Wednesday, October 31, 2012
So, on the last day of Lovecraft Month, I’m going to post a few videos to enjoy. The first one is The Haunter in the Dark, which features a protagonist who was modeled after Robert Bloch, the author of Psycho.
The next one is a live action short based on The Statement of Randolph Carter, which has very creepy ending to it.
The next on is based on The Picture in the House:
The final short I have to offer is based on the short From Beyond:
Finally, here is a documentary on the life of H.P. Lovecraft. Not a complete one, but interesting to say the least. I plan on writing down my thoughts on the man later.
I hope you all enjoyed Lovecraft month. Now please, give the kids some candy and then egg their parents. It’s the one day of the year where it makes sense. But don’t summon any ancient gods, demons, or cosmic being not entirely composed of terrestrial matter. It’s about fun, not the end of the world.
The title of this post is a bit misleading, to say the least. Really, this is more of a guide for how to vote based on my experiences in the past 12 years of voting every year and finding out that nothing really changes for the better. And believe me, in 12 years, things could have gotten a lot better as my own life has gotten much better in that span of time.
I’m going to be honest: I have not paid much attention to the current election year. The fact is, when I have little regard for even the third party candidates, I have no desire to hear them out. I don’t like Gary Johnson because he is not a libertarian as a true libertarian would reject marriage as an institution of the State. I could go on about the inadequacies of the other other candidates, but I thought I would point out the one everyone probably assumes I’m picking.
In any case, my guide for this year is simple: either don’t vote or write your name in. On top of that, vote against any ballot initiatives that expand the scope of the local and state governments. This is why I recommend that people do vote, largely because those ballot initiatives are a drag on the local economies. I would say vote “no” to all of them, but sometimes they are worded in a manner where preventing the expansion of government requires a “yes” vote.
As for writing your own name in, I highly recommend doing this instead of not voting. If the 90 million people who don’t vote all just wrote their own name in for all of the candidate positions (if their state allows it), then you would see a massive shift in politics that the overlords could not ignore. When you do not vote, you basically are passively accepting the rule of the State by stating that you don’t care what they do, no matter how absurd or idiotic their laws and mandates truly are. At the very least, you are telling them that you know better than the State-approved morons who are presented as the only choice you have.
This kind of thing will cause the leaders of both major parties to reassess what they are dealing with and recognize the non-voter as someone who could, given the right motivation, vote for them provided the shape up and start doing what they are supposed to be doing.
Of course, that’s probably just a pipe dream. But I think it is necessary for me to simply write my own name in on all the candidate boxes and leave it at that. I would hope that many others would follow suit, but I doubt even one person will take the advice of some obscure blogger.
But if you do vote for anyone with whom you do not agree with at least 85% of the time, then you are a sell-out and a hack.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 28, 2012
A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.Read More: The progressive case against Obama
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has confirmed today that a weekend raid by US troops against the Logar Province ended with troops killing four innocent children who were tending livestock in a field.-US Troops Killed Four Afghan Children Who Were Tending Livestock
Saturday, October 27, 2012
You may recall that last spring, just after Mr. Romney locked up the Republican nomination, Mr. Obama’s team abruptly switched its strategy for how to define him. Up to then, the White House had been portraying Mr. Romney much as George W. Bush had gone after John Kerry in 2004 – as inauthentic and inconstant, a soulless climber who would say anything to get the job. But it was Mr. Clinton who forcefully argued to Mr. Obama’s aides that the campaign had it wrong. The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.-http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/how-bill-clinton-may-have-hurt-the-obama-campaign/But Bill Clinton's strategy has been a flop, and it looks as if the Obama criminal gang has decided to portray Romney as Mr. Flip-Flop again.
Spread Liberty News
Friday, October 26, 2012
Thursday, October 25, 2012
We can suppose no other object to be placed before ourselves but happiness, though we may differently interpret the word, in a higher or in a lower sense. We are then entitled to pursue happiness in that way in which it can be shown we are most likely to find it, and as each man can be the only judge of his own happiness, it follows that each man must be left free so to exercise his faculties and so to direct his energies as he may think fittest to produce happiness;—with one most important limitation, which must always be understood as accompanying the liberty of which I speak. His freedom in this pursuit of happiness must not interfere with the exactly corresponding freedom of others. Neither by force nor by fraud may he restrain the same free use of faculties enjoyed by every other man. This then, the widest possible liberty, is the great primary law on which all human intercourse must be founded if it is to be happy, peaceful, and progressive. Perfect obedience to it will produce constant advance in our capabilities for happiness, in our feelings of kindliness and good will toward each other, in our intellectual acquisitions. Just as I believe this to be the master-principle of good in human affairs, so do I believe that old desire which is so firmly planted in the breasts of men—the desire to exercise force over each other—to be the master-principle of evil. Where liberty is to be bounded by liberty, it is necessary for us to define liberty and to restrain all aggressions upon it. In this one case force acquires its true sanction, that of being employed in the immediate defense of liberty, but except in this case physical force has no place or part in civilized life, and represents the antiprogressive power that still exists amongst us. If this principle be true—and I believe that the more it is examined and subjected to attacks, the more clearly will it be seen to be true—then how sure and how simple is the guide which we possess in political life, and how mischievous though well intentioned are all those efforts of the reformer or the philanthropist who believes in his own special method of coercion and restraint, and has never learned to believe in the all-healing method of liberty. I do not ask that the principle of liberty should be accepted by any man until he has most carefully and most anxiously viewed it in its every bearing, and has examined every group of political facts with the purpose of ascertaining whether mischievous results, like in kind, do not, sooner or later, follow wherever there is a neglect or contempt of liberty. If the principle be true we shall be able, with increasing knowledge and better methods of examination, to vindicate it at every point. Of all the serious steps in life, that is the most serious when a man chooses the guiding principle of his actions. I think, therefore, we ought to search out for ourselves and to listen to all that can be said against the principle of liberty. Let us hear all the counter evidence possible before we finally exalt it as our rule and guide, though, perhaps, when we have once done so, we shall be as much inclined to smile when it is impatiently proposed to disregard it for the sake of some passing evil, as the Astronomer Royal would be if some new group of facts were to be hastily explained in disregard of the influence of gravitation. Nor must we assign to liberty qualities which it does not possess, and which, if we were in a mood of unreasoning enthusiasm to attribute to it, would only lead to our disappointment. Like other great beneficent forces in nature, such as natural selection, there is a sternness in it, and its direct effects are often accompanied with pain. It is, as I believe, the great all-healer, but healing must sometimes be a painful process.
Now let me point out to you that we have not arrived simply at an abstract result, but that this question of liberty as against force will be found to enter into all the great questions of the day. It is the only one real and permanent dividing line between opinions. Whatever party names we may give ourselves, this is the question always waiting for an answer, Do you believe in force and authority, or do you believe in liberty? Hesitations, inconsistencies there may be—men shading off from each side into that third party which in critical and decisive times has become a proverb of weakness—but the two great masses of the thinking world are ever ranged on the one side or the other, supporters of authority, believers in liberty.
What, then, is the creed of liberty, and to what, in accepting it, are we committed? We have seen that there exists a great primary right that as men are placed here for happiness (we need not dispute as to the meaning of the term), so each man must be held to be the judge of his own happiness. No man, or body of men, has the right to wrest this judgment away from their fellow man. It is impossible to deny this, for no man can have rights over another man unless he first have rights over himself. He cannot possess the right to direct the happiness of another man, unless he possess rights to direct his own happiness: and if we grant him the latter right, this is at once fatal to the former right. Indeed to deny this right, or to abridge anything from it, is to reduce the moral world to complete disorder. Deny this right and you have no foundation left for rights of any kind—for justice, political freedom, or political equality—you have established the reign of force, and whatever gloss of civilization you may place over it, you have brought men once more to the “good old plan” on which our fathers stood.
This I believe to be the plain truth. There is this one strong simple foundation, or there is nothing. We may accustom our minds to Houses of Parliament, to majorities in the House, or majorities in the nation; we may talk our political jargon and push forward our party schemes, but this great truth remains unaltered through all our sayings and doings. It is true that here, as elsewhere in nature, we may live in disregard of the law, but here, as elsewhere, there is no escape from the consequences. All the partialities and privileges—all the bitter envyings and hostilities which exist amongst us—all the craving for power—all the painful unrest and blind efforts—all the wild and dangerous remedies—all the clinging to old forms, and the want of faith and courage to choose the new—all these will be found in an ultimate analysis to be amongst the consequences—and serious enough they are—of not recognizing and obeying the law on which our intercourse with each other is founded.-Excerpt from "The Choices Between Personal Freedom and State Protection" via Libertarianism.org
18-year-old Tyler Pagenstecher of Mason, OH, who became the talk of the country over the summer when he was revealed as a "drug czar," was sentenced to six-months-to-three-years in a juvenile prison on Monday. The judge called Pagenstecher, who was selling up $20,000 worth of high-grade marijuana a month, a "pretty fine young person that went down a bad trail."-Ohio Kingpin Sentenced to at Least Six Months in Juvenile PrisonOh yes, you filthy black-robed tyrant, he's soooooo bad! Too bad you don't feel the same way about the criminal state you represent and whose phony, rotten and very bad "laws" you enforce, you fucking hypocrite.
THE HEAVENS—Responding to inflammatory remarks made by Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock during a Tuesday night debate, Our Lord God The Almighty Father today sought to distance Himself both from Mourdock and from the entire right-wing, fundamentalist Christian movement, sources confirmed.-God Distances Self From Christian RightOf course, if there is a God who created each of us and intended each of us to be here, and has plans for our lives, etc., then those of us who were conceived by rape (and even those whose conception was the result of consensual sex no doubt had ancestors who were the product of a rape) were meant to be here through that means. Which has to mean God does "intend it to happen". And since there is and always has been so much rape in the world, God must approve of it, since it brings so many of his children into existence. Otherwise, any all-powerful god could have set things up so that rape never resulted in pregnancy. Good god, Richard Mourdock's logic is right! Which means of course that there is no God and Mourdock is simply a fool.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Scientists are not gods.
I know, that seems so obvious to so many people but when it comes down to how many of us treat them, they may as well be gods. Sure, the sacrifices they demand tend to be taxpayer dollars and not virgin blood, but the principle is the same, especially when you consider that Statism is pretty much a religion in and of itself.
In any case, I suppose that is why there is so much outcry from the scientific community and the science fetish community about the recent rulings on the geologists who failed to produce a risk assessment for the chances of an earthquake hitting the Italian city of L’Aquila. Basically, they were charged and convicted of manslaughter for the deaths of the people of that town.
Naturally, the outcry has distorted what they actually were being charged for. Scientists and their acolytes are harping about how a geologist is not supposed to be able to accurately predict earthquakes, so they shouldn’t stand trial for the deaths that result from it. Of course, this is the usual spin that is placed on these sorts of things, especially when it comes to government corruption. From the article linked above, I’d like to highlight the following paragraph:
The view from L'Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. The charges, detailed in a 224-page document filed by Picuti, allege that members of the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks, who held a special meeting in L'Aquila the week before the earthquake, provided "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information" to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. Picuti says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness.
In other words, the scientists that the government leaders had employed to provide guidance and direction in case of a natural disaster such as an earthquake did nothing of the sort and instead behaved like politicians rather than scientists.
More to the point though, does it really matter if they were on trial for failure to predict an earthquake? They are part of a group called the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks (emphasis mine). In other words, they literally claimed, by means of association, that they could predict earthquakes with some degree of accuracy. And now they are claiming that they could not have known?
One of the many failures of human beings, which has become more and more acceptable in the Western world, is our inability to accept responsibility for the consequences of our actions (or inaction as it were). This is especially true among government officials and corporate cronies who enjoy all the benefits of success but never suffer failure, which is equally important in life. Failure, after all, is a means by which we adjust our behavior so that we do not repeat it. In a sense, failure is the mental version of pain (next to watching an Uwe Boll or Tommy Wiseau movie).
The State, which is a collection of selfish individuals who are either elected or appointed to positions of power over the general population, largely tries to avoid the responsibilities or leadership while reaping the benefits of power and prestige. From the former child molesting Catholic priest now turned TSA agent to the President taking credit for good jobs reports while blaming the bad ones on his predecessor, we see this at all levels. And don’t worry, the usual response to pointing out such contradictions is usually a stonewall of silence or a club to your head.
Another way to put this is that the State desires to be a god. After all, does not a god get all the praise but is never held accountable when the things promised aren’t delivered (I know this is a very weird thing for a Christian to say, but I assure it, it is perfectly inline with my faith). I know of no stories where a temple prostitute was killed by an angry mob after their crops were destroyed by drought when she promised to avert it in exchange for sex. Then again, maybe the State should revert to such pagan customs because at least we’d have a good time when we’re being financially raped. Of course, our modern government did manage to bankrupt that trucker brothel stop in Nevada, so I doubt they manage to get selling sex and booze to desperate and lonely people right.
The main reason why I am a political nihilist and a free marketeer is because I believe that for good men to prosper, there needs to be some form of accountability. As individuals, we have our own rational self-interests in mind and we seek to maximize our own benefit regardless of how that affects others. But when we bring harm to others, we need to be held accountable for said harm. In the case of these geologists in Italy, I think being held accountable for the victims of the earthquake which they were to at suppose to inform the public on the risks of is justifiable.
No it does not bring back the dead or restore the town into whatever it was before the earthquake. But it sends a message to others to do their damn job and do it right and if you can’t do it, then don’t pretend that you can. This is how we can break the State and bring about the fall of the gods: hold them accountable for what they say and do.
The agency has always relied on both techniques to ogle you. I’ve never read an explanation as to how its criminals decide which lethal machines will hit which airports; I assume it has something to do with the checkpoint’s configuration. But now Our Rulers deign to tell us why they’re rearranging their toys: “In an effort to ensure the most efficient and effective use of security technology, TSA is strategically reallocating backscatter advance imaging technology units in order to allow for expanded use of advance imaging technology units at other airports.” Translation from the Jargon: X-rays need a few seconds longer than millimeter waves to denude prey, so the TSA is unloading them on terminals with fewer passengers.
From their introduction in 2002, and especially with their nationwide roll-out in 2010, these mechanical Peeping Toms have infuriated passengers because of their devastating threats to our health and privacy. Remember that the TSA lies about everything, all the time; that the corporate media unerringly regurgitates those lies; and that most passengers understand little about millimeter-wave scanners, let alone their dangers. So wouldn’t you think that the boneheaded, universally hated TSA would lie now in an effort to manufacture some goodwill? Wouldn't you think it would confess only to removing X-ray gizmos from some airports, deny that it’s installing them in others, and pretend to concern for passengers’ well-being? But no. Instead, the agency has repeatedly stressed that “efficient and effective use of security technology” is the only reason for this “reallocation.”
Serfs, listen up: Your Masters do not fear you, nor tremble at your loathing. They do as they please without any regard whatever for you or for common decency and basic humanity. We exist only to enrich them and their cronies and to make them feel important as they lord it over us.-http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/123919.html
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
• Flaws of current monopoly based economic situation;
• Introduction to distributism;
• Distributist success stories;
• Distributist solutions to government, taxes, & healthcare.
• Implementing & promoting distributism.
Monday, October 22, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A Southern California man faces ten years to life in prison for operating a medical marijuana dispensary, despite the fact that such businesses are legal in the state of California.Congratulations Obama! You beat George W. Bush on the number of marijuana prosecutions!
Fliers offering $40 worth of free medical-grade marijuana were reportedly passed out in Eagle Rock to try and draw residents to vote in the local election. Was the free pot an incentive to get a larger turnout? Politics ranked “high” on resident’s list of priorities. Nearly 10 times as many voters – 792 residents – turned out to the polls during the recent Neighborhood Council elections than last year.Pot Prizes May Have Lured More Eagle Rock Residents To Vote
I also must say that it isn't only the reading of fiction that let's me survive this shithole of a world we were all born into, but also the outlet of writing it and creating my own fictional worlds (which aren't always better than the real one but often are), although reading fiction is always a necessary prerequisite to writing, because if you haven't read well, you'll never, never write well. And in that spirit, today I would like to introduce to you an epic by SE contributor and blogging machine Bret Alan, The Adventures of Hugh!
The Several Adventures of Hugh, Part 1
Who should live in this unlikely place but three unlikely residents. First, there is a cross-eyed cyclops named Hugh Mungus. Next, there is the world’s shortest giant. She’s two meters tall, or about six feet and six inches. Finally, there is the world’s tallest dwarf, and he’s also two meters tall (they’re twins).
An interesting thing happened to them recently. An old man in a boat washed ashore on the island. The first to find him was Hugh.
“Hello there, my name is Hugh,” he said, and he stuck out his hand. The old man just sniffed the air. Hugh stood there awkwardly with his arm out for a second or so before drawing it back, and after the fact he felt he had done so perhaps a bit too quickly. He fidgeted for another moment before asking, “What’s your name?”
“My name is not important. Where I come from, we have no names,” said the old man.
“How do you mail a letter?” asked Hugh.
“How do you mail a letter to someone back where you’re from, if you don’t have names?”
“I don’t do much letter writing, on account of I’m blind.”
Hugh looked at the man. Sure enough, he had no eyes. Hugh wasn’t too polite to have noticed, he just thought the old man had been squinting in the bright sunlight.
“Okay, well…” Hugh thought for a moment. “If you don’t mind me asking–”
“I do mind,” said the old man. “I ain’t got time for questions. Questions are for folks who don’t know, and if you don’t know, you wouldn’t even know what questions to ask in order to find out.”
Hugh thought for a moment. He wasn’t exactly sure–
“Hey, are you going to help me or what?”
Hugh took the man’s hand and helped him out of the boat.
“What do ya got to eat around here?” asked the old man.
“Well, let’s go check with the twins and we’ll get you fed. I was collecting some beefnuts when I saw you, but you probably don’t want them raw.”
The old man’s jaw dropped. “You have what now?”
“Beefnuts. Oh… um, it’s probably not what you’re thinking. They grow on trees, not cows. But you want to boil or roast them before you eat them, otherwise it’s like chewing on a hoof.”
“Give me some,” said the old man, “I like a good challenge.” Hugh paused before putting one in the old man’s hand, which he promptly popped in his mouth. The old man put his hand out again.
“Why don’t we see how you do with that one. You don’t want to say you died choking on two beefnuts.”
“Ah, who cares about dying. I welcome death,” said the old man.
“You welcome death?” asked Hugh.
“Death is only the beginning, my friend,” said the old man. “After I die, I’m going to live in a mansion under the sea forever.”
Hugh was silent, expecting the old man to say more, but he didn’t. His hand was still out, so Hugh handed him another beefnut.
“My place is this way, if you need somewhere to stay,” said Hugh.
“That’d be great, thanks. I live by the kindness of others.”
“That’s a good way to live,” said Hugh. “I imagine that forces you to encourage kindness in others.”
“It’s not about me. I can’t make anyone be better. I work through another.”
“Oh really?” asked Hugh. “Who is that?”
“I work for the invisible Eagle, who sees all, hears all, knows all, and does all.”
“Does all?” asked Hugh.
“The wind does not blow unless the Eagle wills it. The sun will not rise unless the Eagle wills it. Every breath you draw is only because the Eagle wills it,” said the old man.
“So… this morning when I stubbed my toe, that was the Eagle?” asked Hugh.
“Everything happens because the Eagle wills it, everything.”
Hugh pondered this a bit while they walked. He had so many questions in his head, he didn’t even know where to begin. “In all my 50 years of life, I have never heard of this Eagle. How do you know about this Eagle, especially since it’s invisible?”
“The good thing about being invisible is that I cannot see it just as little as you cannot. I am also almost twice your age, and I have traveled the world over. Though I am blind, I have seen more than you will probably ever see.”
“Even without eyes?” asked Hugh.
“I see everything with my mind’s eye, which is more perfect than the flawed physical eyes that give you sight. You can never trust what you have seen. You are better off trusting in what you can know.”
Hugh was perplexed. This old man did not seem to think clearly. The two of them certainly didn’t see things the same way, literally or figuratively.
When they arrived at Hugh’s home, he called out to the twins. They came and heard what the old man said, and the twins decided they wanted to live in mansions under the sea after they died.
Hugh noticed a change in the way the twins acted. They still quarreled, like all siblings do, but now they gave thanks to the Eagle in the morning, before they ate, and before they went to bed at night. It didn’t much bother Hugh, but he found it odd.
A couple weeks after the old man arrived, he went out to pick mushrooms. He picked a bad one and became gravely ill. Hugh heard his pained groans and came to his side.
“The Eagle is calling me to my new home,” said the old man.
“While I hope you’re wrong, I also I hope you’re right,” said Hugh.
The old man held Hugh’s hand. “You still think I have thrown my life away on a fallacy, don’t you?”
“That’s not it, exactly,” said Hugh.
“I was a wretched man who did wretched things. I hurt people, many people, more people than I could ever help. I was a man of great power, but I abused that power. I have done things no man can forgive, but the Eagle can forgive me. The Eagle knows what is in my heart. The Eagle turned my life around. The Eagle compelled me to wander the Earth telling others of the Eagle’s greatness, no longer causing great pains to those I meet. You will see that I am right if you only give thanks to the Eagle.”
“Please,” said Hugh, “You should know that I do not look at this as right or wrong. I am not concerned with such things. While you may have lived almost twice as long as I have, I am cross-eyed, so I see double. I have seen more than you, my friend, and I must tell you: if your Eagle brings you happiness and makes you a better person, then it was not a waste of your time and I am glad you found the invisible Eagle.”
The old man smiled as Hugh lifted him up and carried him back to his bed. The twins were summoned and all three stood by his bed as he died, so he wouldn’t be alone.
When the old man ceased breathing, the twins wiped tears from their eyes and looked at each other.
“Well, you dolt, now someone has to take him to the sea. I call not it,” said the dwarf to the giant.
“Not it,” said the giant. They both slowly turned to Hugh.
“What?” asked Hugh.
“You need to take his body to the sea so he can get his mansion,” said the giant.
“I didn’t sign up for that,” said Hugh.
“We called not it,” said the dwarf.
Hugh scratched his head. “Well… I can’t do it by myself. And since you guys love the Eagle so much, maybe you should come with me and live near the sea, that way when you die, it will be easier. I’m not schlepping you both all the way to the ocean when you keel over one day.”
“But we have lives here!” said the giant.
“We have homes and plates and beds here!” said the dwarf.
“I’m pretty sure people live in homes, eat on plates, and sleep on beds by the sea as well. Come on, guys. Let’s take this old man’s corpse to his mansion in the sea,” said Hugh.
They lifted him up and carried the old man’s body to the shore of the pond, to the very boat the old man had arrived in. On the way, Hugh asked questions about what the old man had told them about the Eagle.
“So let me get this straight,” said Hugh. “You spend five minutes thanking the Eagle in the morning when you wake up, five minutes thanking the Eagle before breakfast, and lunch, and dinner, and five minutes once again before you go to bed?”
“Yep,” said the dwarf.
“Every single day, except a few times when we forgot early on,” said the giant.
“Five minutes five times a day, that’s twenty-five minutes a day, 175 minutes a week… 9125 minutes per year. Wow. That’s…” Hugh looks at his fingers for a bit, “152 hours and 5 minutes, or six days, eight hours and five minutes… per year.”
“Whoa, that’s a lot of time,” said the dwarf.
“What about a leap year?” asked the giant.
“Well, you just add twenty-five minutes…” said Hugh.
“That’s too much,” said the giant.
“You’re quitting already, stones-for-brains?” asked the dwarf.
“Look here you possum pouch, I didn’t waste twenty five minutes a day every day for this long, except for a few at the beginning of last week, so that I would give up now,” said the giant. “Maybe we can just thank the Eagle less often.”
“Then why bother? It’s all or nothing with the Eagle,” said the dwarf. “Don’t you remember? If you quit now, the Eagle will surely kill you and then you won’t have a mansion.”
“But… the Eagle killed the old man,” said Hugh. “It’s not like the Eagle will make you live any longer. We’ve gotten along fine without this Eagle before, so I don’t think thanking it for a while and then stopping will anger it. Won’t the Eagle just be glad you thanked it as often as you have so far?”
“Maybe you’re right,” said the giant.
“But if we keep it up, we can have mansions under the sea forever!” said the dwarf. “What do we have to lose if we keep thanking the Eagle?”
“Well, over six days per year,” said Hugh.
“Oh right,” said the dwarf, dropping the old man’s leg he was holding. “Well, then we don’t have to bother with this anymore.”
“No,” said Hugh. “It doesn’t matter what you believe. He was counting on us to take his body to the sea, and there’s no way I’m going to ignore someone’s last request.”
“I don’t know, Hugh,” said the giant. “Maybe the Eagle will come get him.”
Hugh sighed. “There’s no Eagle.”
“What?” the dwarf and giant asked in chorus.
“I’m not saying the old man made that story up, but it’s not true. The wind doesn’t blow because of some Eagle. The sun doesn’t rise because of an Eagle. It’s not an Eagle that–”
“Yeah yeah, breath, we get it. Yeesh, you’re so boring, Hugh,” said the dwarf.
The giant looked out at the boat, then back to her home. “I think we need to do this, brother.”
The dwarf sighed. “This is ridiculous. I’m not even sure his body needs to be in the sea.”
“What?” said Hugh.
“Well, we just assumed that since that’s where the mansion is, that’s where the body should go,” said the giant. “I mean, he’ll probably want his body, right?”
Hugh scratched his head and looked back and forth at the twins, waiting for them to say something. Finally, he asked, “So, he didn’t want to be dumped into the sea?”
“He could have,” said the dwarf.
“There’s nothing to suggest he would have hated the idea,” said the giant.
“Okay,” said Hugh, thinking for a moment. “We’ll take him to the sea. Maybe along the way we can find someone else who knows more about this Eagle.”
To be continued…
Read the rest at http://theadventuresofhugh.blogspot.com/
Saturday, October 20, 2012
At this point I wish I could laugh at the absurdly obvious nature of the federal government’s involvement in the manufacture of domestic terrorism, but unfortunately it is far too serious a matter.
For those who think the most recent case of 21-year-old Bangladeshi national Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) major role in said case is something of a fluke, think again.
Indeed, the FBI’s business is manufacturing terrorism of all kinds and breaking the law in the process. The two most recent cases I personally covered occurred in February of this year and then in May of this year as well. Let’s not forget that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also thwarted their own little manufactured terror plot in May of this year as well.
58 percent of Californians believe their state is on the wrong track, with 52 percent concluding increased government spending per person has decreased the quality of life in California.Reason-Rupe Poll: California Props 30 and 32 Too Close to Call, Prop 38 Trailing
Friday, October 19, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
But today I am embarking on a new mission: putting lefties in their place, starting with Paul Krugman. I had long eschewed this sort of thing, thinking it akin to taking candy from babies, intellectually speaking. I was glad that "child-molesters" like Robert Murphy and William Anderson have long been doing this sort of dirty work. I am of course speaking tongue in cheek here; I greatly admire all of Bob’s and Bill’s work, particularly their willingness to step down into the trenches with the likes of Paul Krugman. But today, thanks to Murphy’s and Anderson’s example, I am entering this bog. However, my sense of disgust must be more finely honed than Bob’s (who has publicly challenged Krugman to a debate). The thought of actually debating with this creep, coming face to face with him, really gives me the willies. These people really have no brains, and it is really unfair to debate them. But, what the heck; Krugman has won the Nobel Prize in economics, and is a Princeton professor, so, maybe, it is not exactly like criticizing a mentally handicapped person to take him on.
But wait. This doesn’t sound so crazy at all. If the expectations of this new improvement are even partially met, this item will indeed give a boost to the economy along the lines of other breakthroughs such as increasing the quality of cars, oil drilling, air conditioners, marketing, retailing, etc. If communications can now be even somewhat improved with the release of this new initiative, it must enhance our economic well being. Have I entirely misjudged the acumen of this economist? Has my prejudice against socialist and Keynesian economists blinded me to the veracity of his argument?
Krugman is not looking to Apple iPhone 5 to improve the economy through ease of communication. Rather, very much to the contrary, he sees its benefits as stemming from the obsolescence of already existing plant and equipment of the same type. He says: "Yet depressions do end, eventually, even without government policies to get the economy out of this trap. Why? Long ago, John Maynard Keynes suggested that the answer was ‘use, decay, and obsolescence’: even in a depressed economy, at some point businesses will start replacing equipment, either because the stuff they have has worn out, or because much better stuff has come along; and, once they start doing that, the economy perks up. Sure enough, that’s what Apple is doing. It’s bringing on the obsolescence. Good."
I am glad you are sitting down as you see these words, gentle reader, otherwise you would topple right over as I did when first encountered them, while mistakenly standing up on my two feet. The economic benefits of the Apple iPhone 5 do not come from its merits, merely from the fact that the introduction of this item embodies obsolescence? My goodness gracious. If this were true, then wouldn’t it be even better if the rate of capital destruction were even greater? And wouldn’t it help the economy even more if this devastation were not confined to communication implements like the Apple iPhone 5 but ranged widely over the economy, poisoning everything in its path including housing, factories, pipelines, mines, etc. In the extreme, we might as well just bomb our capital, buildings, etc., so that we are left with no food, no clothing, no shelter, no anything. Think of all the aggregate demand we would have then!
At least the old critics of the market were correct in citing needless obsolescence as a flaw (their mistake was thinking this could be profitable in the long run, given people’s experiences, and private rating agencies such as Consumer’s Reports, Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval, etc.) But Krugman does them one better: he actually calls for the faster breakdown of capital goods. For shame.
In Economics in One Lesson, an entirely uncredentialled Henry Hazlitt correctly labeled the economic fallacy now being peddled by Krugman as "the broken window fallacy." When the hoodlum throws the brick though the baker’s window, he does no economic favor to anyone (well, the juvenile delinquent probably enjoys this destruction of other people’s property). Yes, there will be new business for the glazier from the baker, but the latter would have spent the money on something else anyway. And, even if he did not, if he stuck this money into his mattress, everyone else’s currency would have been worth a bit more. Spending would not have suffered with an intact window. But throwing the brick is economically indistinguishable from have a weak pane of glass in the first place, one that is likely to fall apart on its own due to obsolescence. And the latter is precisely what Krugman is calling for!
Maybe I had better get back to criticizing right wing critics of the market. They are far more of a challenge. I really feel somewhat ill in having to instruct an obviously very bright man like Paul Krugman on one of the most basic elements of microeconomics, the broken window.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Did Caesar think his friend Brutus would join others one lovely day in Rome to cut him up? Did Romans think the Empire could finally fall? Did the Greatest Empire the world had seen think a small nation of upstart peasants with no army could defeat the mighty Red Coats? Not until the day it happened at York Town and the world turned upside down. Did Americans believe the people who were screaming that Pearl Harbor was wide open to attack by Japanese carriers after FDR forced the Navy to move from San Diego to Pearl? Not until that fateful Sunday morning. Did the U.S. believe a small peasant nation could defeat the Greatest Empire the world had ever seen and lead its Embassy staff to flee in panic in helicopters from the roof?
I believe there was only one person who believed a catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center was going to happen. That one guy believed it would happen because of the first attack on the Center years earlier. But he went there that day anyhow and got killed. A sister-in-law of one of my daughters was a bond saleswoman in the small, nearby building that imploded. She knew it was possible because she was there in the first attack. As soon as she heard a crash, looked out and saw the smoke from one of the Towers high above her, she grabbed her purse, ran downstairs and got a cab home in Manhattan. She was saved by believing it could and was happening.
The Great Depression 1 was impossible to almost everyone. Ditto for Depression 2. Greenspan and Bernanke said any great financial crisis was impossible in the modern world, so they let it happen in spite of the yelling and screaming of me and a lot of other analysts.
This morning I spent about a half hour watching a brilliant discussion by Steve Leason of CNBC, Sens. Bowles and Simpson and CEO Blankfein of Goldman-Sachs about this Great Crisis. The Goldman-Sachs CEO put the catastrophic danger of the soaring U.S. debts very nicely. He said that the U.S. is now dependent for half of its annual budget on borrowing, half from Americans and half from foreigners. He said right now they are lending freely, but they are not stupid and know there is great risk in buying U.S. long Treasuries at 1.7% for 10 years when the government is sinking into debt faster and faster, with the power to inflate and send their bond values crashing. He said it all looks great until one day, all of a sudden with no warning, the music stops and the bond market comes crashing down. Did you believe the Soviet System would implode one day and the Wall would be torn down by the people in the streets? Did you believe Lehman would implode over one weekend, thus imploding the whole top of the U.S. financial system in a few days after that?
Now the same Bozos tell us the Implosion of the U.S. is impossible. It is, until the day it happens.