Globalization and Religion

Immigration has been the hot topic as of late, not only on this blog but across the news. Lou Dobbs continuously attacking the illegal immigrants and the outsourcing of "American jobs". These negative viewpoints are an attack on the very reality which enables the United States to take claim as the most powerful country in the world, globalization. I have heard many arguments against globalization, but then I turned to a few essays written about September 11 which seemed to take the argument one step further. The essays are of little importance, but I will tell you the authors and the titles anyway; Baudrillard wrote "The Spirit of Terrorism." and Zizek wrote "Welcome to the Desert of the Real!"

The title of Zizek's essay should be familiar to most movie fanatics, it is a direct quote of the Matrix when Morpheus takes Neo to the surface of the Earth to show him the destruction across the globe. They view the ruins of Chicago when Morpheus proclaims, "Welcome to the Desert of the Real[,]" and thus we enter the view points of some upon September 11, 2001.
The main points from these two authors is that America has fallen asleep upon itself. History did not take place in the United States but rather everywhere else but in the United States. They argue that the world to the U.S. citizens was only known through the view point of the t.v. set. Thus the destruction caused by the tragedy that became 9/11 invited the United States back into history. I know, what does this have to do with globalization?
The viewpoint became that the attack of September 11th was on symbols, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, not on the citizens of the United States. They want to prove that terrorism is the world's cure to the plague which is globalization. The theory is that globalization will create a society without classes, a society without differences, a society of singularity, and the globe is divided upon differences therefore it would not allow any type of system disable its differences.

My argument is simple. If terrorism is to be the cure of singularity then why does it not attack religion. Religions are singular, they wish only to unite the globe under one system of faith. Christians believe the redeemer of the world is Jesus Christ who is the King of kings causing all in the world to call each other brother and sister. Is this is not a decrease of social order and a state of singularity? Should religions therefore not be attacked just as roughly as globalization which is not a system that is bent on taking over the world.

Globalization is not an ugly system like communism which has only a few political leaders who wish to rule the world, but rather a system of markets that fluctuate allowing for growth and savings. Globalization allows people from across the globe to better opportunities as well to the destruction of borders disabling the might of modern day governmental hold upon industries. As pointed by so many economists, a t-shirt today that claims to be made in Hong Kong is falsely advertising as all the material used to make the t-shirt is acquired from different places in the world. The truth, the t-shirt is made in Earth. It is a simple truth with no need of further explanations. With the theory of competitive advantage we can see that globalization is not the plague, but it in fact is the answer.

Economics and Batman

I had to link to Mises.org for this fantastic comic. What better comic hero than Batman, who fights for freedom to fight in honor of one of history's heroes against those who deprive others of freedom, Mises. Perhaps more later...

The Season for Giving

I give all credit to this post to Professor Larry Iannocconne from GMU. Although, I had never had a class from him; listening to podcasts, his debate with Professor Caplan(GMU), and other sources helped me to understand the reason for giving gifts.

We spoke before upon the issue that gifts are not efficient. If you don't remember you can find it here. Now it is true that it is inefficient because we do not have perfect information; but what is it about the winter holiday season that gives it a name like "The Season for Giving"?

We have one season, one season for as individuals in a capitalistic society to break off time in order to help others. Why is that? Shouldn't we do it year round? And the thought of not giving presents on birthdays and holidays had simply left some with a foul taste in their mouths. Is it because they wished to receive gifts, or perhaps, the pure enjoyment of giving? It is actually more than selfish reasons of wanting to receive or give.

We give gifts in order to show others we care. It is inefficient upon the lens of individuals, but as a community, as a family. It unites the individuals to not look only upon themselves, but to others in hope of being something more. Some families do not need to give gifts because there is no need as they are already so close, but then there are those who live distant from one another, who once a year get a moment to unite and show that they care. The gifts are shared not necessarily to make yourself feel good or make someone else feel good, but to bring everyone closer, to build the community/family. We are social beings after all...

Peak Oil

I know that peak oil has been an interesting topic in the comments on this blog, so while doing some research I found an interesting website for all those who believe the world is running low on peak oil. Hope it helps. You can find the website here. Don't forget to watch the 3 minute interview with Daniel Yergin, one of the co-authors of Commanding Heights, also made into a PBS movie.

The End to the Academic Achievement Gap?

It has been a few years since the No Child Left Behind Act was introduced. It was meant to close the gap between the minority and the white students, yet according to many articles like the one I linked in the title above, the gap has not closed as it had been projected. I won't enter a rant on the government's efficiency in accomplishing their projections, but I will deter from all the journalist who are writing articles to bring light upon the No Child Left Behind Act which has not accomplished its task. Instead I want to discuss something that is directly involved with the students whose test scores are looked upon with curious eyes.

I think we have to begin with some questions, are minority students terrible students? Are whites and asians better students than others? Or perhaps it refers back to family. I think the data is a bit misleading. There are great hispanic, black, indian students. I have met them, studied with them, even enter into conversations full of depth with them.

The case though refers to family. A hispanic family, whose parents work jobs in order to maintain the household, do no have time to speak to their children about the daily news or minor teachings. While as the white family has parents with more free time to support and nurture their children through their school days. I am not going to stereotype the minority groups and explain the theories behind why each group's stereotypical family does not have time to encourage their children in school. Not that they do not want to, but sometimes there is a higher need. Perhaps both parents work leading to the eldest to not worry about school as much as his/her siblings. Other times the parents are never there allowing the child to do as he pleases. There have even been studies upon white families give their children incentives (money, car, others goods) for doing well in school while as, the minority groups usually can not afford to give such incentives to their chidlren.

The No Child Left Behind is a kind a thoughtful policy, but let us face it. You can have all the opportunities you would like, but without allowing the children to have an incentive to study, you only have an open door that leads to an empty room. The tests do not prove that the children of minority groups are less intelligent than the whites and asians. The tests prove that families that are well off create children who study better and have better test taking skills. Yet, if we alter the test and create a test that would test upon survival skills (not neccessarily in the middle of the jungle, but what is needed to survive); we may find the minority students to perform better. It would only make sense as most minorities have spent time and gained experience developing the skills. Now I am not preaching to create policies to close the income gap, only wished to deter the topic from No Child Left Behind. A cute policy, with no gain due to problems it was not meant to solve.

Giving to the Needy

This past weekend a religious group went into the Nation's Capital to give food. They were not going to spread the Word of God, but to spread the love that they could give to those who felt had none.
What occurred was miraculous. Many were grateful for the giving without any cost. The poor, the well off, who ever was walking down the street was encountered by a warm smile on a chilly, rainy day. There was no preaching, only a giving of love. Loneliness was something that almost died that day to those walking in the city. The giving of food, the listening to stories shared while huddling under a form of shelter, to even a chat over if the Redskins would win that day(they unfortunately lost).
Yes, I know this is getting long, but here it is, the main event. While going through the city, the group had encountered another religious group giving out warm food, but the other group was spreading the Word of God and not allowing anyone to receive or eat until after their plan of the day was complete. The cost of time to the needy for food was high. They could have been working. As the group spreading love approached the site of the preaching, they encountered a few people who were hungry. Soon after the needy found that the group full of love had food. The numbers that were waiting for the warm food came in a flood towards the group who only wanted to spread love. The point is give to give. Don't give in search of getting something in return. That is a payment for work. If it is salvation of the people you seek to spread do not give them incentives that would make the people even worship the devil such as food to the hungry, or medicine to the sick. There was a well spoken gentleman who approached to get a bag lunch. He had a sign in his hand to which he huriedly returned to since he had work to do. He was holding a sign at the intersection. The sign read of a store's final closing sale. He did not have time to listen to the lecture or wait in a long line for warm food. He had work to do. The cost is high. Give to give. Learn from the group who only wished to love. Love is not spreading of wealth evenly as it does not give incentives, but of giving as to allow them more time to work in achieving their goals and receiving their incentives. You give to show your love, to show you care. Mother Teresa continously gave, and in return the whole world mourned to her death. Give to give not in hopes of a return of your investment. If it is an investment you want, then it is not a giving, but a trade. A trade of goods, services, faith, etc.

Faith in Life

After writing my previous post, I read one comment. Thank you Anon 7:59 for your comment although instead of writing you a comment in return I had decided for a new post.
Faith is more than religion. Faith is knowing with almost up most certainty that it is true.

Everyday, we walk across streets. We are placing faith in walking across for at any moment we may be run over. It is improbable but the chance is there.Your faith makes it worth taking the risk. Nothing in life is for certain except that we are born and then die. Some are born with sight and find themselves blind after a tragic event. The doctors have told many of people that they may never walk, and we find more and more people with the drive to overcome what the doctors had said would not occur. They had faith. They had a certainty that they would succeed.
Statisticians would tell you that there is nothing that is 100% accurate outside of certain known laws; law of supply, law of demand. For example 1+1 always equals 2, but it is not known for certain that you will live or die today. You believe that today you won't die and so you invest your time in working to enable you to receive more in the future. If you knew without a doubt you would die today, you would not go to work but do anything that may actually kill you.

Faith is what lets you complete actions throughout the day. No, faith is not dumb. How can it when it allows us to live.
Because of faith we cannot understand government intervention. Why government intervention only proves a lack of faith in the market. Are we really to believe that government officials can control an economy better than a market that fixes itself? I think not, and I came to my conclusion through faith...

It all returns to Faith

Its almost Halloween, not that I am a huge fan of Halloween, it is just another day... but I was writing a post upon horror films when I decided it was about time to discuss one of my favorite movies, which I do not classify as a horror film, The Exorcist.

Oh yes, people tremble at just the name of the movie. Many have only viewed the movie once and have only traces of the demonic scenes imbedded into their memory of the movie. I tend to try to speak about this movie any chance I get because what I believe the message is, even though the movie executives would rather the message be different. I won't lead you on, I'll tell you what I found in this movie that makes me smile whenever Halloween comes around, because I know it would lead to The Exorcist to be played on tv. It is like the Christmas Story for many others on Christmas. I just enjoy the Exorcist. Yea, I know I must be a Satanist to enjoy a movie with this topic, but the topic to me is not of demonic possession; but of Faith.

I first noticed this years ago when watching the movie. I like to find explanations to anything, for this reason I like watching Ghost Hunters on Sci Fi when I can since they tend to disprove any supposed hauntings. Where is the faith you might ask? Although the movie is loosely based on a true event, we do not know what actually occurred. It is really just a screen writer/book author and Hollywoods rendition of a demonic possession and exorcism. Yet, from the beginning of the film we are introduced to a young priest. This young priest is continuously attacked and has begun to lose his faith in the Catholic Church. Recall that his mother is dying; he is approached and told that if only he wasn't a Catholic priest he would be a rich psychiatrist able to take better care of his dying mother. Here is when the demonic face first rises in the young priest's dreams when he is chasing his mother.

I am not going to make this longer but just describe the loss of faith from the young priest who could find no explanations in the possessed girl's actions. His faith was so low that when the Exorcist had told him not to listen to the demon that possessed the girl the young priest could not. Remember, the demon began talking like the young priest's deceased mother, to which the elder priest remarked not to listen the demon's lies. Attacking his spirit from the beginning of the movie, I believe the demon's goal was the priest not the young girl. The Exorcist made the young priest leave the room because he knew his faith was too weak to be of any help in performing the exorcism. The next scenes are not shown, but we are next invited back into the room where the demon lived in the girl with the limp body of the Catholic priest who was performing the exorcism. It was not that the demon was too strong for the exorcism, but I believe that although the Exorcist was strong in faith that he could call out to God to wield him the power to cast the demon, his physical strength was too weak; recall he was sick since his first meeting with the demon both from a past exorcism and in the dig in Iraq. The Exorcist had needed the young priest in order to wield the power of God to cast the demon, but as the young priest had little faith he was of no use causing the Exorcist to die. Entering the room, the young priest has no choice. It appears he finally understood what it was the demon wanted and his faith grew. He knew it was he the demon wanted and called out to it, commanding the demon to take him and leave the girl. For this, I believe the movie to be about faith, that the demon left the girl for the Catholic Priest who finally found enough faith and strength that he could hold on to his physical body enough to kill himself and the demon.

Because of this movie, I am not afraid of demonic possession. I know that it is faith that wields the strength in order to cast out the demon. In this time of fright before Halloween, perhaps you should build up your own faith. Not neccessarily Catholic, but with whatever it is you have faith in. I am not here to say what religion is right, only that when you feel like you are falling you mean only to look into oneself and strengthen your faith.

The Season of Fright

Horror movies, they are forever being released and yet none give a large amount of satisfaction. Horror movies have the most sequels than any other type of genre. Just think of Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13, and even newer movies like Saw. (and people want to say they should end the Rocky series, which by the way, is released this December) Are movie executives running out of ideas that they create a new movie with the same story but add a few more twists? Yet they are continuously being released, because the public obviously is in search for a few shrieks and thrills. The same public who called The Passion of the Christ too gory, but in my opinion, the Passion at least had a great story line.
Not here to bash horror movies only expressing thought on why they are so popular. I know men who do not care for them but will watch horror films for their loved one. Why? Supposedly there is a theory tied close to being scared and to sexual arousal. Perhaps its because the girl gets scared jumps into her boyfriend/husband's chest releasing the pheremones? I am not a doctor or study the human body nor am I a student of psych, but that is a big incentive for men; that is if the theory that all men want is sex is held true.
Taking a look into the horror films we find a trend. Horror films come with cheesy acting with many no name actors who are hoping to have a break out performance (note that Paris Hilton was in a horror film). How many actors have ever won an award for a horror film? Consider Hitchcock horror and you may find yourself with a list of Hollywood stars, but his movies were inpredictable and did not include ghastly figures or grotesque death scenes, merely a taste of the unexpected or unexplained.
Besides of terrible acting the horror films tend to have the worst plots. Most have a beginning that draws you in only to leave you devasted in watching the film to the end causing yourself to ask why you watched such a predictable movie. Ok, so thats mainly the horror films of today. It is sad when M. Night Shamaylan is the only film director who continuously fools me with his plot, and he is not a horror film director(no matter to what genre others place him in). I'm not going to list the predictable endings to the horror films who only make you giggle rather than scream, but is there another trend rising? The trend of remaking horror classics? An American Haunting, Psycho, do I really need to list all the remakes? I am not sure what makes the public love horror movies, but I am not impressed. I want more depth, cause me to scream and shriek which is not blood and gore. I get that enough from movies like the Passion which made me cringe and close my eyes more than any horror film. Come on Movie Execs if you are going to say its a horror film actually make it interesting.

War is good for the economy?

I have returned to this debate more than once, and this weekend appeared to be when everyone rose the question. Why, I do not have the slightest idea, but the question was asked... er the statement was made. "War is good for the economy".

Their points?

1. That war creates more jobs
2. More jobs mean more families with an income
3. More income means more money is spent
4. The money spent creates more jobs

Cute thought and true, although the market model that they are viewing is incomplete.

Who is the main consumer during times of war? The government.
Who has raised the amount purchased? The government.
If you begin to spend more than you have what do you do? Work more to raise income.
What does government do to spend more? Usually raise taxes.
(I leave it at this point, but today the government does not increase income while increasing spending which causes a higher deficit. This is able to be done under a fiat system. One of the many arguements against it, but for my point I will leave it at raising taxes.)

Therefore, citizens receive jobs to gain income to support their family, yet their taxes are increased taking away from the income for their family. The new jobs do not neccessarily help the citizens, but did increase the amount of revenue the government received.

It returns to the same arguement as government subsidies. The government taxes all citizens and gives a subsidy to farmers to not grow as much of a product. The overbundance of the product is disposed of rather than sold. In World War II, excess military equipment was disposed in order to maintain the high level of employment for the citizens. Thus, citizens work and accomplish nothing. A return to Sisphysm, which I spoke of before. A time of full employment, but never having anything to show for it. The citizens work hard; are taxed taking from their own income; the tax is used to purchase the goods they made, but then the good is disposed of just to keep them employed. Is this really efficient? And we haven't even begun to discuss the loss of citizens who are underpaid fighting in the war...

Birthdays; Holidays; old past time

I have decided to finally post this topic, well just because I think it is time and I don't want to talk about politicks or government.

Birthdays, why do we celebrate them? We are only born once, and by using different calendars we could have multible birthdays throughout the year. Therefore, I think we should stand up for the right to save our money and not celebrate birthdays. Everyday, I have to congratulate someone for their birthday. Here's a hint, if you are passed 21 there is not much left to look forward to except for when you turn 25 and the cost of insurance falls; therefore its time to stop counting birthdays. Years come years go, we live and then we die. Why should we count just to know we are only getting older? How about you stop counting that way you feel forever young?

Well, my real point is namely on gifts. If you want to celebrate someone's birthday that is your choice, but do not waste your time by searching for the perfect gift. Most likely, whatever you buy will not be the perfect gift. Why? Because you are not them therefore you do not know for certain what they would like. You only increase the price of the gift by spending the amount of time searching for it. To save time (cost) and make the gift more efficient you should just give money or a gift card. This way, whoever you were given the gift to could buy themselves what they would like. Since they know what they would like, they will be able to maximize the gift's utility(someones rate of enjoyment).

How many times have you been given the sweater that you never wear? How many times have you given the bread maker that was given to you two years ago for your birthday but it just is returned to you at another birthday/holiday?

If it were up to me, you save your money, I shall save mine. On your birthday, you buy yourself a gift with the money you would have spent on me, and I will do the same with the money I would have spent on you for your birthday/holiday. This way, we will actually use or admire what it is we had bought for ourselves, since we know what it is that we want.

Online Gambling

I am a little upset by James Martin from Virginia Progressive. He writes some great posts, keeps the blogosphere informed upon the political races, but sometimes I believe he takes a step into the wrong side.
On Saturday, James commented upon a new law, which supposedly "cripples online gambling". Why was the bill proposed for the law in the first place, well taking from the Virginia Progressive website:

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), said he opposes all gambling, citing its “ill effects on society,” but particularly Internet gambling, which led him to draft the legislation in the summer.
“All the problems that manifest themselves with gambling, even in heavily regulated states, are even worse on the Internet,” Goodlatte said yesterday. “There are family problems, bankruptcy problems, gambling addiction, gambling by minors, using gambling to launder money for criminal and terrorist organizations and organized crime. It does not help our society.“

A law imposed on the rest of the American society because someone believed it to cause damage. He does not note the happiness people receive from gambling only the negative points against the action. Have we not heard this before, say with alcohol? People will gamble. They enjoy it. The internet does not have boundaries nor see national borders.

I do not gamble. I do not even smoke, but I am for smoking. Why not, if there is a call for a nonsmoking bar I am sure someone will open a bar that they do not allow smoking; no need for regulation. The point is if I did smoke or gamble, I would want to be allowed the opportunity to. It is my earnings, who is a congressman to tell me what I can do with my own self gain?

Let us note that just because a law is passed does not mean the action will stop. During prohibition the alcoholics still found ways to drink. The cost had rose to drink, but as they did enjoy the alcohol they did pay the high price. For gambling, I'd expect the same turn of events. A high price causes more gains giving gamblers a larger incentive. Once again the government attacks supply believing if they attack the suppliers they can halt the demand.

Loss of Free Speech, on the Net?

A young girl in Texas was questioned over posting a picture on the net that said "Kill Bush". I did not see the picture but, as exclaimed in the article linked in the title, it was a picture of President Bush and a dagger stabbing his hand. She is fourteen and had posted the picture on her Myspace page over her upset over certain political issues. Whats almost comical is the fact that they said her picture included a dagger stabbing President Bush's hand with only the words Kill Bush. I had wanted to see the picture so naturally, I searched Google for "Kill Bush" images. I did not find any picture that is described as the one the young lady posted on her myspace page, but I found a list of over 3,000 images. Not all are graphic but just the same, most say "Kill Bush".
Are we losing our own right to say whatever we wish, including a remark as"Kill Bush"? If a young girl can be questioned without her parents in the room, are we giving too much power to the Secret Service to impose a supposed safety? Are citizens of the United States next to be sent to Guantanomo Bay for questioning without any remorse for ethics and morals?

The Penalty of Teaching

I like reading articles on the net. I try to link to them when I can because they strengthen arguements. I have written long posts describing the articles, but if you have noticed I am trying to refrain from it. Only a synopsis is needed and you can click on the article for further reading.

A teacher in Texas had taken her students on a field trip to an art museum. She was not the only teacher chaperoning the students nor was it the first time the musuem had a students walk through as part of a school activity. The problem occurred after the field trip, when a student had told their parents that they had seen some nudity. Outcries from some rang out, and now the teacher who had led the field trip is suspended.
What makes this case more fascinating is that the school officials along with the parents had to give permission for the teacher to take the students on the field trip. An art museum is an art museum. Sometimes there is nudity in art, the art museum does not seperate art with nudity in to a room with a black curtain and black lights. For the art community, nudity is a wonderful gift that helps express nature's beauty or whatever else the artist finds the use of nudity for. But for a teacher to receive a suspension for taking students to an art museum is absurd. The art teacher is only doing her duty as a teacher, introducing the students to the world of art. Are we to have a seperate room for art that depicts climates of war and famine?
In this case, the parents had allowed their children to attend the field trip to the museum. If they had felt that their children's views were compromised they should have politely declined the invitation and kept their children at home for the day. The school officials had given permission to the teacher to hold the field trip at the art museum. The guilty party is not the teacher who had led the field trip, but the parents and the school officials who feel that students should not be allowed to view the artistic material. Next parents will claim that the "School House Rock" videos are damaging their children's minds by showing an image of a talking bill. Art is art. There is nudity in religious art; is the Sistine Chapel to lose its ceiling due to its exposure of Adam? For this, I say let the parents attack my freedom of speech through the blogosphere and I shall include the photo of the Sistine Chapel on the Creation of Adam.

Immigrants and the Economy

The Washington Post displays that the farming industry is the first to feel the impact the immigration debate has upon the the American economy. For those who enjoy fruits expect to pay a higher price. I won't spend your time by reinstating what the Washington Post had said, but I will use it to extend my arguement.

The arguement is simple. As the border tightens, the illegal immigrants look towards a job that enables them to gain year round rather than work on the fields which workers are needed only during certain times throughout the year. The decrease in workers in agriculture will decrease the amount of produce produced throughout the year which causes the price to increase.

Let us keep it simple. Assuming demand for produce stays the same, the supply will shift to the left as quantity has decreased. Remember where supply and demand intersect is the market price therefore the price has now increased. Are we to go back in time where only the rich could afford to receive the benefit of eating grapes?

Well, if we wish to have a tighter border we must have expected to pay higher taxes as to pay the wages for the border patrol, workers who build the wall across the Mexico border, and for an increase in prices upon products we buy. I am sure if we add all the costs that we must pay and compare them to the costs claimed caused by illegal immigrants we shall find that the cost of increased border tightening is higher than having illegal immigrants. For this we can put the stamp of INEFFICIENT to the policy of tightening the border.

Happy Belated Birthday

Yesterday, a great economists was born... Happy Birthday Ludwig von Mises. Unfortunately, I don't get many chances to post a blog during the day, therefore missing the chance to post this earlier today. No explanations today. No stories. Just a link to describe to you a great man.

If you like what you read you should read the book written by his wife. No economics, just a wonderful story of a hero. He did not wish to write an autobiography, but as many were asking for his story, his wife decided to tell of what she knew.

Happy Birthday Ludwig von Mises...

The rise of the Urban Society

A year ago, I had taken real estate classes. It was the real estate boom in the DC metro area and it seemed to be a promising area to enter. I did not take the classes to become a realtor. I was interested in the why's and how's. After completing the courses to be a realtor (I took the semester plan at a community college to learn more rather than the free two week course at the realtors), I took classes on Real Estate Appraising. Fascinating course that helped strengthen my resolve on the free market economy. For those who do not know, appraisers compare a property with other similar properties, in other words the look at the competition and give the value from the market data. The real estate is a competitive market, therefore the prices are given, you can set the price to what you wish when selling, but the appraiser will set the value to what the market claims it to be; the real estate does not set its own price but is a price taker as the market gives it the value. All these classes were fascinating, but what I overheard discussed was the possibility of Tysons Corner, an area in Northern Virginia that is home to many corporations, was to lift the limits on the height of buildings to allow Tysons Corner to be viewed as a Downtown Chicago.
Tysons Corner currently is a mess. As many corporations have their headquarters located there, but there is hardly any housing available near by causing long commutes. Along with the traffic problem, the sidewalk is almost nonexistent. Thus, the plans for the urbanation of Tysons Corner have emerged showing the expansion in height for the buildings and a creation of residential areas surrounding the area. With the Metrorail expanding its routes into Tysons Corner, you can only imagine the growth that will be expected.
I have been speaking to others about something like this to occur in airplanes, in lines when shopping, whenever the topic leads to the direction of real estate or business. Of course, next on the list is Roslynn and Pentagon City. Two more hot beds that are home to many corporations and with the departure of the military leaving the private buildings, we can expect a large increase of private industries that will try to push for expanding the tower limits. Especially since they are around the corner from Ronald Reagan Airport.
Northern Virginia, its slogan should read, Not Just for Politicians anymore....

Unspoken American Heroes

As September draws to an end, I realize that most people saluted the military, the law enforcement agencies, and emergency units (fireman and ambulances) as their heroes. I did not spend September 11 this year reviewing footage from a few years ago to cause a fire inside me to burn nor did I join the many in declaring the men who took action as heroes. We know they are heroes, if we have forgotten then I am glad that we have so many in the blogging community to remind us. For this reason, in the end of September I will declare who I salute as heroes for this year, for the past three years, and on September 11.

These unspoken heroes are the immigrants that live in this wonderful Nation of ours. They only wish to find work in order to raise their family yet some have found only hardships. Let it be the illegal immigrants, those with green cards, on a student visa, or just became a United States Citizen; these men and women are heroes as they face an uphill struggle just like many other immigrants from this nations past. The day laborers deserve an utmost respect as in heat, cold, rain, and snow they wait out in the open in hopes of finding some work. Not only the day workers but all immigrants who learn english in order receive a larger wage an raise their own marginal production to those who find work doing the dirty jobs that most American citizens do not even wish to do. These men and women deserve the title of hero as they leave their home countries for a New World, hoping for the American Dream to further bless their families with the subsistence that they need. Some come alone leaving their families behind, others have no families nor friends spending birthdays alone with only a cupcake they bought themselves to celebrate. There is no race in the term immigrant. They are of every race and to me all the races are my heroes.

So for today, as the new television show Heroes is viewed for the first time, I am giving my salute to the immigrants of today, of old, and of the future. Let them always be welcome in our Nation for without them there would be a large decrease in heroes.

The Devil in the flesh?

Throughout the media, we are repeatedly hearing the term "the Devil" today, as President Hugo Chavez speaks about President Bush. It is not like the comment was unexpected to come out at one point in time especially from the President of Columbia who has already proclaimed his dislike for President Bush, but what is interesting is the rise of supporters of both sides.
President Bush had almost conceived his own policy years ago, "You are either with us or against us." I have spent over an hour reading blogs that were either in full support of President Bush attacking President Chavez with out reading what he claims. In the other side, there are the blogs who cheer on the term Devil applied to President Bush. Certainly I can say harsh things between both sides, but show me someone who you can't chastise?
I don't support President Chavez' claim that President Bush is "the Devil", but I do not view President as any type of saviour; he is human after all.

The point I want to come across is that we are all stubborn in a form or another, but we have to open ourselves at some point, unless we have the proof as to oppose it. i.e. socialism, interventionalist economic policies(including a foreign government intervening with another's policies) On a good note, FED leaves the interest rate alone, oh, and the rise of U.S. and China 'economic dialogue'.

Fiat money

In the United States and in many nations, we have embraced the notion of fiat money,(link included for those who do not know what fiat money or gold standard are) leaving behind the classic gold standard. Most citizens in this nation know that only the United States Treasury has the ability to increase the amount of currency, but I, like many others I am sure, have that there has been a form of currency that has been minted, the "Liberty Dollar". It is made of silver and gold, bringing back the gold standard. The only problem, it was not minted by the U.S. Treasury. So what seems to be the problem, does the government want to have a monopoly in the form of payments we must submit? By this new form of currency, we create another competitor to the dollar. The website for Liberty Dollar claims that it is "America's Inflation Proof Currency" as it is backed by real gold and silver.

With fiat money, central planners within the government are able to increase inflation or decrease inflation depending on the amount of money they mint or on selling and buying government bonds. With the Liberty Dollar it depends on the amount of gold that enters or exits their vaults. A point for Liberty Dollar.

Many organizations have a form of play money. I have been to one church who sells coupons for money, these coupons are used as real currency that would be accepted at a nearby participating store, yet the coupons have never came into scrutiny as illegal. Why not have some competition to the might U.S. dollar. It will keep the central planners from playing with inflation so much. Besides, it would be a price to pay for the citizens to choose to have the Liberty Dollar as not all stores may accept it, let alone any banks would accept its. Does government just have a fear of losing its monopoly, but aren't they against monopolies? Perhaps just another question of morals and values...

Actions

Trying to fight supply, we find politicians trying to increase their own power so they can attack the mass amount of supply let it be terrorists, drug traffickers, or even immigration.

"If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic," Bush said, his voice rising. "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

Are our values that different from others? Reading a blog from earlier this week we find the topic to be upon just that American Values, but more importantly is how much power must we give the government until we are safe? Are we to lose all freedoms so that we can feel safe?

If I had a prize to give out it would definitely be to the Armed Services Committee in the Senate for their alternative military tribunal bill proposed to help the United States maintain its morals and values. If I had a second prize it would be given to General Powell for his letter expressing his fear that the world will lose their faith on us. Read the blog on values as it is fascinating; I do not reccommend reading all the comments as there are many, but scroll to the bottom where you will find a few comments worth reading, my picks are from Mike Bailey(Sept 14 10:35 pm) and Hap Stokes (Sept 15 7:17 am)

Attack on Supply

I was listening to my favorite link for podcasts, Mises.Org, when I heard Joseph Salerno's lecture on June 15, 2006 upon Price Control: Case Studies. What I am getting to is a very interesting perspective he had brought to my attention through simple economics. He was pointing out how blockades and embargos never accomplish what they are sent out to do. They are meant to decrease the amount of goods a nation, or any land mass, can receive. By keeping resources such as fuels or food the nation will crumble, yet what the embargo really causes is an increase in price. Thus, as Joseph Salerno pointed out there will be heroic entrepreneurs who try their hand at smuggling the goods in to receive the reward of the high price. This has occurred time and again throughout history. Think of our history when alcohol was illegal...

This is a fascinating point for why do we attack the supply side of an economic equation? Does supply cause demand or is it because there is a demand for something that we find ways in supplying it? The second is proven by the black market smuggling of goods that are in demand yet unlawful to sell, yet we still find government's waging war against drug lords. Drug Lords are only there because there is a high demand. Terrorists rise and are supported because there is a demand. We attack supply which only decreases the supply of the good for a point which causes a higher price as there is no change in demand. This just gives an incentive to someone else to rise; causing a never ending war upon supply which we can claim to be inefficient as it never leads anywhere. As I heard from a wise Economist (credit to to Prof Caplan at Econlog.econlib.org even though he passes it to Bastiat), it is like the ancient myth of Sisyphus who is forever tortured in full employment as he is forced to roll a giant boulder to the top of a hill but right before he reaches the top, the boulder rolls away back down the hill where he must push it up once again. He is forever working but his effort is pointless as it leads to no gain. Are we to believe that the war on Poverty, war on Terrorism, and war on Drugs are to be any different? Of course, what other actions do we have?

Confusion

So it has been a week. I have kept myself at bay with endless amount of questions upon my own thoughts. The last commentor had asked if I was for more State rights which I can easily say no to, but what am I for became the question? I have fallen for Capitalism but encountered questions as in, "What do you want from the poor, to suck it up and stick through it? That it will only get better. How much more do they have to suffer?" And with this question I made myself suffer, as I thought maybe I am wrong, but I have come to the conclusion that I am not wrong, only right. Not for the reason that I can not be wrong, but that a government that governs most is definitely not the solution only more of a problem.

Capitalism denotes freedom, gives everyone the ability to choose, and it is not kind; it does bring suffering. Ronald Reagan had said it best, "If not now, when? If not us, who?" In order for the Third World countries to rise from their state they must bring capitalism into their society. Embrace the economic freedoms and also the misery it will first bring, because the government makes stability, but it will end at one point leaving it to be paid by who? The children or the grandchildren? The people want immediate changes, but those changes cause problems in the long run. Do we wish to be the cause of pain in our children's future, or the reason why they live a wonderful life? My own want for helping others began to pound upon my logic, but if I begin supporting the minimum wage to help the select few, I am also being unkind towards those it does not help. Let the market be the unkind one, which will also be the kind one as it rewards. For this reason do the rich become poor and the poor become rich, not because of any socialistic welfare state.

Government Corruption continued

So, the question we ended with was how does the NFL reduce the amount of corruption?
To begin I want to show why I am using the NFL to compare with government. The NFL is the league that unites different teams together. The Federal government unites different states together to form the United States. They both have rules and regulations to keep one state from abusing the other. They have police power which I shall also include military in. For the NFL, the police power are the officials during the game who do not let a player abuse another. Now I will not agree with everything in the NFl as in the salary cap and other programs they have, but for the most part is a regulatory authority that is easily compared to the government.

The NFL reduces the amount of corruption easily since the teams are independently owned, not owned by the league. This allows the teams to leave the league if there is an increase in corruption. Even the threat of the teams leaving the league would cause the NFL to decrease the amount of corruption. So, the United States once had states who seceded from the Union, but why? They wanted to reduce corruption. They wanted to reduce the control the Federal government had upon them, and increase the states own rights. But I am not only talking about the civil war, as before the Civil War there were many northern states that threatened to leave the Union. These states were threatened with backlash of military might as well, but in the end caused a change in government. Exactly what the threat of secession is meant to do. Unfortunately, although I do not agree with slavery but other issues were addressed when the Confederacy was formed and they seceded from the Union. The Union though did not change policies, perhaps increased them denying this form of reducing corruption. With the Union winning the war, the South had lost, and as they say, "To the victor the spoils." I won't put President Lincoln to blame for corruption, but at this point in our Nation's history did the corruption begin. The intervention of government and the economy began to rise, and the Federal government was able to increase their taxes without outcries of revolt.

So to reduce corruption we have to be able to revolt. Without this ability, the citizens have no power in reducing the corruption of the government. Yes, they will still be corrupted, but in fear that they will be the next Robespierre will cause the reduction. We don't even have to revolt. Its just the outcry of revolution, the cry for freedom, and the end to government intervention.

Basic Economics on Corruption

Yesterday, I announced that its the people who lead not government that we should be upset with. There were many responses which led me to this post upon corruption. A light introduction about our Nation's history: The thoughts of this Nation's forefathers was to not let the government control the citizens. Let us recall that first came the Articles of Confederation which gave no power to the Federal Government. After some harsh times, the Constitution was created which strengthened the role of the Federal government, but is the Constitution created to control us or the Federal Government? Of course, it was created to control the government, but throughout our Nation's history we have had some leaders who have created laws and amendments that strengthened the Federal Government's role. Thus the beginning of the corruption. I am not going to announce that those leaders who strengthened the role of the Federal Government had intentions of abusing their power, rather that it enables the government to be further corrupted.


This leads us to the corruption that many have begun to find in the government and the question, how do we reduce the amount of corruption? What types of government have the most corruption? Many would say totalitarian governments as in monarchies and communist governments. Why, because the government had complete control therefore controlled the levels of corruption. Is it for this reason that the forefathers had created a democratic republic?

No, the forefathers did not create this form of government with thoughts in reducing corruption. Perhaps they did, with the knowledge of economics that more competition is better as they can balance out the legal system disallowing the corruption from spreading. But a government is unlike a market and therefore the competition only increases the amount of corruption. What do I mean? That we have many elected officials and therefore have a large amount of people that are able to be corrupted or influenced. Rather in a monarchy or another form of totalitarianism, it is difficult to corrupt since there is mainly one ruler, therefore the costs of corrupting this one official is high, but the benifits are just as large or larger. In the democratic state, the large numbers increases the amount of those who can be influenced or corrupted but reduces the amount that they may do.
An incorruptible government is impossible, but again we look towards man and his ability. There have been those who have been able to surpass the influence of corruption. Yet corruption is found in all different states even to religion, where King David sent a man to war for a lifetime so that he may have his wife.
This is getting a little long so we shall leave the corruption topic for another post, but let us end this with a simple look upon sports. Rules are needed to guide the sport, but the rules do not control the players. If the NFL and their officials were corrupted and influenced by one team, we could then see bad calls that gives certain teams an edge over others. This would lead to certain teams doing great and others faltering. So how does the NFL reduce the amount of corruption? I'll leave this question unanswered until the next post.

No Trust? *Corrected*

For those who read this blog and Ditzy Democrats' Monstrosity, you know that I am a student at George Mason University. To give a little more background, I am Treasurer of the GMU Economic Society, a young group that is hoping to have a great year in attracting more students to economics. I am majoring in Economics and have grown to enjoy the writings of the Austrian economists who have fought hard to preach on the good of Capitalism.

I say this today because I wanted to address an issue that I see reoccuring. Today upon leaving one building I saw, in chalk, the words, "Don't Trust Governmnt". Yes it was misspelled without the e in nice print. All across the blogosphere there appears to be a rise upon blogs, podcasts, even grafitti proclaiming that you can not trust government. Perhaps some view me as not trusting government, but I don't view myself in that manner. I distrust people not institutions.

It is people that are corruptible not the government. If we were to distrust the government, then we could also claim that you can not trust religions. Many have already come across that view as well, but tell the faithful that you can not trust their religion... their faith holds strong keeping them from faltering their trust in their religion. The Catholics with all the news upon the molesting priests continue to hold onto their faith. The same Catholics have the history in their church of long corruption, power hungry Cardinals, and outcries that there has been a female Pope, yet they relentlessly support their Church. Why does their trust in their religion not falter?

I am not trying to overthrow government, but tame it from becoming this massive beast that controls our lives. For this reason many lose their faith upon the government, but this same massive beast when tamed is a Godsend as it upholds our given rights so intently defined by many philosophical writers from Aristotle to Locke. The government helps the communities live together in a unity that increases our own gain while shielding us from others who wish to control us. It is not government that should not be trusted but those who run it, control it; those who hold the reigns to Leviathan. We all grew up watching Mr Smith Goes to Washington in civics class with an understanding of what politicians are meant to do. The goodness residing in their hearts only wishing to make the country a better place.

I distrust many politicians, as their empty promises are just antics to receive my vote, but there are those that I feel I can trust. Trust is given and can be taken away with swift ease. The Catholics who have not faltered throughout all the discourse may have it right, we have to keep having the faith. Faith that there are good willed politicians. Faith that those we elect will do the right thing. Faith that our elected will not abuse their power in financially supporting their friends and family with tax payers money. It is as Bon Jovi says we have to "Keep the Faith".

*The actual writing on the wall said "Never Trust Governmnt" not as I had recalled earlier Don't Trust Governmnt.*

Socialism better than Capitalism?!?!?

I was reading the Washington Post this evening (if you couldn't tell, I enjoy the Post), and I came across an article upon Bolivia and its new proposed Constitution. This brought upon an interest and I began searching for more information. Rather than finding an interesting blog upon this event I find a different post from the Democracy Center. It appears the Democracy Center supports socialism with their blog post, The Bolivian Government's India Mining Deal: Who Says Socialists Can't Be Smart Capitalists. My favorite part was reading the harsh responses to this blog, only as the anonymous commentors began to show the faults of the deal that the Democracy Center called being a "Smart Capitalist".

The question that I immediately ask is how can Socialists be good Capitalists? The deal was made between the Bolivian government and Jindal Steel, a mining corporation in India; the socialist government must go outside of its own boundaries in order to make a profit in a market deal. Yet, the government is not like a business firm, the money used to make the deal does not belong to the politicians but to the people who were taxed for the money. Therefore its like playing poker with someone else's money. You don't lose anything, therefore you will take risky calls that you would not initially take with your own money. The same goes for the government officials who do not lose anything upon any deal therefore will not be "Smart Capitalists".

Now if you want to see how the socialists made a bad deal. Read the comments of the blog where the anonymous commentor has placed the data which he received from the Bolivian newpaper, El Razon. He gives the material in english; his links to El Razon are in spanish.

Catholic or Protestant

Georgetown University a known Catholic and Jesuit school has decided to out many ministeries outside of the University. What does this mean? According to the Washington Post, six Protestant Organizations are affected. Not that I am trying to be biased betweeen the different Christian faiths just the point upon property. Georgetown University is a Catholic and Jesuit university, therefore the Protestant ministeries must cooperate with any regulations the University wishes to place. Its just the notion of private property. I have many of times invited the Mormon missionaries into my home to listen to what they had to say, but I would not be happy if they were to enter my home to talk about their religion whenever they wished with the excuse that I had invited them before. Therefore I can not side with the Protestant Organizations who are finding trouble with the University's new guidelines. The University will still allow the Organizations to hold their meetings if invited by the students of the University so it is not as the University has banished outside organization; rather not allowing anyone to organize and preach within its walls without permission. Still, the cost for maintaining the regulation will be hard, as it is easy to enter the campus without being questioned, and easier to meet within small groups to discuss material without stiking any interest from authorities.

In a way, the regulation is meant to decrease the amount of outside organizations within the University, but as it is difficult to maintain it causes no difference. So why all the press for a set of rules that cause nothing? Perhaps the school administrator believes the Protestants, who have new management, are trying to further their outreach upon the University. Perhaps the school does not want to be thought as a Catholic, Jesuit, and Protestant school and only wishes to cause a delay towards the outreach of the Protestant organizations. Its not our choice but the choice of the University for what it wishes for its own outcome. Sorry Protestants. This one goes to the Catholics.

What do most economists believe?

I spend many of hours over the net to find information that would support most of my arguements. I don't like to write upon material that does not have any data to reinforce what I had to say, so I spent a little while to find a brief summary of what one scholar wrote as the "Top 10" things that economists believe. You would expect it to be from an economics page, but let us face it, just about everything is related to economics. I found this information on the John Locke Foundation. I hope no one is asking John Locke, but if you are... of course I am going to have a link to a wikipedia site upon his honor. Now for the point of this post, our economic lesson for those who do not know much on the subject that can be found here.

Cost of Immigration continued

Yes, I have used the title before but it is short & to the point. Reading the headlines today you find what I had expected from such a proposal. That the cost for the Senate Immigration Bill is high. I had written about the cost of immigration here and here; although the second link is to the cost rising due to bribery. Why does this interest me so much? The fact that the Washington Post quotes Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado in saying "The cost aspect of the Senate plan has never been taken into consideration". Ok, so I took the quote a little out of context as Rep. Tancredo appears to be against the bill, but you get the point. Why do politicians like to act without weighing the costs? One because the do not have to pay it with their own money. Its the country's money which came from us, therefore their decisions are not rationalized upon costs... Rationalized upon what they think would get them reelected rather than what is best for our Nation. I'll keep this short, so you may read the Washington Post linked above.

Abuse of Power

I was reading this months Rolling Stone when I fell across an interesting article about the Governor race in Ohio. Yes, this is going to reiterate the already highly spoke of accusations that the Ohio polls were fixed in the 2004 Presidential Election. I was hesitant to write anything about it from this article so I began to look for more proof throughout the internet. It was not difficult to find that the circumstances are true. The Secretary of State Blackwell of Ohio had made laws causing it harder for certain individuals to vote. Namely the lower classes who do not have id cards or the time to have id cards with updated information as in place of residence. I am not going to begin to explain what was done. Only that Blackwell is now running for Governor of Ohio while still holding the Secretary of State of Ohio position. He could use his power in office to cause the outcome of the election in his favor. Not saying that he would, but he has been accussed of fixing the election in 2004. It would only be a smart move as to not run for Governor while still holding such a powerful position as he could be viewed as abusing his power.

Politicians are not the only ones who abuse the power entrusted unto them. The military gives their recruiters complete control in acquiring new recruits. The problem that has arised is the recruiters violating the rights of new recruits sexually. Young adults want to enter the service to support their country; others have no other options but feel that the military will give them a chance, yet the recruiters can offer the best MOSes (jobs) to those who they like rather than to those who earn the spot. As most of those who enlist do not know everything about the military, the positions or how to enter them, the recruiters have the opportunity to ask for something more, or even grant them a lesser position. Most recruiters are men so we can assume that it is mainly young women who are being sexually assaulted verbally and physically, but the young men may be abused as well even if they do not view it as an assault. We have not even begun upon the bonuses that the recruiters can offer. Would they not offer the bonuses to those who give them favors or to those who they are more friends with? Must new recruits become friends with their recruiters or should they trust that the recruiter is trying to do the right thing for his service, for his Corp.

Let us Welcome the United States National Slavery Museum

For all the Virginians who remember our former Lt Governor Wilder; he has begun his dream, to educate the nation upon its heinous past, slavery. The United States National Slavery Museum is not underway yet, but they have constructed a website which you can find by clicking on this post's title. Incredible that they have begun to raise vast amount of money, have land donated for their cause in the middle of Virginia in Fredericksburg next to Interstate 95, and have the support of Bill Cosby and Ben Vereen.

Interesting that we created a museum for the malicious acts that encountered more than 50 years ago in Europe but have still to create a museum for the grief from our own history. This museum's life was created by private investors and donations rather than government funding. If I had an award like so many blogs in the blogosphere, as in Monstrosity's Winner of the Week, I would have to give it to Douglas Wilder who is still finding difficulty in creating the museum to teach the nation the wrongs upon slavery, but continuing upon his path to complete his dream. Click on the website and participate in the birth of a needed museum. They ask for $8 donations. Eight dollars because the number eight appears like shackles. The number eight as it is a good even number. Eight dollars because as the website says "if turned on its side, (the symbol) of infinite freedom. The Eight dollars because it will help us remember rather than forget our past. Let us support such a great cause. Even if we can not donate, we can spread the word which would once again create a larger amount of donations and support.

Now, if I can only convince the museum directors that the museum can focus namely upon African American slavery, but should also include exhibits upon other races that were held as slaves in the United States...

Ramsey still in News and not ex Redskin?

So a man is aprehended for the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey. I am not sure why this is receiving so much coverage when there is so many events occurring throughout the world. Let me rephrase that towards RECENT events, not a murder that occurred ten years ago. Perhaps if someone had been wrongly accussed, or if word was brought that the family had ties with a terrorist plot that was thwarted. But why is this case so important that I have to read through articles, spend my news hour wasting fifteen minutes for a 10 year old unsolved murder? There are many unsolved murders that do not receive any press; what makes this one so special?

The country had mourned for her death many years ago, but to keep bringing it back? I asked many upon the issue and most did not care anymore, so why is there so much press coverage? I have many questions on this issue. This is not the first time that the media has covered upon something to almost make it a household name, yet the most grotesque murders, unsolved cases, are forgotten. Columbine was tragic, yet there are still schools that face death. In short, I need an explanation, why is this topic still arising in the press. Does anyone other than the young lady's family need to know of his capture? She wasn't the child of Charles Lindbergh who was kidnapped after his heroic flight causing us to worry for his child.

Note:this will probably be deleted later, but I am just curious. Why?

Update: So I haven't deleted it, but would like to add a few updates. For those who are not aware, the Washington Redskins had a quarterback named Patrick Ramsey who they traded to the NY Jets. He was the starting quarterback the first game last season but was soon replaced by Mark Brunnel after he had an injury in that first game against the Chicago Bears. Thus, my title about Ramsey in the news and not the ex Redskin.

I also found at the barbershop that the Ramsey murder case is still a hot topic so I must give credit where its due to the media. They know how to make money and what the public want, even if I am part of the low percentage who does not care, it is all about what the market wants not one consumer. Good job media.

Western Philosophy from the Middle East

It has been a long time since I have blogged. I did not want to help fill the internet nor the bloggersphere with ill tempered material that only voiced my opinion upon the situations that arose last week. Instead I decided to hold my tongue rather than insert a plague of malicious words upon anyone. Ok, so I am hardly malicious in any way towards anyone, more of the guy who smiles even when things turn for the bad.

I want to start off this week by speaking upon Iran. No, not upon the Iranian President's interview, although that did turn sour and I may post upon it tomorrow, but on a gentleman's writings I just happened to stumble upon. A blog on blogger was created to help free him from his cell, but as for right now he is free; touring the free world expressing his gratitude for any allegiance to his cause. It wasn't his blog that I found but an article in the Washington Post that had me begin reading the blog that also posted some of his translated letters from the prison. These letters are fascinating as they are the beginning of Western Philosophy in the Middle East.
His name is Akbar Ganji. He had fought in the revolution to free his country from the Shah, only to find a new form of government that began taking away people's rights. Akbar Ganji is a writer and began to believe in the Freedom of the Press. I don't want to begin a biography upon him, for a brief summary you can read the article in the Washington Post, but here we find a Iranian, who has begun to find freedom.
What is fascinating about freedom is that it is almost entirely western. The Eastern philosophies had never pertained towards natural rights. Most countries in Asia have lived off a monarchy or other forms of dictatorships that to them an idea of revolution is ridiculous. We can go back to cultural movies as in Jet Li's HERO where one King raged war across his neighboring countries in order to unify them under one Kingdom causing all the wars between the neighboring countries to end. The wars fought were not for freedom, but over patroitism towards the King and Land. Only in Ancient Greece under philosophers as Socrates, was Democracy able to be created. A land of thought, of acceptance, and of opportunity. For those reasons did Rome and Greece begin to surpass others. (Of course, they did fall, but corruption reared its head)

Yet, this gentleman, Ganji, who is free at the moment feels a duty to return home to Iran to fight the fight from within. Not by starting a revolutionary war, but a revolution in thought. He knows he may be arrested again, but he knows that this is what he has to do.

For those who enjoyed V for Vendetta, Ganji is V. Knowing that his end may be near, but without fearing he takes the steps that he believes that are needed. I once had a friend who thought perhaps those who appeal government should be taking care of their families first. But Ganji, who is married and has two daughters must think the same as I would if I was in his place; Do I want my kids to live under rule like this? Should I not try to change it?

Our own country is far from perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better than anywhere else. Let us remember that whenever tyranny or leviathan raise their ugly head, gentleman like Ganji who I consider to be in the same group as Ghandi, Mandela, Guy Fawkes(yes, I threw that in just for the comment on V For Vendetta earlier), and the Founding Fathers. The men who see oppression and feel the need to try to change things to bring about individual rights and freedom.

God's Government

On August 4, the Ditzy Democrats had an interview with Shayna Englin as the Ditzy Democrats call the "first lady of Virginia's 45th District." Within the interview Mrs. Englin had said

I defy anyone to quote me the passage in the bible that calls for capital gains tax cuts and cutting welfare benefits to mothers. If God chose a political party, God would most certainly be a Democrat. God may be angry, but I’m comfortable that it’s not with me…

In the comments section I had replied with a short answer with a note that I may post upon the issue, and so here it is.

I had been pondering this issue for a while. What initially began me with my search for what government God may have or on what political side God may reside upon came when I had read a Catholic book claiming that the best of the Jewish Kings was David. From this I had to ask myself, why God would create a monarchy, only to find that today monarchies are frowned upon. Reasons why monarchies are terrible are easily stated. For one, man is not perfect; he would side with one side over another upon situations. To quote James Madison:

What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

Yet kings are not angels, therefore are not fit to lead us without any restraints. But why did God create the monarchy and have Saul, David, and Solomon lead his people?

Kristin from Ditzy Democrats answered me in the comments with the answer. That we, the people had created governments and political parties. God had never instituted taxes, never took away any freedom of choices, or created a welfare state. Is our valued republic the government of God? Of course not, if it was God would have created the government a long time before for us to follow through as the Catholic's believe 'apostolic tradition'. The people of Israel had cried out for a King so that they may be like other nations. God had instructed them that although he did not want to give them a king, he would since his people wanted it, but he gave them a warning that they would not like it.

Perhaps the libertarians have it right, perhaps we can have a civil society that works together through the market in order to create a nation that needs no government. I can't say that I agree with this, but God never did give us a form of government to follow, only the way to our salvation. Makes you think that salvation is not through government....

But make no mistake that God does allow freedom of choice, therefore any government that restricts that freedom we can claim is unGodly.

Teacher's thoughts on Lebanon

I was browsing through the blogosphere when I found a teachers blog of the case. You can find it here. Let's give her some support and read what thoughts she has upon the situation in Lebanon. She has left Lebanon returned to the U.S. and is trying to find support for Lebanon. Interesting read.

Charity in a Capitalistic Society

I have been amazed by the kindness in humanity. The past few years have been filled with tragedies and the United States citizens rise to assist any who are finding stormy days. Not only did everyday people donate money for certain organizations that were created to support a dramatic event, but these same kind hearted people are reaching out towards their neighbors. Notice that I did not write upon the assistance given by the government, but on private donations or assistance.

I met an entrepreneur this past week. He found that his neighbors have had some tragedy in the family and need some support financially. This kind entrepreneur has taken it upon himself to hold an event in order to achieve some funding for his needy neighbor. Donations, an auction, and a raffle will all be held in order to raise funds. How do I dare call this Charity from Capitalism? The caring neighbor is financially stable and does not like to see his fellow neighbors facing chaos alone. He decided by his own will to find a way to assist them. Government help would have taken away the choice from any neighbor. Now I give it to you, perhaps you can not attend the event which I will tell you where and when it is being held, but you can just as easily choose to give by mailing a donation to their address. I am sure any support given will be greatly appreciated.

Now why did I write this? One to help support a family down in their luck. Not to make anyone feel bad in the horrors of today, but to allow everyone the choice(Capitalism is the right to choose) to help others or to not. I do not want to give out of guilt although you can if you choose, but to give if you are able to, want to, and feel a need to help those you can.

For those in the Northern Virginia area near Springfield, Va the fundraiser will be held on Sunday August 6th at 4 p.m. rain or shine at 8210 Rushing Creek Dr. There will be poker, pool, darts, an auction, plenty of food and drinks.

Thanks to all who read this, and thanks to all those in advance who do anything to help, even if it is just to pass on the information to others, a prayer, or to write a letter expressing your condolences. Thank you.

A mystery from the Church

I question everything including life. While studying upon the Catholic Church for more information so I may post upon the group of women who want to be ordained priests, I found a mystery. Perhaps its not meant to be solved, but in any case, it is a fascinating mystery. I will probably continue studying about it on my free time. What is it? The Incorruptibles. Haven't heard of it before now? Well, I had not heard about it until I began searching for certain truths.
The Incorruptibles are Catholic Saints whose bodies do not deteriorate without any evidence of mummification. To not repeat everything that is posted on the other web pages I give it to you here. If you want to read a book about it you can order it through the Catholic Company. Now my next question, is there any other religion that has an Incorruptible? Would like to know, but have not found any as of yet.

Problems with Minimum Wage

Are we to believe that raising the minimum wage will help the low middle class? The Supreme Court had once found the minimum wage unconstitutional. You can find more information about minimum wage on Wikipedia. Throughout history the minimum wage has been used to reduce the amount of labour. I can not recite the history of the minimum wage but once again I turn to economic blogs to help provide an explanation. Cafe Hayek's response, Marginal Revolution's response, and I'll let you read through one of my favorite economic blogs the Austrian Economists to understand why society does not accept the idea that the minimum wage is bad.

No such thing as Non Fiction

The Weekend Without Echoes was a huge success. I became silent throughout the period as I spent more time reading blogs and did not want to ruin the intents of the weekend by posting a blog on a subject that was written about so many of times before. A week had passed before I decided it was time to post a new post.

Reading through so many blogs this past weekend I encountered in interesting phenomena. Bloggers can comment on the same material but present it in different views. The latest news from the crisis in the Middle East has created the same oppositional views throughout the media. Media in the United States try to not show an images too grotesque while media from overseas are graphic beckoning for peace and tranquility while showing what horrors the conflict cause. The doors to debate arise and different opinions arise. This is a natural course, but the phenomena is not the opposing views. The phenomena I had noticed is that nonfiction is nonexistant. In order for a book, article, or blog to be labeled nonfiction it must be factual without any input of fiction. As writers, we each create opinions upon our writings with or without our own knowledge of the action.

What is fiction? Dictionary.com says it is A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.

What is nonfiction? Dictionary.com says it is prose writing that is not fictional.

An author upon a historical icon may include only the data in which he enjoys; therefore not fulfilling his duties for the readers and including all the data that would allow the reader to form his own opinion upon the historical icon. Of course readers have the same faults as readers have their own opinions and shift through any data that may be presented in front of them but only read through the material that they believe to side with their opinion.

We can see this in any material. Graphs that display the Nation's economic progress may be different between two oppossing economists who use the same material. We can see this evidence in any newspaper or news channel as they may try to report facts, but in fact, display only their opinions upon any topic.

Is there any way to end this nonexistence of nonfiction? Of course not. Nonfiction is only fact filled fiction. A book on capitalism or socialism will always be a case of fiction. When reading Mises' The AntiCapitalistic Mentality, you receive the notion that there is nothing better than capitalism, really there isn't, but if you should read the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx you receive a different set of values upon Capitalism. There is no such thing as nonfiction; only a job for each reader to read through the fiction to find the facts.

Net Neutrality on the Daily Show

Net Neutrality, I haven't posted anything on this subject as I believed there is plenty of information on the web explaining it, but I did think I should at least address the issue a little by linking to a few sites that may help define it better. On the top of my side notes is a link to a website in defense of the web. It is a great site that explains the importance of Net Neutrality and includes a link which provides information on contacting the Senator of your state along with a table that counts how many Senators are for or against Net Neutrality.

I also have linked the Washington Post article I believe to best describe Net Neutrality, but I think the kicker will be the Daily Show video I have finally been able to embed from YouTube.com. The team at Monstrosity are going to love me for this. For those who do know know of Monstrosity, they are a political blog filled with humor, but mostly post on Virginia politics, although they have begun to post on a variety of topics including economics. Of course, they are huge fans of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, therefore explaining why they will love me for this. Well here is the video.

Immigration enters the world of Singing Comedians

Stephen Lynch, a singing comedian, has a song called SuperHero wherein he describes many different types of superheros including one that expresses his views on Immigration. The rest is just for your enjoyment...

Bribery

I had began to write a post describing bribery when I had found a blog that had already posted the information. As this post would have been a long descriptive post, I link you to the Poverty and Growth Blog which is part of the World Bank Insititute; it is a long post that enters the horrors of bribery.

The cost of Immigration... Bribery

In my post on the cost of halting Immigration I did not address bribery into the cost, but seeing as others have begun blogging upon the issue, I thought I might link to at least one of them. The Westerner does not break down the problems of halting immigration, but does a great job in briefing on the information. The article on the Washington Post for bribery can be found here.

Shortly I'll post on bribery and how it affects the cost.

Cafe Hayek does it again

I just thought it was interesting to find this blog post on Cafe Hayek. I did not read the article on the Washington Post, but enjoyed this post and had to share it. Read the comments; it gets interesting, especially as a student quotes one of their professors. Makes you wonder what students are being taught...

The Cost in Halting Immigration

It has been expressed throughout the news, the different views between the politicians upon immigration. Some call for a wall to be built on the border. Others call for an increase in border patrol. Both of these policies would need a substantial amount of tax payers' dollars to pay for each, either to pay for the border patrol's wages or the fixed cost in the wall. This cost does not necessarily end illegal immigration, but perhaps slow it down until a new path is found. For instance, the talks of a wall on the border is only towards the Mexican border. The Canadian border remains open. The border wall in Mexico increases the cost to enter through the Mexican border, but it will also increase the amount of immigrants that enter through the Canadian border. What's next after one border is controlled? Do we have to control the other border?

To deter the amount of illegal immigrants, the United States will spend millions of tax payer dollars on the wall and border patrol. But is this not the same reason why we want to have less of them, as to decrease the amount of tax payer dollars used for them. We are trading the costs, but who is to say it is benefiting us? Illegal immigrants begin to decline but the costs remain. Government spending is hardly changed because of the beauracracy, therefore there is no trade, only a new spending program that eats up taxpayer dollars. The complaints are that immigrants cut wages and abuse the welfare system. Want to read more about the complaints...

Let us not be confused. In trying to deter immigration, we are only increasing our own costs. Most grow upset when taxes are increased, but when the citizens cry out for justice and increase the power of government, there is no option but to increase taxes. Have your opinion, don't hire illegal immigrants, but by getting the government involved we are only allowing them to enter our lives a little more each day.

Attack on the Illegal Immigrants

It has been a controversy discussed heavily throughout all types of media. Immigration causes an angry reply from certain individuals and others raise their voice to defend it. I thought my posts on immigration had ended but it seems that it will become my next set of posts. Perhaps not as interesting as romance, but it is important.

This nation was founded by immigrants. This nation has had a great amount of success because of immigrants, and immigrants immigrated because they believe living in the United States is better than living at their mother country. The history of the nation's immigration acts is peculiar. The government denies entry to certain types throughout the ages, as the Irish, Japanese, and many Eastern European countries. It seems whatever the majority of the population is, they begin to point fingers towards immigrants of another location causing the government to create the immigration acts that limit the amount of immigrants.

The United States at one time accepted entry from any country in the Americas, but as time passed and the rise of the hispanic population grew, the immigration acts turned towards the neighboring countries limiting the amount of immigrants. The neighboring countries do not follow the United States laws allowing immigrants to pass through their countries in order to enter the United States. Most immigrants from the Americas saw a higher gain in entering the United States illegally than staying in their home country; they crossed through many borders and work in the lowest jobs to allow themselves a chance to stay in the United States and earn a good living which they may keep for themselves or send back to their families in their patron countries.

People cry out that the illegal immigrants cause the grafitee and the violence, but just as before with the Irish, Japanese, and other races, the hispanics form gangs in order to protect themselves from injustice. The gang violence is created by our own haste from attacking the immigrants who only wish to earn a living. The rise of gangs occurred during prosecution. The Italian mob grew when the Italians could only turn to each other for assistance. Movies depicted this harsh past in our nation's history. Think Godfather or Gangs of New York.

I felt the need to write this post as a warning. Let us not copy the attacks on immigration as done in a city in Pennsylvania. Instead of decreasing the violence, crime, we may be increasing it, causing a streak of terror which gives birth to the gangs and mobs. To protect the cities we must accept that immigrants have every right to live in the United States. They only increase the trade ratio allowing for increase production and labor. If we need proof, then let us wait; the test subject has already been drawn in Hazleto, Pa. There we shall see if the streets do become safer, or if the rise of a new violent spree arises to maintain the safety of the illegal immigrants.

To judge whether a workman is fit to be employed, may surely be trusted to the
discretion of the employers whose interest it so much concerns. The affected
anxiety of the law-giver lest they should employ and improper person, is
evidently as impertinent as it is oppressive.- Wealth of Nations Adam Smith

How Johnny Depp saves a movie: or a review on Pirates of the Carribean

If you are thinking that you may not want to read this post just know there will be no spoilers to the movie only a short review.

If I had to rate the movie from one to ten, one being the worst and ten the best, I would rate the movie six. The movie is fun, full of exciting fight scenes, its music easily hooks you into the mood of the movie, but the movie's plot was awful. By the end, you are left asking certain questions and can easily find parts of the movie that do not make sense for what person would ever do such things. Of course, it is just a movie, but even in movies we expect some realistic sense.

What made me actually enjoy the movie is Johnny Depp's character Captain Jack Sparrow. Once again Johnny Depp captures the audience by his performance. I could care less about Orlando Bloom or Keira Knightley's characters. Not that the actors are terrible (okay maybe Bloom), but the movie really did not need them. It is Depp who makes you laugh, enjoy the fight scenes, and Depp who saves the movie from going to Davey Jones' locker. Without Depp the movie would definitely not carry such a swagger, but include Depp and exclude his fellow main characters and you shall still find a movie that is commentable.

I give the movie a six mostly on Depps's performance. I do care for what happens to Captain Jack Sparrow and would most likely watch a movie just on Depp portraying his drunk pirate on improv. Johnny Depp, I enjoyed your perfomance, but as for the rest of the movie... well we shall just leave it at that.

Internet Romance

So I finally land at the internet romance. It is not an exciting topic, not even sure why I feel obligated to post it, but who am I to decide what society needs or does not need? For this reason I post it.

Throughout the ages, the question that poets, philosophers, and ordinary everyday people have found themselves asking is what is love. I am not going to discuss what love is as that may be the first stone cast in a long debate. Rather I will say that most, not everyone, is searching for love. They search in hopes of having that special feeling inside, of having someone to lean on, or to live out their dreams of a family in a white pickett fence. Why then, are we forced to see so many people in search of love on the internet. The internet that allows its users a vast amount of power. Off of the internet the nerd can become the jock, and the macho man can be sensitive. We know that competition causes men/women to be a different type of person for the one they show interest in, so what makes us think that it is not different on the internet where it is difficult to catch anyone on their lies.

Ok so most people turn to the internet on a notion of desperation. They feel they have no luck with love in the real world and hope out of the large amount of the people on the internet searching for love they will find their one true love. I will not say it is impossible, but I will say it is improbable. The suitors are given an incentive to cheat. The member profiles tell them all the likes dislikes and any other information that the user had placed. This information was meant to filter out any bad apples, but it is easily used for the opposite purpose. Now instead of finding soul mates we find we just made it easier to be used.

Ok so I am being a little harsh its not that bad. The competitive market may weed out the bad apples but examing the numbers there are surely going to be a few bad apples. The internet increases the amount that fit your preferences. In order to succeed online is to have a rules built or a strict set of preferences that disables most suitors from fitting in. This would decrease the number of suitors but may also discourage possible good apples.

Internet dating is probably more difficult than meeting the love of your life in real life, but still many try. Instead of dating websites they begin to chat in chat rooms. Looking for email buddies or even just friends, but just like any initial meeting with anyone feelings easily grow. Most people are addicted to that first feeling when you meet someone that you connect with so well, but online you miss out on something important. You miss out on the chemistry, the mixture of pheromones, and the importance of body language.

The highlight of internet dating? Learning someone's personality. Finding that personality that fits you perfectly. Anyone will tell you that personality is important in a relationship, but the differences between the real world and the internet relies on time. On the internet, when chatting you are giving a window or an amount of time to respond. This time gives you a chance to think through each thought allowing the quietest person in the real world to be the loudest in the internet. With this thought we find we can include anonymous bloggers. Their voice is heard but their faces, body language remain unseen. The blogger's personality is all that exists and yet the blogger's readers begin to build a sort of admiration. This admiration causes them to ask out the anonymous blogger; all from just their personality. Do the readers with crushes not have their own preferences or do their preferences only depict a type of personality. What happens when they should meet in person? Would that not change everything or would that only strengthen the relationship? Perhaps their is no chemistry and in fact it was only a friendship in the making.

I would think that internet romance is doomed from the beginning. Again it is not impossible since the amount of people on the net is substantial, so someone has to make it. But they must be a small percentage. Of course in my speaking of internet romance I have left out some important points. The points were left out because I only wanted to speak about an Internet Romance, yet what if they found one another on the internet and moved to speaking on the phone? This would then not be an internet relationship but one over the phone. A relationship over the phone is a long distance relationship, and these have a greater percentage of success than internet relationships. But we shall leave that for another post perhaps. Most likely not because I am tired of writing on relationships. In any case, I wish anyone good luck on their hunt for love. I apologize for my negative words towards online romance and wish to leave it on a good note; a soft poem's first stanza I had read once by the author of a romantic epic:

She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that's best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes:
Thus mellow'd to that tender light
Which heaven to gaudy day denies.