Thursday, January 30, 2014

History of Islam

Equality in Action

One of the Progressive assumptions that underpins the push for "equality" is that wealth is a matter of "good fortune"... The President is always saying it: "those that are more 'fortunate' need to pay their fair share." Thus, the idea that sacrifice, hard work and diligence have anything to do with success and wealth is ridiculed! 

Those with ambition and work ethic, those who want to get ahead, (many times middle class white Christians) are the ones who DO succeed, who do get good jobs, who do start businesses and  build their futures.  But the welfare freeloaders dismiss all of it as "good fortune and unfair to them.".....

The Progressives MUST discount wealth creation as no more than hitting the lottery. Then, there's no opposition to taxing it all away for their vote buying social programs.  Nor will their constituency have to take responsibility for their failures economically.

If the welfare freeloaders quit school at 13 and get pregnant, sleep to noon, watch TV 6 hours a day, and are content to sponge off welfare, well, their economic plight is "just bad luck" and not their fault!

Their path to improving their situation is to march on the capital and demand your "fair share"!  After all, we are such a wealthy society, why shouldn't we just "spread the wealth around"?

The problem is, when the number of "takers" overwhelms the "producers" and destroys any incentives, it isn't long until everyone is at the subsistence  level, the only possible set point for "equality"..

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

"Tolerance" and "Hate": are they an absolute evil?

The Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the United States are pushing for laws to "fight intolerance and hate"! Although this sounds like a good thing, let us drill down a bit and examine it:
  • Before you can say "hate" and "intolerance" are evil, you have to consider what it is we are being asked to approve of and be tolerant of. We read in Scripture Jesus being angry with the Pharisees for objecting to his healing on the Sabbath. So anger in and of itself is neither good or bad.
  • If we are supposed to tolerate evil, is this not an evil as well?  And now we see what the Muslims have in mind!
Muslim culture includes honor killing of female family members who "violate the family honor". This is NOT an old time rural aberration, but mainstream Islamic practice, to which dozens of honor killings in Islamic communities in the West attest.

Muslim doctrine calls for the killing of apostates and war against non-believers. This concept is "ishma" or "scholarly consensus" and NOT a fringe interpretation.

But the Muslims would try to tell the West that this is all "Islamic cultural peculiarity", that all cultures are equivalent, and we HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE!  And if we do, we are being "hateful", "intolerant" and "Islamophobic"!

The point of all this is: if a Muslim family in Dearborn MI cuts the throat of their teen-aged daughter for talking to a boy, we are NOT to object or disapprove! Got it?


Obama and Mayor Blasio of New York have touted "Equality" as a goal! But this is undesirable for the following reasons:
  • The only possible set-point for equality is everyone at the subsistence level, (although the sub-conscious assumption of most advocates of "equality" is that everyone will be at their particular income level! They don't envision themselves being further impoverished to living in packing boxes on hillsides).
  • That the enforcement of "equality" results in a punishment of success, crippling all entrepreneurial  wealth creation and the impoverishment of society as a whole.
The creation of companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft has meant the creation of wealth that did not exist before. And if a program is designed, paid for and downloaded by millions of people, the Marxist model of the exploitation of factory floor workers by "evil capitalists" breaks down in absurdity!

In fact, network economics completely violates established norms and notions and has yet to be understood completely. The marginal cost of adding a node to the network is virtually zero, yet the network itself becomes more valuable.

The tragic misconception of the Progressive Marxists is that wealth is fixed, and the only task is a "fair distribution" of it. It comes from the 1840's when Karl Marx was writing during the British Industrial Revolution.  Drawing from previous agricultural economic theory, the assumption was wealth was like farm land and the income like the crops. But this is NOT true in the information age!

To extend the metaphor, it is as if farmland can be expanded with incentive, or it will contract with disincentive. When Microsoft goes public, Bill Gates' wealth of  500 million shares of founders stock can be calculated.  But for the Marxists to snarl that it's "unfair" is preposterous!

But the wealth is theoretical! If Mr. Gates tried to sell it all at once, it would drive down the price. If the government confiscated and redistributed the shares, (1.6 shares per citizen) it would destroy the market value and it would be worthless. Each citizen would have a stock certificate that would make good toilet paper.

Thus, equality equals poverty. But the Marxists don't care. As Saul Alinsky said: "better to rule in hell than serve in heaven".

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Gun Ban on University Campuses in Colorado?

The Lefties are out to deprive us of our Constitutional Rights (again). They say the ban is to "save lives". If this were true, they'd probably be better off paying attention to traffic safety as opposed to firearms. According to the Vital National Statistics Reports (Vol. 59, No 4, March 16, 2011) there were 688 firearms deaths in 2009, as opposed to 36,284 from motor vehicle accidents.

Everyone wants a safe environment on college campuses. The real question is how do we achieve this?  I talked one time to a Police Officer that worked for Arapahoe Community College. I asked him what was the purpose of the gun ban? He answered "we want to assure we are the only ones on campus with guns".  But it does no such thing!

The next question to ask is "why have you not fenced off the campus and set up check points and screening to assure a campus gun-free zone"? The answer is always "oh, that would be too expensive and inconvenient!" Well, then, HOW CAN YOU BE CONFIDENT OF NO GUNS ON CAMPUS? The answer is you cannot!

After the Virginia Tech shooting in April 2007 I read a story about the campus firearms ban that had been instituted a few months before the mayhem. One of the faculty members exclaimed at the time "I feel safer already!" Too bad feelings and reality were so divergent!  Why do not these Colorado Lefties remember this?

Far better to allow conceal carry permits (CCP) on campus. Then any shooter will not be confident that he may encounter return fire. He will  move to a location that DOES have a ban, a more "shooter-safe zone".  Recall that Holmes, the Aurora theatre shooter in July 2012, drove past other theatre complexes to select the one that had gun ban signs posted around the ticket booth.

Another objection is the vision of the kids waving .45 semi automatic pistols around the beer barrel on a Friday night. But this is not reality!
  • You have to be over 21 to hold a CCP
  • You have to submit to a background check and fingerprinting
  • You have to have training and instruction in the law and the use of firearms
  • Statistically, law abiding holders of CCP are NOT the ones who commit crimes with firearms
More than likely the only holders of CCP's on campus will be veterans, Criminal Justice seniors, and faculty who know full well the legal responsibilities of carrying lethal force. This would be safer for the faculty and students as opposed to another Virginia Tech style "shooter safe zone".


Blog Archive

About Me