Our economic system and freedom

Both in main stream and alternative politics (by alternative I mean groups that do not find themselves at home in either the Democratic or Republican parties), there are some odd views held on who the greatest economic criminals are. On the one more leftist side you have the opinion that anyone who is fantastically wealthy, such as Warren Buffet, is evil. On the right side you have the view that it is the tax and spend liberals who are stealing and destroying wealth, and the private sector is championed.

What I find odd about this is that both sides very obviously have a point. The lefties who say that it is private sector financial institutions have been gaming the system and destroying wealth while lining their pockets, are absolutely right. Where they go wrong is to lay the blame at the feet of the free market. Don't believe me? Just think about it. Were in the world and at what point in history has there been a society where the strong did not reap where the weak sowed?  The free market is not the problem, human nature is the problem, and no economic system is going to fix it.  Instead the best economic system is the one that down plays that part of human nature as much as possible, which for my money is the free market, or something very close to it.

The righties on the other hand go on about crony capitalism and how we just need to fix the system so there is no socialism and then everything will be great. I do tend to agree with that. The idea that we currently have a free market is absurd. Every economic move I make the government is watching over my shoulder making sure that I follow regulations and have all the appropriate permits and paper work in place. Then to top it off, they'll subsidize competitor companies allowing them to operate at a loss until there is no competition. But where the righties go wrong is by putting all of the blame for this completely at the feet of politicians. Don't get me wrong, someone like Rick Perry, who made a deal with Merck to force teenage girls to get Merck's HPV vaccination, is complete scum. But no one on the right seems to really be going after Merck. What about their attempt to bilk tax payers out of however many millions of dollars would have been spent buying their product.

In almost any case of either the government or the private sector stealing from regular guys, there are going to be two guilty parties. One in the government who will receive some sort of kick back, and one in the private sector who will reap profits from unfair regulations or subsidies or both. And for the most part, neither sees any real consequences, and as Max Keiser said both of them need to hang.

Gender studies

Women good, men bad.  This is what beta male Jonathan Dean very much believes gender studies are not about.  I don't think that I need to actually point out the women's studies classes are linked to the feminist movement non that the feminist movement is hostile towards men in general, as that is painfully obvious.

For those Christians out there that actually have bought into this stuff, all you need to know about the difference between genders is in Genesis 3.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This is part of life and will be until the next life.  God designed women to be ruled over by men that they desire.  And this president was set not in a positive light but as a curse.  Same as God's curse of men in the next three verses.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 

The curse for men is that we have to work till we die in order to not die sooner.  For women it is that they are ruled over by men.  These both can be circumvented in the short term, but only at a terrible cost.  So for women the option is submit yourselves to a man, find a man who will submit to you and you will despise, or accept spinsterhood and study up on cat husbandry.

**Update**
It was not my intention to say that this is the only difference between men and women worth knowing, which I think is made obvious by my previous posts.  I mearly was stating what I believe to be the most relevant fact in the subject of gender inequality as related to what would be studied in a university.

Christians, Liberals, and the war on reality

I like my church. The reason that I like it is because engrained in my church is the expectation of God showing up and being real, an expectation that is often met.

That said, the 9/11 sermon delivered by our pastor was a bit off. Our pastor generally made some points about fear and people being people no matter what the color of their skin that are certainly true in the broadest since. But to get there he made some statements about the moral equivalence of Christianity and Islam that are just wrong, and gave off the vibe of the whole diversity nonsense that is being pushed so absurdly in public schools and in public service announcements.

The way that our pastor drew up moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam was to talk about the terrorist attack in Norway that was committed by a christian. He admitted that he didn't know the details of that attack, so as someone who does, let me fill you in. The attack had two parts, a car bombing and a shooting.

The car bombing did cause some damage killing 8 people, but it was the shooting that really was a disaster killing 69 people. The shooting was carried out at a political camp for youths active in the Labour party. The motivation for the terrorist was to effect political change by killing off as much of the future party leaders from the Labour party as possible. He's specific reason for hating the party was for their immigration policy. He believed that Muslims were invading his country through immigration with the goal of taking over the country. He was identified in the media as a Christian, but in his manifesto stated that he was a cultural Christian which he differentiated from religious Christians in that the latter have a relationship with Jesus Christ, something that he did not have. He goes on to say that he is not excessively religious.

So was he a christian terrorist? I would not call him a christian, as having a relationship with Jesus Christ is one of the most central things to being a christian. That and acknowledging Jesus' godhood and accepting him as lord. Those three things define what a christian is. Anyone else who calls themselves a christian is just identifying with their parents beliefs without actually following them, or is just plain crazy.

Its important to know what kind of Christian the Norwegian terrorist was because of how our pastor drew the moral equivalence. For Islam he showed a slide on the projector that had a line between secularists and jihadists with marks like moderate in between. The point from this being that there is diversity in beliefs among those who call themselves Muslims, just as there is diversity in belief among Christians. The interesting thing about this graph is that it is the people who are most into Islam that plot and execute acts of terrorism. But for the lone example of a christian terrorist, it is the opposite. It is a guy who is mostly not religious.

The truth is that serious Muslims would not accept secular Muslims as one of their own, just as I don't think of people who say that Jesus was just a great teacher as being Christian regardless of how they self identify. So after getting the facts that our pastor readily admitted that he didn't have, its pretty clear that there is no moral equivalence between Christianity and Islam. In Christianity it is the real Christians disavowing the actions of a fake Christian, in Islam it is the fake Muslims disavowing the real Muslims. Any drawing of equivalence here is absurd. As a Christian I make no apologies or excuses for the fact that my religion is superior to others, to would be cowardly and wrong.

The second point that ruffled me was made about diversity. Now he didn't come out any say anything directly, it was more aesthetic things like a montage of smiling faces of people from all different cultures backed by music that make any healthy adult want to throw up.

Now for full disclosure, I'm fairly sensitive about these things after hearing so many radio ads that go something like: “This is the sound of one voice singing. This is the sound of many voices in harmony. Yay diversity, now go move into a black neighborhood. (This message was paid for with your tax dollars)”. But with that in mind, I still think that a message on 9/11 about how prejudice is evil and people everywhere are people is at best pretty weak.

Where Christians and Liberals tend to go wrong on diversity is by ignoring readily observable reality. And not only that, but also telling people who don't ignore reality and draw obvious conclusions, that doing that is wrong. This is silly. It is not in the Bible or remotely christian. The truth is that Judaism was all about cultural and genetic purity. With the wholesale slaughter of many neighboring nations and the forbidding of intermarrying and procreating with them, the Jews were just as opposed to some silly idea of diversity as anyone. This was at God's direction. It only changed in Acts chapter 10 when God gave Peter a vision saying “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.”which he later interpenetrates: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” You can readthe whole thinghere.

The point is that it is through Christs redemption that we are able to have a healthy diverse society. Take Christ out of the mix and you have race wars. Diversity is not a virtue in and of itself. It's not even a very good idea. It is only in Christian communities that you can have large groups of people from different racial backgrounds without having race riots. And even then I doubt its any better than an equally large community of the same racial background that is all Christian.

The other silly notion is that we are all prejudiced. There is this stupid notion that making snap judgments about people based on race, sex, clothing, whatever is prejudice. Really its just common sense. You make this kinds of judgments because for the most part they are accurate. You'd be stupid or remarkably unobservant to not make these snap judgments about people. Where it gets into anything evil is when you use those snap judgments to make up you mind about someone. For example, when I go to a public basketball court and join a bunch a black people, I assume that they will have no respect for me being a white man until I score on them a few times. Even then, particularly with younger players they still might write me off based on my race. However if one of them starts passing to me right away and actually does a pick and roll play with me (almost never happens) I'll re-evaluate. If I didn't re-evaluate I'd be a bigot, as it is I'm just going off of past experience.

So if your in an airport and you see a guy with a turban, and he makes you more nervous than the guy next to him who seems to be dressed as a Mennonite (making you wonder why he's in the airport) your not a bigot. You just happen to have a brain. Don't apologize for it.

Wasted tweet ideas

My friend set up a twitter account in his girlfriends name in order to rib her by posting unflattering tweets posed as her.  After a few tweets he enlisted my help for tweet ideas.  I made quite a few of them which I thought were pretty funny, but after several months have passed its clear that he is not going to actually use any of them.  So rather than let them go to waste I'm posting them here.  Feel free to brazenly rip me off if you would like to pull a similar prank on you girlfriend.

My one regret is that I'll never be loved by a chubby chaser.

I'm serious, when I go to lolcats I know that there is a god.

People tell you that sharing is good, but share one needle and your a monster.

You guys seeing this hot dog? Damn thats a big hot dog!

I thank God everyday for living in an age where they could put magnets in my neck giving me the balance to walk again.

Chickens are a vital part of nature's chain. And that is why we use them to play chicken ball in the house.

They say home is where the heart is. God am I lonely.

Shit my dad says is popular for that one kid so why not me? Here it goes: 'I named you Sam because I wanted a boy.'

Stuff MY dad says: 'Sam, get out of there. We threw that food out for a reason.'

In olden times it was not uncommon for men crossing the desert to have to drink their own urine. Lucky bastards.

If we were born without tongues we'd all know sign language, but we wouldn't be very good kissers

If your so thirsty, why don't you get a drink off the hose like the dog you are?

Cats are just like dogs. Fools with no honor.

Darn it, threw up on my keyboard again. Stupid pictures of new borns

I know what your thinking from that last post, but I AM NOT BABY CRAZY.

Stuff My dad says: 'My god Sam, what did you roll in? Your going to have to wash that off before we let you in.'

Reasons Bob won't play chicken ball: 'I'm tired. Plus we only have one rooster. DERRRR'

A shoe sale at jcpennies and koles?  Things are about to get f***ing ugly.

Why do they call it a warthog?  I mean its not like they hog warts do I?

Come on people, Friday is actually a pretty catchy song.

Stuff MY dad says: 'I don't care who started it. You are not to have toilet bowl water squirt gun fights in my house.'

I saw the boy again. He was in my apartment. He said that I was beautiful. And I don't care what Bob says, he's real and his name is Sandy.

If a poofter in denial and a Wisconsinite got married would their children be cheesy poofs?

I just popped a zit on my shoulder and it went straight into my mouth. Bullseye.

They say there's more than one way to skin a cat.  Odd phrase as I've only been able to figure out one way

Life isn't fair. People who have never met you will judge you on the spot for pushing ONE guy in a wheel chair down a flight of stairs.

Well it’s an election year, so get ready for ‘I’m Bob and I’m so great because I research candidates before voting for them. Rupdy dupdy do’

You know what those dumb radio call screeners told me?  That I can't say dick on the air.  I mean, how else do I talk about Mother Teresa.

Bob always is trying to get 2 player ps3 games that I'll play with him and I keep telling him, I like watching him play while I drink scotch

Oh great, now Bob's all like 'DERRR Sam I don't like it when you drink scotch DERRR you always go driving afterwards DEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRR'

Don't you hate it when your man gets back from work and you go up to him and yell 'It's chicken ball time' only to hear him say that he's tired, and then you black out and when you come to Bob's crying in the corner?

Do those humane society commercials make you guys want chinese too?

We laugh at that cat flushing the toilet over and over and watching the water swirl, and yet we all do it.

If only I had cancer, than no one would ask me why I wear a wig.  I guess I'll go sit on the microwave somemore.

Stuff MY dad says: "You smell like a brewery, I hope you haven't been driving." (I had lol).

Some people tell me that I have a drinking problem, to which I always retort: "I hope you burn in a fiery hell".

Stuff MY dad says: "Every day you go without brushing your teeth or combing your hair, you remind me more of an unkept bear".

I like my coffee like I like my men, hot, black, and full of cream.

Sure you talk big in the internet, but if we met in person you'd cower at the very flare of my nostrils.

Why I don't respect atheism

There are a lot of beliefs out there that I don't agree with, but I don't think that there is any religious belief that generates quite so much contempt for me as atheism. Now to be clear, I make a distinction between those who just don't think about it in general or agnostics and those who actively preach atheism. But for those who do, I can't think of any more self defeating belief system with the possible exception of pluralism.

The first problem with atheism is that it does not allow for free will. If science is all that there is, then all of our actions are determined absolutely by scientific laws. Our thoughts and actions are just the result of the atomic and sub-atomic physical and chemical reactions among the particles that make up our being. All thought and choice is merely an illusion. Now you might say that things are not 100% predetermined by the initial state due to theorized true randomness in sub-atomic movement. But this would not make you anymore free. It just means that the illusion of thought and choice is determined by a mixture of initial state and sub-atomic dice rolls. This is still no freewill. And when you take free will out of the equation then there is really no point to arguing about atheism is there? You can make your case but the truth is that the correct set of random sounds that would vibrate the air and then interact with the particles that make up my body would be just as likely to change my mind by effecting the movement of those particles and therefore effecting my illusions of thought. But freewill is self evident. I know that I have no way of proving it, but regardless I am aware of making choices before acting. And all of the atheists that I have interacted with also presumed freewill no matter how little it fits with their dogma.

As far as I'm concerned this completely defeats atheism. But I'm feeling generous, so lets just give those atheists a break and let them borrow the thoroughly religious concept of freewill from a vastly superior belief system that does allow for it. You then have the problem of morality. In atheism morality is a non concept. Morality has to exist independently of individuals and cultures otherwise it is completely arbitrary. And arbitrary morality is no morality. Its as if I made up the concept of abzudro. Things that are very abzudro are considered bluno. Things that are inabzudro are considered rgion. Now whether an thought, choice, or action is bluno or rgion can be defined by the culture, the individual, or other individuals or cultures. But of course it's all nonsense. You can just as easily say that a culture defines gravity as bluno and magnetism to be rgion. But there is no reason to do so. Gravity is what it is. As are all thoughts, choices, and actions. Applying good and evil values to them is no more or less valid than to apply them to laws of science, logic, or math.

But again, I know that there is right and wrong. I know it just as I know that I have freewill. I cannot prove either concept, but I don't need to. They are self evident. And if I am wrong about either one, then it does not matter because everything is completely pointless anyway. So you see atheism has multiple levels of pointlessness, and yet almost no atheist acts as though they believe this, leading me to conclude that even atheists don't believe in atheism. Its no different than people like Michael Moore who will say that Cuba is a better country than the U.S. with a superior government. And yet I don't see him moving. If you truly believe something, then you will act on it. If you are not willing to act on you beliefs, than subconsciously your not even fooling yourself.

Judges are Cowards

From wnd: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=340785

Advocates for life captured a huge victory today in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where judges ruled the state of South Dakota can require abortionists to provide specific warnings to   patients about just exactly what an abortion is and does.

The much-fought case previously has been to the 8th Circuit for arguments over a preliminary injunction, and the ruling today affirmed part and overturned part of the district court's decision that eventually resulted.

The court found constitutional the state's decision to demand abortionists tell patients three things:

• That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
• That [the patient] has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
• That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.

Point three: “Abortion will terminated the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being”. The science has been there for a while now showing this to be the case. So what these judges are saying is that they know that abortion is flat out murder, but they still won't rule against it. And for you limp wristed pansies out there who think that violating states rights or legislating from the bench are a bigger deal than saving the lives of millions of children, your sick twisted ethics would not even be breached by outlawing of abortion from the bench. The Fourteenth Amendment states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” By the laws already in the constitution, recognizing the humanity of an unborn child means that no abortions can be preformed without a trial first. 

Jesus and Game Part 1

Anyone who has read the Bible knows that it does not read like a novel. There is very little in the way of detail and a great deal must be inferred by the reader. Though the Gospels are actually easier to read form the stand point of telling a story, it still never mentions anything like facial expressions, tone of voice, or anything like that. Once in a while you get to know what emotions people are feeling, but that is it. So as I analyze Jesus through the lens of game, just know that I have to make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be true.

I'm going to use the book of Luke mostly because it includes a story from when Jesus was 12 that is not present in the other gospels.

Normally I use the KJV both because the underlying text that was used in its translation is vastly superior and because I find that when doing verse by verse comparisons it tends to be slightly different and better in what it says. However in this particular case the old style english would do more to muddle that to revel. So here is Luke 2: 46-50 in the NIV:

46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.

47 Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.

48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”
50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

The context here is that Jesus' family had traveled to Jerusalem for a religious holiday. When it was over and they left to go home but 12 year old Jesus stayed at the temple. They were traveling in a large group of relatives and friends, so they just assumed that he was somewhere for a whole day of traveling back to their home town. After not being able to find him, the went back to Jerusalem and searched for him there. So, I believe that it was a total of 4 or maybe even 5 days total that he was missing. 1 day traveling home, another traveling back, and then 3 days searching for him.

Now at this point you would think that after finding him just fine and dandy at the temple talking with the teachers, his parents would rightfully be furious. His mom says “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” They are most likely tired and sick with worry. And I have to say that today as a grown man, if I put my parents through something like this and my mother said something like that to me, I would just wither under her criticism. I would qualify and say something like “I'm so sorry, I didn't know you were looking for me.” But that would not be the alpha response.

The alpha mind set takes statements like “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.” and sees a shit test. So the alpha response is to either ignore, agree and amplify, or to reframe. The alpha mind does not qualify itself, or make apologies. And here at age 12 we see Jesus demonstrate a massive alpha frame that is completely unshaken by the guilt trip laid on him by his own mother. In stead of apologizing Jesus says “Why were you searching for me?”, and reframes the issue putting the blame of their ordeal right back onto their own shoulders. He then drives the point home “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?”. In the context this statement is borderline accusing.

This leaves his parents confused, as the metaphor of God as a father is largely with us today because Jesus used it in his teachings as an adult. It does not say one way or the other whether Jesus tried to further explain it to them, but by just leaving the story with “ they did not understand what he was saying to them”, would seem to imply that he didn't go on to try. This would be alpha aloofness. He just says what he is going to say and moves on. He doesn't have to make them understand, he spoke his mind was done with it.