Aug 27, 2011

Muslim Americans weigh in on justifiability of killing civilians

Gallup released the following results from a poll of nearly 2,500 Americans.  The results are, I must admit, quite surprising.


























Who knew that such large percentages of American Christians, Jews, and atheists believe targeting and killing civilians is sometimes justified?  Who knew Muslim Americans were so strongly opposed?

The disparity between Muslims and Christians is astonishing when you consider the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was a military general, while Jesus espoused turning the other cheek.  A solid majority of Christian Americans appear unconscious of the contradiction between their beliefs about violence, versus the word of the Gospels:
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Matthew 5, King James Version)
"...Oh, and I forgot to say unto you, target and kill your enemies.  Including civilians sometimes." ~ Jesus

Aug 22, 2011

Avoiding Obamageddon

The following was written by Fred.  Freyguy posts it on his behalf.

We’ve all heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Well, it turns out that until 2009 the path to perdition was overgrown with weeds and meandered through woods over environmentally sensitive areas. But thanks to shovel ready stimulus we can now get there far more quickly.

One of the paradoxes that economists, particularly liberal (Keynesian) economists like to point to is how behavior that is good for the individual (saving) can be bad for the economy (which needs people to spend). Frankly I consider this, how shall I put it, wrong. What is bad for the economy (and usually the individual) is sudden and dramatic change (whether or not you believe in it). Savings are good for all manner of entities.

World War II is said to have brought us out of the Great Depression, which is taken by many as proof that what we need during depressions/recessions is massive government spending. But Roosevelt went through the alphabet on government spending programs prior to WWII and the result was that we stayed mostly mired in economic woe. So what got us out of the Depression? Well, it’s seldom just one thing that causes it or ends it. But barring consistently poor leadership, depressions and recessions have been known to end all by themselves as the economy rebalances – that is the natural state of things economic.

Fast forward almost six decades and we find that huge increases in spending by the federal government have not had the desired effect of stimulating the economy. Of course you can blame headwinds and floods and the Tsunami and banks and Wall Street and energy companies (unless they produce subsidized “green” energy) and greedy Benedict Arnold business people who outsource jobs and even greedier millionaires and billionaires who won’t pay their fair share and terrorists from the disloyal opposition and the S&P rating agency and… oh, the recession was deeper than first thought. Yeah, so then the recovery should have been steeper.

Now I don’t have a problem with No Drama Obama dialing up the rhetoric. Heck, the election will be upon us before we know it and what else is he supposed to run on? With a projected one billion dollars at his disposal (and with his ability to have the public pick up campaign expenses if he claims it’s an informational bus tour) I am buying my popcorn early and grabbing a front row seat for what is sure to be the most negative campaign since… well, I don’t know. Most have been pretty ugly.

So do I blame Obama? Sure, he’s earned it. But the problem has been building for a long time. Politicians need to realize that while they can anoint winners and losers the economy is neither a mathematical construct with interchangeable parts nor a zero sum game. You never get to mourn businesses that were never born.

So what do we need? More certainty would be a good place to start, but less regulation would be even better. Passing trade deals that have been collecting dust as Democrats dither would also be nice. Allowing more immigrants to arrive and stay legally would be good for the economy, particularly those immigrants who are bright, well-educated and entrepreneurial (neither party seems to be able to grasp that one). I am uncertain whether higher taxes for millionaires and billionaires who earn more than $200,000 (is there a disconnect here?) will hurt the economy much, but closing the loopholes and simplifying the whole mess would certainly help. Basically we need a tax code that incentivizes productivity or at least doesn’t punish it. Oh, and also one that even a run-of-the-mill MBA can figure out without professional assistance.

Most of all, we need to understand that spending does not create wealth. Efficiencies create wealth. Yes, I know, efficiencies can put people out of work. Obama periodically mentions that (the difficulty of creating jobs, sigh). But the modern age has shown that there’s tremendous upside potential to not having 90% of your population engaged in agriculture…organic gardens not withstanding of course.

Aug 21, 2011

American Atheists: a bunch of jerks?


In July, the publicly-funded 9/11 Memorial Museum was sued by an atheist group to prevent the display of a cross made of WTC beams. The group American Atheists said on their website:
"This cross is set to be included in the official WTC memorial.  No other religions or philosophies will be honored.  It will just be a Christian icon, in the middle of OUR museum.  This will not happen without a fight.
...
We will pay for our own memorial of equal size inside the museum, or the museum will not include the cross.  Equality is an all-or-nothing deal."
The museum has since said that a Jewish star of David cut from the WTC rubble will also be on display.  American Atheists subsequently argued that since Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists died on 9/11, they should all get displays in the museum--not just Jews and Christians.  Otherwise, the group argues, the cross should be removed.

What do you think?
Personally, I don't think it would be so terrible if the museum allowed several religions/philosophies to erect memorials.  But the whining coming from American Atheists is silly.  The group fails to recognize that the 9/11 cross is an historical artifact. It was used as a makeshift shrine by the laborers who were digging out bodies during the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  If the workers had memorialized a piece of rubble resembling an atom--which is the symbol of American Atheists--I expect that would be displayed in the museum, too.  But history does not respect American Atheists' definition of "equality", and our museums would surely be impoverished if exhibits of religious significance were an "all-or-nothing deal".  (Imagine trying to apply the logic of American Atheists to a memorial museum of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.)
I'm relieved that other atheists agree this 9/11 cross suit is much ado about nothing.  I have never liked this group, American Atheists.  They try to remove roadside crosses--you know, those harmless memorials for people killed in car accidents.  Frankly, they act like jerks.  Pouncing on every opportunity to claim offense, and throwing tantrums over trifles, is just as tiresome when it comes from atheist groups as when it comes from Christian groups.

Aug 16, 2011

Who's the Leader?


The following was written by The Old Man.  Freyguy posts it on his behalf:
I've been listening all week to our President, as he officially launches his "Fear and Blame" campaign...The Downgrade is due to the Tea Party holding the Republican's hostage... The downgrade is due to a divisive debate... The Congress should come back to work and solve this (if they do, call me, I'll be on Martha's Vineyard)... There's an unwillingness to compromise in Washington, and that's causing the problems...S&P was wrong to downgrade the U.S....The "rich" should pay their "fair share", that's the problem.
But...but...who's the Leader? Who is supposed to bring the sides together to compromise? Who is supposed to lead by example and not use partisan attacks and accusations? Who was supposed to bring Hope and Change to Washington DC? Has anybody seen that Leader? I find the quote below, from a 2008 Presidential candidate, to be on point.
"If we think that we can secure our country by just talking tough without acting tough and smart, then we will misunderstand this moment and miss its opportunities. If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics."
BARACK OBAMA, speech, Aug. 19, 2008

Aug 6, 2011

What Cicero didn't say

This phony quote has been making the rounds on the internet again:
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and any assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -Falsely attributed to Cicero, 55 B.C.E.
Some mutations say "public debt should be reduced" and "the mobs should be forced to work".  (It's so hard to find good slaves these days.)  The quote has cropped up in conservative corners of the internet (where else?), from the distinguished pages of Forbes.com, to user signatures on forums about Ron Paul and gun ownership, websites about liberty and free markets, and so on.

But the quote is "almost certainly spurious", according to Respectfully Quoted:  a Dictionary of Quotations.  It appears to come from A Pillar of Iron, a work of historical fiction written several decades ago by Taylor Caldwell.  The book has been criticized as excessively fictional.  I haven't read it; forgive me for judging this book by its cover:


I'm picturing a movie version of this, where Cicero is played by Antonio Banderas; in the last fight scene he says some one-liner like "Not in my Rome!" before throwing Julius Caesar from the top of the Senate.

This false quote, and others, have inspired the Freakonomics blog to develop three cardinal rules to help identify phony quotes:
Quotation Rule #1: Quotes that a politically conservative quoter disagrees with that are attributed to LeninStalin, or Hitler are almost always phony.
Quotation Rule #2: Quotes that a politically conservative quoter agrees with that are attributed toLincoln are almost always phony.
Quotation Rule #3: Quotes that a politically conservative quoter attributes to classical figures like Cicero, and that criticize modern, allegedly liberal trends are almost always phony.
In my experience, these rules are true too often; beware quotes with these properties.