cigarette in your hand.) That doesn't stop just because we are grown. Likewise, the "golden rule" of teaching children also still applies as adults. "Always condone good behavior, Always condemn bad behavior" . I can love a person and many of the things they do, but I should be allowed to demonstrate my opposition to the things I do not.  (I could get into the underlying failure and reason for so much emotional distress in the US being caused by endless mixed messages, but that would be an entire book.)  But believing you have a philosophy worth passing on to your peers and your successors is the very reason we live. Or it should be.  "Environment" is simply a complex network of social "dos" and "don'ts". I should be allowed to teach my child with words and actions, in my own empire, what I do expect and what I don't.  Even inside of a family, there are traits a parent will promote about a family member while discouraging another. Sometimes those lessons are taught ini respect to a family member. We are complex individuals.  Healthy emotional stable people can see the shades of grey in the people in their lives.   It is a crazy borderline type personality  that sees a parent as all good or all evil. 

   How about I put it this  way.  What if I am on my sailboat.  I am in California waters, so it is legal to smoke pot.  What if my young daughter is on board and a friend, all the sudden whips out a joint or a bowl and starts smoking.  Do I not have a right to make them put it out?  What if they start watching porn on the TV I have installed.  Do I not have a right to force them to stop these "behaviors". I certainly believe these are examples I do not want my daughter to deal be exposed to.  I want her to know that I do not approve of them.  So, on my own ship, I should be able to set that example. 

    If I create something, a house, a business, a social group, with my time and effort, I should be able to speak that belief with my whole being.  My physical voice and my action. If the government through law forces me to engage in actions that I do not condone, they take away my guaranteed right to "free speech."  How does the saying go, actions speak louder than words"? 

 Now, obviously there are lines drawn as part of our overall social identity of this society, that certain behaviors that either manipulate children or force harm on anybody are rejected by all but the few who do it.  Even most of them say they don't condone it, but that isn't what their actions say.  But, one thing is clear to me, it is my right as a person, and especially as a father, to speak with my actions, protect my philosophy by making sure all know it, and the government should not stop me. from doing so. THAT is a violation of free speech.

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Fast Food, Capitalism, and Illegal Immigration: The Dots That Connect Them.
It is said that "and army runs on its stomach". This is true of slaves as well. Feed somebody and they will be indebted to you. You have covered one of their basic needs and with the time they don't spend pursuing food, you can guilt them into doing labor for or at least supporting you. (This happens in a microcosm at work.)
So much labor is involved in growing, harvesting, cooking, and bringing food to a table, that it is a core sources of systemic functionality (The reason people work so well together.) that defines a reason humans made it to the top of the chain. What many people who both profess the wonders of global capitalism and then complain about the influx of illegal immigrants into this country don't seem to grasp is the connection between the two in Central and South America. As the US has dumped cheap food on these communities in those areas, a few thing happened. First, the food is high caloric food that expands the physical and psychological "need" for more and more. As the documentary "Food Wars" put it, We are predisposed for gorging ourselves with calories when they are available in preparation for "the winter" but we live in a world where "winter never comes". That feeling is never turned off. However, when once a village or even a family needed a large percentage of their population dedicated to just doing one of the tasks associated with feeding, now a small crew can feed thousands (or billion and billions served) of people. Add to that a reality that the food comes from far far away where much of it is not done by the community, and you have essentially eliminated the functional need for more than 3/4ths the community/ family/ country. (This is the passive aggressive nature of capitalism.)
So what do you do when so many people no longer have lost their function their historic role in society? Send them to work in your dangerous factories for low wages. Break up their families by making it so both mother and father have to work to make ends meet. A place where the kids will not see their parents hard work and only see the meager fruits of their labor. Expose them to the dangers of the influence of the violent drug cartels. Drive the very value of the producers down and then call them lazy, worthless, and beggars when they can not establish a respectful living and lifestyle.
A long time ago, when I had more "conservative" leanings, thinking it to be funny, I used to say, "if you want to take over a country, don't send troops, send McDonald's and Walmarts. In no time they will depend on your hand to feed them." I still "say" it, I just don't think it is funny anymore.

Counter text

New counter