Billboard Illustrating Past Gun Confiscation From Indians Gets Progressive Panties In A Wad

Progressives are frothing at the mouth over a bill board using the transgressions against the aboriginal peoples of the United States as effective rhetoric against gun control. The progressives, some of them claiming aboriginal blood, are saying that the board is overly insensitive:

Shanggui and Proscriptions - Extra-Judicial Punishment

One thing I like about blogs are the comments that often follow. Some of the blogs with a lot of followers can generate a fair number of comments, many of them insightful, many of them not so much.  In regards to comments that fall in the latter category the one that elicits the most eye rolls from me is the claim that the United States is the most corrupt country on the earth. The United States has undoubtedly seen a decline in regards to our civil liberties and corruption, but I can think of many governments that are far more corrupt than the US; Venezuela anyone? 

Want Spain? Well F$^$# You

I don't think I have to articulate my opinion on an organization that calls for the return of Andalusia back to the fold of Islam.

NYT Op-Ed: Japan's Unnecessary Nationalism

A few days ago I was reading the news and I read a New York Times article. I don't normally seek out the New York Times but my girl friend is a 'newsie' and often sends me articles she thinks I would be interested in reading.  The title of the article piqued my interest as I assumed it would probably relate to the growing tensions between China and Japan concerning islets and coral reefs in the East China Sea.

I assumed, given the New York Times ideological slant, that they would express concern with Japan's recent military developments in the last few years.  We often think of Japan as an extremely pacifist nation that utterly relies on the United States for protection.  The reality is that Japan has one of the most developed navies in the world and that what appears to be reliance is simply a high level of integration with the United States military. Imagine my surprise when, instead of a relatively researched piece filled with insight, I get a editorial that had to be no more than  few hundred words with no real insight whatsoever.  I should have known better considering that it is the New York Times and I have been spoiled by Stratfor reports.

The article was written by the editorial board of the New York Times and their entire op-ed boils down to nothing more than saying "Shame on you Japan for having some of your political leaders visit shrine for your war dead during this time of tension between you and Japan".  They also wrote how they didn't like that the current Prime Minister of Japan defended Japan's war time conduct during World War II.

Japan's conduct during the war was atrocious and you will find no argument from me; My grandmother's brother was killed in the Philippines when the US was there to liberate the island. but the war was over 60 years ago and majority of people alive in Japan today either did not fight in the war, or were not even born when it happened.  They also paid for their transgressions.  The United States fire bombed their capitol, dropped two nuclear bombs and then took away their sovereignty for a period of time.  At some point a people get tired of saying 'I'm sorry' for something that happened a long time ago. I believe the Japanese are at this point and I am with them on this.

Even if a nation has fought a war in the wrong it is unreasonable to expect never ending contrition.  At some point nations move on and look forward. The fact that the editors of the New York Times are concerned that a bunch of Japanese legislators are visiting a shrine honoring their countrymen who have died in war astounds me.  If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited a monument honoring the British killed in the American Revolution it would be a total non-event for me.  Nations have every right to honor their fallen. The New York Times probably doesn't object to Japan honoring their dead so much as how they are choosing to honor it - sort of like how the left only doesn't object religion  itself, rather how its adherents choose to practice it.

The reason why it is absurd is that rhetoric mean very little on the geo-political stage. Rhetoric is meant for your own people.  Reagan's 'Tear down this wall' speech had absolutely zero impact on the Soviets, but Reagan didn't make the speech for the Soviets, or even the Germans for that matter, it was for Americans.  You would think that the editors would have finally realized this after the ill-fated attempts by the Presidents to raise our global stature.  He gave many speeches in Europe, Asia and most importantly the Middle East.  While the intelligentsia swooned and made a huge deal about Obama extending olive branches and mending bridges the reactions, outside of the intelligentsia in Europe at least, were impassive. That's because action, not rhetoric, has any real meaning. Whether the progressives at the NYT want to admit it or not our actions haven't changed.  The United States, like any other nation, looks out for her interest first and foremost and always will.

So this is what the NYT editors really need to understand. The Prime Minister and the leaders say what they say for their people and no one else. While the leaders of Korea and China will chastise Japan publicly, privately they couldn't care less. More importantly it's been over 60 years since the war and attempting to 'shame' Japan isn't going to work anymore.

Constitutio Antoninana Redux

I have an old post about an edict by Emperor Caracalla that had immense ramifications for the western world of antiquity. It may very well have been the most important and unfortunate law passed post the fall of the Republic. Erudite Knight had a good observation that “during a collapse, wouldn't the imperial legions look more attractive?”  My answer is that it depends on the kind of collapse. As I have outlined in my posts about the death of the Roman Republic, Roman society underwent a collapse starting with the tribuneships of the Gracchi brothers and ending with the dictatorship of Sulla. While most historical texts mark the end of the Republic around 32 to 30 BC, it had really ceased to exist as an effective functioning entity after Sulla. The turbulent decades between the death of Sulla and the rise of Octavius were the chaotic interregnum before the order of the principate would emerge. Numerous wars, 12 if we count the Social War as the first civil war, were fought during this chaotic period.

When Augustus became the first sitting emperor after defeating Mark Antony in 30 B.C, it ushered in a new era of peace that would last 98 years. There were still wars that were fought but they were wars of conquest fought in the far off frontier, and for the first time in nearly a century Roman legions did not face one other on the battlefield. For the average subject of the empire, it was a time of great peace. There would be civil wars during the early to middle imperial periods, but they usually coincided with the end of a dynasty and were rather infrequent. As time went on, however, the wars would not only be fought more often but, coupled with the economic malaise due to the ever growing bureaucracy, would be more damaging as well.

After the end of the Julio-Claudian line in 68 AD, there was a year of infighting between emperors, would-be emperors and usurpers. It was a time of instability, but fortunately for the Romans, it was a very short period and the next 124 years would not see any major fratricidal bloodshed. This would all change after the death of Commodus, famously and somewhat erroneously portrayed in the movie Gladiator. The next four years saw numerous battles as five emperors claimed and subsequently lost the throne. The rise of Severus, the fifth claimnent, would begin the Severan Dynasty and while it marked a 41 year period of peace, it also was the beginning of major decline.  The 1st century AD had been a minor renaissance for Roman society due to the skill and foresight of their first emperor, however, it had also sown the seeds of eventual collapse.  The 2nd century the fall out from the destruction of the republican system but Rome benefitted from a period of rule by a series of very competent and skilled emperors.  By the 3rd century AD the empire's luck had run out. It was during the Severan Dynasty that saw the beginnings of the crisis that would plague the 3rd century, nearly bringing down the empire and sowed the seeds for the fuedal society that would eventually emerge.

It was during this relatively peaceful but economically and socially stagnant period that Caracalla crafted his short sighted law in order to increase the flow of silver to his coffers. The ramifications for such a law were not initially felt, after all the empire was at peace with itself, but the growing barbarian threat and increasingly poor economic situation of the empire were taking a toll. In 235 AD, with the collapse of the Severan Dynasty, the empire entered a period of crisis that would not abate until the ascension of Diocletian in 285 AD.


The crisis of the third century was the greatest challenge Rome had faced since the collapse of the Republic over 200 years ago. The series of crisis that would assault the empire were heralded with the civil war that I would call the Year of the Six Emperors in 238 AD. This was most disturbing as it was an indication that civil wars would become more frequent. While a man could go his entire life without experiencing a single civil war, the 3rd century marked the beginning of a period of extreme bloodshed. No fewer than 22 emperors were crowned, deposed, assassinated, killed in battle or died from plague during this period. The average reign was only two years and a few months; this was during a period when strong leadership was desperately needed.

The civil wars between the potential men of the purple were bad enough for the empire, but for most Roman subjects it was hardly a major concern. They were the matters of generals and as long as the imperial order didn't appear threatened it was largely beyond the care of the common man. These later civil wars were a different matter entirely. In 260 AD, two large swaths of the empire seceded and formed their own seperate empires, the Gallic and Palmyrne empires, and it would take 14 years of bloody civil war until they were finally brought back into the Roman fold. Less than 12 years later the Britanians would attempt and later succeed in 296 AD of establishing their own Brittanic Empire. Diocletian would manage to quell the upstarts and unite the empire under a new system of governance known as the Tetrarchy, but the empire fell back into civil war after his death.

In the early 4th century, there was a series of civil wars from 306 AD to 324 AD and only 26 years of peace until another civil war in 350 AD in addition to another civil war nine years later. There were two more civil wars towards the end of the 4th century, one in 387 and one in 394. The empire post-260 AD was very turbulent, rocked by civil war after civil war, and I haven't touched upon the numerous foreign and barbarians wars that were also fought concurrently.

The prospect in fighting in the many civil wars, which often had higher fatality rates than fights against the barbarians, would be enough to disincentives serving in the legion much less the auxiliary. Without the added incentive of citizenship, why would a non-Roman choose to serve in the auxiliaries, who weren't as well trained or paid, when he could serve in the legion? Moreover why would anyone want to serve in the auxiliary and face the prospect of fighting a Roman legion or be left alone on the frontier to face the barbarians unsupported during a period of civil war? Lastly, the waning years of the empire saw epidemic after epidemic and the military legions were often prime festering grounds for the plague. The prospect of swearing loyalty and service to one of the local wealthy aristocrats, the proto-barons of the feudal ages, would certainly look a lot more enticing than slogging around a collapsing empire facing foreign barbarians, fellow legionaries and disease in the name of far-off emperor you never saw.

The outlook for serving in the military during the fall of the Republic was very different for a Roman than a citizen of the empire a couple of hundred years later. During the collapse of the Republic, even with the risk of dying in a civil war, the standard of living for soldiers was much higher than the common Roman. When you also factor in the chance for wealth, riches and the ever enticing grant of land, and after Claudius, citizenship at the end of a term of service it isn't hard to see the allure. Contrast that with the soldier of the 3rd and 4th century with the civil wars without end, constant barbarian attacks, the plagues and being paid in a rapidly depreciating currency. Why would anyone, save the most desperate or blood thirsty, wish to serve in the legions must less the auxiliary?

This helps to address why, for those of us who think America is in decline, that military enrollment is up while in the late Imperial period it saw a decline. Despite the historical struggle the military has had with meeting recruitment quotas, this has all changed. Some of it has to do with lowering the quota goals for the military, but as some recruiters have noted the declining economic situation coupled with the benefits for those who serve have kept the recruitment pool at higher levels than anticipated and there are now waiting lists. It isn't hard to see why since the risks of conventional combat with another nation are low. Even in the insurgencies that we have fought this past decade the likelihood of a soldier being killed is low. There isn't a challenger who wants to fight the United States on the open battlefield.

Whether the United States is more comparable to late Republican Rome or late Imperial Rome is a matter of personal opinion that is made based on the available historical data. I have made my opinion clear, that we are more like the late Republic, which is why we have not seen a major decrease in military enrollment that was seen in the late Imperial period.

The IQ of Presidents

tA lot of individuals make a very big deal about a presidents intelligent quotient alternating between yelling it from the roof tops when it illustrates how 'smart' their favorite politician is or dismissing it as a useless metric.  Perhaps in the most recently well known instance is the I.Q hoax which claimed President Bush, the second Bush, had an I.Q at 91.  Now 91 one is below the average, which is statistically set to be 100, but not so low that he is terribly below average as he would still be within one standard deviation of the norm; in other words dim but not a moron or a retard.  When I was in college the extreme leftists in my college circle, and regretably sometimes extremely partisan professors, would cackle with glee and essentially say 'look at the proof how stupid Bush, and ergo republicans, are!'.

Those who weren't idiots themselves could see that something was fundementally wrong with the premise.  How would anyone, even if they were part of a political powerhouse family, ever be picked as president of a nation of 300 million if they weren't so smart? The intellectually lazy, or the intelligent prone to conspiracy theories, would postulate how the GOP leadership, or the illuminati depending on how conspiritorially minded they were, wanted someone they could easily manipulate. I've never bought this considering my personal experince. I more often than not saw extremely intelligent individuals being manipulated than the extremely stupid.  While it is only personal observation, and therefore doesn't form any sort of proof from which a reliable argument could be made, if what I saw was true then I would think it might have something to do with the person being more 'turned on' than others.

What I have noticed about the intelligent, bright or gifted is that their emotions are often more complex and succeptible to influence than the extremely stupid. Everyone can be manipulated via anger, greed, pride, love or any other emotion, however, I like to think of emotions as a color pallet. You have your prime colors, or base emotions, and then the subsequent shades, the more complex emotions.  The higher the IQ the more complex the kind of emotions you can have; once again this is all conjecture so I could be widely of the mark. For example you need only look at Socialism to see this in play.  The lower IQ individuals can be easily bought by promises of food, shelter and free stuff while higher up the intelligent quotient chain you will hear about acceptance, compassion or, in some cases, getting even; while above that are appeals to intellect and reason.  This also explains the shotgun approach of trying to string all those themes in every speech given or paper written. While everyone reads or hears the same words depending on your intelligence only a few will really strike a nerve - perhaps most maddening is that unless your on your guard you will be unaware of the attempted manipulation-. But I've gotten off topic.

I was, and am, extremely doubtful of any 'study' that tries to assert that a president was anything less than one standard deviation above average.  In a democratically decided representative system, what ever it's flaws, you just aren't going to see someone who isn't at least above avergage.  This doesn't have anything to do with leaders trying to ensure that the most capable are selected, not by a long shot, rather it has to due with group dynamics. All political parties are just a larger version of the social group and social dynamic comes into play.  The 'average' person would simply be unable to play all the games required to move up the heirarchy ladder.  In fact many extremely intelligent individuals, but whose emotional acuity may not be up to snuff, wouldn't be able to climb the ladder either; of course you will find individuals like congressman Paul who intentionally go against the flow knowing that it will hurt their 'career' but men like him are the exception and not the rule.

This also will explain why, that in this chart of presidential I.Qs, most of our presidents have been above 1 standard deviation but under 3 standard deviations; where a single standard deviation is plus or minus 15 IQ points. In other words, smart enough time impress the population but no so smart as to alienate themselves from the masses, while at the same time minimizing the risk of manipulation that I mentioned earlier. The number of presidents with IQs above 3 standard deviation range from as much as 12 to as little as 1 depending on which column you choose to use but either way the majority of president will be within that 2 standard deviation range.

The chart shown isn't necessarily 100% accurate. Seeing a standard deviation increase or decrease for some presidents, like President Clinton, is a reason to question it's validity. My major point of doubt comes with the corrected IQ score of Woodrow Wilson as there is no way that he had a corrected I.Q of only 102. Woodrow Wilson, statist though he may be, doesn't have the resume of a merely average man of intellect. He was president of Princeton, back when Princeton undeniably deseved its reputation, and President of the United States and both are not the accompishments of an average man.

The chart I posted certaintly isn't the definitive guide on the IQs of the presidents.  Most of the presidents IQs are best guesses taken from analysis of their writings rather than actually from taking the tests which opens up the possibility of errors. Yet at the same time I think its good enough to illustrate that the men who held our highest office aren't dummies.  Our presidents were certainly short sighted or made poor decisions based on ideology at times, after all they were only men. But when an individual talks about how stupid such and such a president is, and this includes the current president. They are letting their emotion, and not their reason, guide their opinions.

TSA And Rabbit Society

As cowardice and irrationality continue to grip the nation we have individuals protesting a surprising move by the TSA, or what would have been a surprise move but it now looks like they are going to rescind their decision, the TSA was going to allow knives with blades 2.36 inches or smaller to be carried on passenger aircraft. The TSA has delayed the new rule as it has meet opposition by a gaggle of rabbits organized flight attendants and political opportunist Senator Schumer calls for a complete knife ban.

Of course the knife ban is ludicrous and absolutely ineffectual. To date there hasn't been a report of any potential terrorist attack thwarted by the TSA and if there had been we would have heard of it by now.  The TSA desperately needs some positive press so I highly doubt they would have kept any prevention of an attack secret.  The fact is that most of what goes on in US airports is simply security theater to make you feel better because the truth is that if a potential terrorist hasn't been stopped before they have gotten to the TSA scanner then it is unlikely the TSA will stop them.  There are too many bags, too little time and frankly too little training to make the TSA agents an effective counter to a potential terrorist attack -and indeed I would argue that if you haven't prevented a terrorist from even getting into an airport then it is already too late-. Case in point:

I flew to Iceland not too long ago and, unknown to me, I had my swiss army knife in my workout bag.  My bag was pulled over twice and searched but both times the agent had failed to find my pocket knife and it was only when I unpacked it 7 hours later that I had realized why I was singled out for those searches.  This is an instance were they knew something was off based off their x-ray scans but still could not find what was wrong, and yet I was not prevented from boarding.  I can't say I mind since I would've loudly protested if they proceeded to empty my back and all it's contents but it illustrates something.  Firstly, it illustrates that the TSA agents aren't quite the perverted jack booted goons they are often portrayed, the agent looking through my bag seemed honestly apologetic that he was wasting my time, and secondly, if I could inadvertently sneak by a pocket knife then there isn't a high likelihood they are going to stop a really determined individual. But this doesn't matter to those with a rabbit mindset.

The fact that such incidents were rare to non-existent pre-9/11 means nothing to those with a rabbit mindset.  They see danger in every shadow, nook and blade of grass be it real and imaginary.  In fact I would put forward that imagine, or extremely unlikely, fears motivate the rabbit mentality individual far more than actual real world threats.  For example there is tremendous evidence showing the dangers of having a government with expansive police powers.  Millions of lives have been sacrificed at the alter of 'false security' that is provided by police states.  Sometimes these lives were unintentional casualties due to the police state and other times they are intentionally inflicted.  The Germans, Italians, Russians and many others sacrificed their personal sovereignty for leaders that would promise them security, among many other things, and look what happened.  But the rabbits, time and again, fail to head these real world instances and continue to call for more government 'protection'.

Some individuals might question why I care so much about this event and the seemingly common sense position to keep them off of airplanes.  The thing with common sense is that it cuts both ways. If common sense tells us we don't want to have lunatics or islamists on planes with knives then it should also us, based off history, that worrying about almost non-existent events and passing laws on them is a waste of our energies. And frankly, common sense has never been a good position to argue for or against something in my opinion; in fact when ever I hear someone use the phrase 'it's just common sense' it makes me think that the person uttering the phrase doesn't have much sense at all.

Ultimately the issue is whether we have a sheep dog or rabbit society.  A sheep dog society understands that there are dangers and the world and that they have to be mitigated.  At the same time the sheep dog realizes that you cannot stop every threat and that spending a lot of time and energy on low probability events is, not only a waste of time and effort that could be spent on more realistic threats, but also that efforts put in place to stop the events will probably be unsuccessfully. The rabbit society doesn't think about this and in fact wants the opposite. 

The rabbit would rather spend inordinate amount of time and energy on perceived threats that make it feel uncomfortable, knives on planes, gun control or right wing racist militia groups than on actual dangers that don't appear as threatening but are in fact far more dangerous, expansive police state, excessive amounts of national debt, or disregard for the constitution.  The dangers that they ignore fail to illicit an emotion response, which is why the appear so disinterested when they are raised, and why threats that are unlikely, but are visually or mentally disturbing, occupy their time.

I am almost certain that the rabbits will have their way and the mean nasty pointy sticks will be banned for airplanes. What is so frustrating is that this will make the rabbits feel good but it doesn't actually do anything to keep people safe. Fortunately the actual impact on our lives by the government is rather minimal, I doubt many individuals even tried taking knives on the plane prior to 9/11, but there are so many instances were this is not the case.  We often, and rightly so, blame the politicians for the ever increasing police state that is being implemented but the politicians are often only responding to the rabbits in our society.  Unfortunately it has become increasingly apparent that the rabbits out number the sheep dogs or even the sheep and their knee jerk reactions will increasingly expose us to wolves in rabbits clothing.

New York Is At It Again

New York, it appears, looks determined to be nominated the shittiest city in America to live.  The Bloombergian do gooders want to focus their nanny state mentality to cigarettes. You would think that with cigarette consumption has more than halved since 1965, when cigarette consumption per capita was at it's peak, and with the CDC reporting that cigarette consumption declined by 40% from 2000 that individuals would be content with what has been done. After all the data strongly suggests, I cannot say prove without running some sort of regressive analysis, that all the media and public awareness campaigns have worked.  Smoking is down and it continues to drop.  At this point the idea, and rhetoric, that tobacco companies are duping people into smoking or that they have co opted congress is hard to believe.

My generation has been inundated with the dangers of smoking since birth via D.A.R.E and rather ghastly commercials and videos. At this point if people under the age of 21 choose to smoke then they do so knowing fully well what they risk. If some 17 year old kid gets hooked on cigarettes then I don't see how we can say society has not done enough. But not according to Mayor Bloomberg! Oh no, he has said that he wants New York to raise the minimum age to buy tobacco to 21.  It looks like this asshole politician doesn't think we are doing enough and wants to protect the children, who are old enough to vote, be tried as adults, have sex and be drafted for war, from the mean retailers forcing those nasty cigarettes down their throat. 

I love this quote by the Mayor

"These laws would protect New Yorkers, especially young and impressionable New Yorkers," Bloomberg said at a Queens hospital.
 

 I can't disagree with using the adjective impressionable for young individuals, after all they voted for progressive policies based on their feelings, but how exactly is a law going to protect them?  We have laws against domestic abuse and hate crimes yet this still hasn't stopped man from wailing on his wife, or from a man suffering from deserved mental torment from a militant feminist she-beast, and we also have laws against racially motivated crimes, that too hasn't been prevented. But most importantly, given that alcohol is officially unavailable to most frat boys in America how do you explain the preponderance of drunken idiots at universities at various colleges around the country? Oh that's right, the laws don't do anything!  They are there to make you feel good, or in the case of the unscrupulous.

Make no mistake even when Mayor Bloomberg was a 'Republican' he was never a Republican.  He was only as Republican as he needed to be to serve his image as a tough on crime competent administrator with extensive business experience.  Now that he doesn't need those credentials, or has seen the way the political wind is blowing, he can fully engage in his nanny state progressive nanny statism.

Given many 'liberal' Americans preoccupation with gay rights, and just to be clear I have no dog in this fight and could care less if a dude and a dude marry, you'd think that they would realize that they are slowly sowing the seeds of their own ruination. Fundamentally, in regards to individual liberty and statism, there isn't a difference between using government force from preventing a gay person from creating a marriage contract with another gay person and using government force to prevent people from smoking. In both instances it accomplishes nothing. Gays will still live together and have children via adoption or some other method, once again not that I care, and 18 year old kids will still find ways to smoke a 'cig'.


I'm not a smoker, I light up a cigar at weddings and New Years, and I don't really care for the habit, however, if given the chance to meet the man, I would light up in front of him and blow the fattiest smoke puff I could.  This guy seriously needs to be brought down a peg or two.

*UPDATE*

Looks like Mayor Bloomberg isn't the only crusader on this cause in New York. Reason says Christine Quinn wants to do the same.

When The Sheep Dogs Are Wolves

Some of the sheep will choose to become sheep dogs and purge their pack the malcontents. This news article is a little old but I still wanted to share it.  Mexico is a good example of what could happen to parts of the country if we let the rot that is socialism to fester.  Corruption is a large problem in Mexico.  According to the 2012 Corruptions Perception Index Mexico ranked 105.  Contrast this with the United States and Canada , which ranked in the top 20 nations for least corrupt, Mexico score puts them in the same ball park, and in fact they lose too, China and India.  This corruption has effectively paralyzed the police force as an honest crime fighting institution.  Honest cops are murdered and the police are little different from the drug cartels in certain parts of Mexico.

That is why it warms my heart, and further illustrates the reason for the 2nd Amendment, when towns people take their public well being into their own hands. I realize that there are some issues with vigilante groups and their kind of justice but this only resulted because the local government absolutely failed it's duty to the constituents it was supposed to serve. The rise of vigilantes in the rural towns of Mexico is not ideal by a  long shot but it is, by far, a much better alternative than being powerless against thugs.

Why School Should Study The Bible

Education in  the United States is pretty poor these days, and history fares no differently. I was thinking about my instruction in Western History and disturbingly realized  I could not recollect being taught certain historical events prior to  high school. I remember learning about the Declaration of Independence, the Civil War, and the New Deal in seventh grade. I can recall my sixth grade teacher lecturing us about the ancient Egyptians. I distinctly remember my fifth grade class; instruction about early colonialism in North America descending into anarchy because instead of tending to crops, dealing with Indians or any of those other items, our 'colonies' spent their  time declaring war on each other. Our teacher finally put a kibosh to the whole thing after we made one of those perfect students cry because my group completely annihilated her groups colony. Finally, I remember that every February we had to study black history. I always elected to do my report on either George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglass because they were truly exceptional men, but what I can’t recall -and this does disturb me- is being instructed about the Greeks, Romans or Christendom and the Bible.

There is a pretty good chance  I did receive some tutoring about the Greeks and Romans but that it was so boring, compared to the awesome, illustrated history books my dad gave me every Christmas, that I nodded off for the entire lesson. It is hard to sit through a class that goes over the history in the most general of fashions while you were already reading the Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, so I don't want to claim that my K-8 education completely failed me. But even so, I cannot say I received any instruction in Christianity or the Bible.

Now there will be some individuals who will immediately say 'well, of course, Cogitans. Separation of church and state and all.' But that would be missing the larger point. The point isn't that I think schools should teach Christianity as the one true religion but that they should teach about Christianity and the Bible and the effect it had shaping Western Civilization. Like it or not,  almost every person born in the West has Judeo-Christian values deeply embedded into their worldview. The reddittheist, reddit atheists, cry foul and generally froth at the mouth, but the thinking adults among atheists will concede that this is true. Christianity has deeply shaped and molded our worldview and because of that the Bible is essentially the book of Western Civilization. Liberalism, humanism, individualism and, yes, even progressives and militant feminism, have some connection to Christianity and the Bible. Being  this is the case, and considering its historical and cultural importance, schools should study the Bible the way we study the Constitution, Magna Carta or any other important cultural piece of work.

This doesn't require that we teach the Bible as true, which would certainly conflagrate the idea of separating church and state in government funded schools, but that we should study it, analyze it and ask ourselves what sort of message is being delivered. Each story, parable and passage in the Bible is an allegory, an illustrative device, that is trying to teach us something about ourselves, or instruct us on how to behave as a people. For example, why is it that harems were culturally acceptable in many parts of the world, but that they were unacceptable to Christian Rome and Christian Europe? The answer is in the Bible, specifically the New Testament, my friends

Why is it that the West has led the charge against capital punishment or cruel and unusual punishment for prisoners? It's in the Bible

And this goes for many other parts of Western Civilization. The Bible, coupled with other ideas from Pagan Rome, the rule of law, and Greece, democratic government, shaped and molded us into the society we have today. I know there will be individuals that will point to one specific example in  the Bible that illustrates a cruel punishment or point to the myriad of torture devices of Medieval Europe and use that as an example of why I am wrong, but they would be utterly missing the point. The point isn't that the Bible, or Christianity for that matter, is perfect since nothing written or organized by men is perfect. The point is that Christianity and the Bible influenced the direction our civilization took. If the West had remained pagan, and we continued worshiped Jupiter and the Pantheon of Gods, our civilization would be vastly different from what it looks like today.


If we want to understand our nation, our civilization and ourselves, then it behooves us to study the most fundamental parts of our society. And the Bible, the values and the worldview it imparts, is one of the building blocks of our society. This isn't to say we should teach the Bible as the 'truth', and I say that as a Catholic, but we should absolutely study it as a historical and cultural document.

Manosphere

I don't normally wade into conversations about game, women or the red pill, though I do follow it, but I do consider this blog as a part of the the 'sphere; if only on the outer edges since I don't talk about topics like Game at all and Feminism very little since there are others who can do it much better than I. I found this post by a certain blogger, word to the wise he identifies as an omega, a little strange. I have never experienced what this individual is talking about in reference to the manosphere, but then again, due to my lack of need, I don't visit most PUA blogs. There are a lot of reasons but the biggest is that I don't think that some of the boyfriend advice in many of the blogs is that useful if you are in long term relationship, others will disagree. I generally try to do what Athol Kay advocates in his blog.

As for the guys definition of the manosphere. It honestly seems rather narrow. Sure, back in 2008 it might have been that way but I think it has evolved since then. In my mind the manosphere has, or has begun, to outgrow its initial sex oriented circle and is expanding into more of an alternative forum where men talk about all things, science, religion, politics, and culture. 

A general consensus I have seen  from a variety of blogs is that education, pop culture and most importantly news has become too feminine centric. I am sure some militant feminist with 29 piercings will accuse me of misogyny, to which I would reply that you are doing to the word misogyny what took race hustlers 50 years with the word racist. But anyone with a brain, man or women, will understand what I am getting at. And maybe I am being a little too broad when I say feminine centric, perhaps I should say a specific kind of feminine centric. Either way, what has resulted is a significant decline in the exchange of ideas as the range of topics that is deemed 'acceptable' to discuss have evaporated and even worse men have lost their way. While some idiots out there may celebrate the decline of manhood, I can testify as a relatively young man, that my generation feels adrift as a result. This is not a good thing, just look at Japan.

The fact is that there I many bloggers that I read that I do not agree with on all things; hell sometimes most things. But I have since learned that you can not shy away from ideas simply because they are 'offensive' to you or are 'insensitive' to others feelings. Sometimes you will read things on the 'sphere that you will disagree with at first, vehemently at times, but may come around too later with experience and new evidence. My point being that on the 'sphere' I can say 'this is fucking stupid' and not have someone try to out my face book profile, harass me much less have my comment deleted because someone is butt hurt. A person may call me an idiot and that will be the end of it. I don't think I would enjoy that sort of internal security on other sites.

China's Long Term Local Currency Default Rating Downgraded

Fitch has downgraded China's long term local debt outlook from an AA- to A+. While the Foreign Currency Issuer Default rating has been affirmed as looking relatively strong, relatively strong meaning that it deserves it's A+ rating, due in large part to the vast foreign debt instruments it owns; I would disagree. China's long term local debt outlook doesn't look quiet as strong due to these items:

• China's stock of bank credit is 137% the size of of Private Sector GDP; this might be a new sovereign analysis metric to look at and I like how they use Private Sector GDP instead of just official GDP which I think is a better indicator of economic health.
• Shadow banking has shot up by 73 percentage points since 2008.
• China's local government debt, which even back in 2011 severely underestimated actual debt levels, which has increased the rest for local default.
• Decreased fiscal revenue.
• And the opaqueness in regards to debt from corporations that are linked to local governments.

One think I have stressed is that China didn't give up communism for capitalism, not by a long shot. All those 'private' corporations are often just shell companies where the largest investor is the local government. China didn't really dismantle it's state run industries so much as add many additional layers to give it the veneer of a private enterprise. In the end the government, often as a major stockholder of the company, still calls the shots.

What also needs to be remembered is that, while a downgrade from AA- to A+ doesn't seem like a major deal, the ratings agency also only downgraded the United States from AAA to AA+ back in 2011; and how many individuals think that a nation with debts in excess of its GDP is really a AA+ debt risk?  In my mind, knowing how reluctant ratings agencies are to actually list a countries actual debt rating according to sound judgement of the data, any sort of downgrade should be considered as a big deal.

Detention For Being Right?

My girlfriend was perusing buzzfeed when she found a rather hilarious, or what she thought was hilarious, the 21 absolutely valid reasons to get a detention. There were some funny ones, 'go back to whore island' heh, but I saw no humor in item number 12. In fact, if anything, it just illustrates that schooling has become less about education and more about obedience training.  If a student calls you out for being undeniably factually wrong: you say 'sorry about that I made a mistake'. You don't send them to detention!

If I had a kid was sent to detention for being right, not only wound I not punish him, but I would also buy him the biggest ice cream cone I could find; and give him a freebie to miss school. Because if my son was sent to detention for insisting that a kilometer is not longer than a mile then he's obviously got a retard for a teacher and isn't going to learn much of anything in the first place.

The Offensive That Never Was

When Nazi Germany invaded Poland the allies, The United Kingdom and France, promptly declared war on Germany and did....nothing. Well, not exactly nothing, they did manage a half hearted offensive the only succeeded in moving French forces a few miles into German territory and get 2,000 French soldiers killed. The British did nothing in terms of major military movements into German territory, and outside of some air combat, did little against the Germans. The first major ground fighting between the United Kingdom and Germany didn't occur until the Norwegian campaign.

All in all the inactivity by the Allied nations was pretty damning considering that only 23 German divisions were left to face almost 110 divisions of the Allies. Even with the military incompetence of the French generals who, despite the fact that the implementation of armored vehicles in World War I lead to their victory, failed to implement a combat strategy that effectively utilized armored units and adhered to World War I military doctrine.  The Allied nations left Poland to be ravished by the Germans, and later the Soviets, when decisive action early on could have ended the war quickly. This inaction would have tremendous consequences for decades to come as both the Allied power inaction, and the United States ignoring of the possibility of a Japanese attack, has been one of the justifications for a very aggressive foreign policy since then.  Millions of deaths could have been prevented if the United Kingdom and France had only acted more aggressively.

The phrase 'hindsight is 20/20' is often used as a response to could've, should've and would've situations.  But the fact is that the allied nations inactivity was utterly inexplicable.  Nazi Germany was very open about it's desires to establish a Greater Germany Reich, which would have included taking territory from the French, and the bloodless invasion of Czechoslovakia should have made it abundantly clear that Nazi Germany was testing the waters.  When the Germans invaded Poland there should have been no doubt between the allied nations, they were next on the agenda. It's one thing to dismiss something as bellicose rhetoric or saber rattling when a nation doesn't escalate, like North Korea, but it is entirely another matter when a nation unambiguously push the boundaries. 

While Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Germany when it came to Czechoslovakia could be seen as a betrayal, and a gross miscalculation, it is somewhat understandable.  Britain had only recently fought a bloody, and to many British largely pointless, war and sought to avoid another bloody conflict that would exhaust an already weakened empire.  I understand the logic, though based on a faulty premise, behind appeasement on Czechoslovakia.  But once Germany had exposed its willingness to use force to achieve its ends, they should have acted decisively. The fact that they didn't was a terrible travesty with consequences that are still reverberating today.

Grad School Not A Good Way To Spend 100k

From the mouth of someone who has taught grad school, "Grad School May Not Be the Best Way to Spend $ 100,000".  Let's review what she lists out.  Here big three bad reasons to go to graduate school are:

• You don't know what you want to do with your life.
• Because your career has stalled.
• Because you applied and you got in.

All in all these aren't bad reasons, though I could list many more.  The fact is that she is someone who has a vested interest in individuals going to grad school, after all she doesn't denounce it as a whole, and I am not going to take her to task for that. I don't hate professors or academics but I do know many personally and I understand that they are simply human beings like everyone else. And human beings have a tendency to be unable to separate what is good for them from what is good for everyone else.  Most professors don't want to shunt in people off to degrees that will leave them massively debt and near unemployable; in fact I believe most professors are largely oblivious, or only dimly aware of, this reality that many face. They earnestly believe, not all together untrue, that education yields tremendous benefits. It is true but their mistake is assuming that getting degreed and getting an education are synonymous; they aren't.

This is something that you, as an individual, have to determine. When considering whether or not you should get a bachelors, masters or PhD you need to think about the education, not the degree.  Does going to get you university and taking courses in a particular programs advance your skill sets? Will you learn valuable information or processes that is applicable to a future career? Do you actually learn how to do a job or are you simply learning generalities?  This is why an accounting degree, and to a much lesser extent, a finance degree, is more useful than a marketing or a business management degree. 

In accounting you learn the concept of GAAP and actually apply those concepts in various classes, be it inventory accounting, accounts receivables accounting, or learning to equal out a balance sheet.  While it is true that much of this could simply be learned on the job the reality is that if you want to do accounting for a major company they will require a degree. It is an unfortunate reality of credentialism that we have to deal with but that isn't my point about accounting degrees. Accounting degrees will actually import information, and a skill set, that make you employable. Contrast this with a management degree where you will study the theory of managing employees or businesses without actually ever doing of that. It's all theory text book knowledge and when it comes down to it, who wants that?  If you wanted to build a rocket who would you pick, the person who has a degree in rocket science but no real experience with rockets, or the person who doesn't have a degree but has successfully built and fired rockets before. It's a no brainer.

In the end while knowledge is great to have, experience will trump it every single time.  How does a university education get you the experience you need to do the job you want to do?  In many instances the answer is, it doesn't.

Stratfor: Canada's Geographic Challenge

Here is another Geographic Challenge video from Stratfor. This one featuring our cousins in the wintry north.  Canada is in a unique position due to its relation to the United States. On the one hand close proximity means that Canada has the added protection of naturally being in the US defense umbrella; and access to the largest economy in the world.  Canada is America's largest supplier of oil and natural gas.  At the same time Canada's proximity means a loss of some of its sovereignty -can anyone imagine Canada significantly going against America geo-politically? - and it is very much intertwined into American markets, 49% of its imports are from America, to the point that you could almost consider Canada and America as one economy. Anyways, enjoy the video

The Return of the Guild

The Captain has another insightful video on the continually growing credentialism that is bogging down our economy. What is happening in America is no less than the return of the guild. Guilds sought to maintain control of the materials, skills and markets for their tradesmen. A skilled individual would be forced, by threat of exclusion if he didn't comply, to a series of apprenticeships and promise to not act against his fellow guild members. This meant that the guild effectively controlled the price of goods and labor; a monopoly sometimes enforced by kingly decree.

Guilds were great for individuals that were members, especially if they were high in the order, since they were sheltered from competition and could command whatever rates the guild deemed acceptable. Individuals, regardless of their skill, had to undergo the tradesman journey; starting out as apprentices and moving up the ranks until they were masters or even grand masters.  This journey would take a long time, regardless of the skill of the individual in question. An individual would have to be a part of the guild if they wished to open a shop as capital was difficult to acquire, and often control by other guilds like the bankers guild that had a gentleman's agreement with the other guilds in the city.

The guilds policy of rent seeking, redistribution, anti-competitive practices, artificial price controls and other economic ills were pervasive throughout the medieval period; it should be no surprise to anyone, familiar with Austrian economics, that the decline of the guild system corresponded with an increase in economic productivity. The great liberal economists of the 18th and 19th century were highly critical of the guilds and by the middle of the 19th century they were a shadow of what they once were. Guilds should have been relegated to the dustbin of history but we are seeing a resurgence of the guild

But it isn't the watch maker, smithy, carpenter or many other skilled trades where we see reappearing. It is in the various organizations that advocate tests, certificates, and degrees. Once, in the not too distant past, an individual could learn an intellectual trade on the job, but now no longer. At first the requirements were simply bachelor’s degrees, but now masters have become more common, and PhD's may be the norm in the future. If degrees weren't enough, a legion of certifications, some of which didn't exist 15 years ago, are now required as well. Even jobs that shouldn't require anything, other than a person’s ability to hustle, now require certification, to sell a piece of property you need a license. It's absurd, and it is killing this economy.

The medieval period was a time when the guilds ruled the economic roost. It was a time of stagnant economies and inefficiencies and it shouldn't surprise anyone that as more and more jobs require certifications and degrees economic opportunity will continue to decrease.

China Owes America Money?!

A strange statement to make I know. Currently China holds over a trillion dollars in US debt securities and there has been a lot of hand wringing over that fact; personally I consider the trillions of dollars held by the FED and Social Security Trust to be a bigger issue. So when someone makes the claim that China owes the US a lot of money, it draws me interest. According to the daily caller, China may owe US investors billions of dollars and it may total over a trillion. 

First things first, I wasn't convinced that this was entirely true, but it looks like Fox news did pick up on the story and the American Bond Holders Foundation looks legit at first glance. Now the crux of this entire issue is that this debt was accrued from 1900 to 1938 by the Republic of China, a technically defunct organization if we considered the People's Republic of Taiwan as separate entity. However, there is precedent of new political entities assuming the debt obligations accrued prior to its existence, the Russian Federation assumed many of the debts of the defunct U.S.S.R. The issue is does the PRC owe the debt that was accrued prior to it coming into power?  China has been mum on the matter, not outright refuting it according to the articles I have read, but ignoring it as well.

I don't really have an opinion on the matter since I just stumbled onto it, but it is interesting nonetheless. Assuming this is entirely legitimate, jury is still out, and considering that there is extensive debt owed to the US, how would this play in the geopolitical and economic game going on between the two nations?

Only In a Distopia

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not a father could be found for comment?

And The Dance With North Korea Continues

That dance is one where North Korea rattles its saber, sometimes the saber rattling is nothing more than bellicose rhetoric, sometimes it's a missile launch and in some instances a skirmish with South Korean military forces.  The end result is usually the same, the United States, South Korea and Japan ready their military forces in a show of strength. Russia and China advocate that all the nations involve must exercise caution to minimize the threat of escalation, in reality the threat of escalation probably isn't that high since China will signal to North Korea if they are pushing the buttons too hard. In the end the US and South Korea decide it will reach out, a.k.a appease, North Korea, if certain conditions are met.

If My Bank Pulled This Stupid Stunt

I would have opened a new account with another bank and explained exactly why I was closing my account with the bank in question. Some idiot or idiots at some Swiss Bank thought it would be a good idea to get on the social justice bandwagon and try to spread awareness about the 20% pay gap between the genders. This is stupid for two big reasons.

First and foremost a banks job isn't advancing social justice, it's to not lose your money. The fact that they didn't get short changed is irrelevant. A prank like this would make me lose confidence in my bank. Given the absolutely rock bottom confidence most individuals have with banks since the financial crisis you'd think that banks would be concerned with not losing potential depositors.  Apparently not.

Secondly, regardless on your opinions on the veracity of the pay gap claims the fact is that the guys the prank is being pulled on probably having nothing to do with it.  Yet simply because they happened to be born with a penis a joke like this is acceptable. Imagine the uproar if this were done to women or some other protected group? 

This is absolutely stupid and a sad reminder of how far the West has sunk.

Interesting Development In South China Sea

Looks like Japan has made a rather bold move, not just in regards to the Senkaku Island dispute, but in regards to the ongoing Taiwan issue as well.

More Americans Are On Disability

MSN money reports that disability claims have surged since 2007.  The article does briefly mention the increased likely hood of fraudulent claims but says that the overriding factor is demographic changes as the reason, or in sort, more old people more claims. I call bullshit.  There are fewer people working jobs that require the kind of physical labor were you could through your back out.  Sure I could see a girl hurting herself after years of lifting boxes full of paper reams; but my point is that our jobs have become less demanding, not more. 

The fact is that when you have areas where Americans are on disability is indicative of a problem. That problem could be fraudulent claims or very lax oversight by our administrators.  This is costing us tens of billions of dollars and is only set to keep growing.  I can't help but think there might be something to one commentators quip:

How to shrink the UE rate by 3 percentage points without creating any jobs:

1. Take a few million older workers off the UE rolls, put them on SS and call them retired.
2. Take a few million more workers off the UE rolls, put them on SSI and call them disabled.
3. Take a few million more workers off the UE rolls, give them loans and grants and call them students. 

Given our generally crappy economic performance and outlook the government has a strong incentive to not be as zealous when it comes to sussing out less than honest claims about disability.  I'm sure you have all know, or heard of, a person that claims disability because they suffer a condition that prevents them from working but have no problem going out on a Friday night and living it up.  And I'm not talking about a person going out to get a drink, see a movie, or relax by a pool. I am talking about a person going out, getting shit faced, and dancing the night away.

It's quiet simple, if you can exert yourself strenuously in activities like hiking, dancing, heavy weightlifting, surfing, sky diving, skiing or  then you aren't disabled even if you have a nagging injury that gives you pain. And I am not talking out of my ass, I have experience with this. Some number of years ago I was in a car accident that messed my back up pretty good. It was during the State swim meet and I wasn't able to been over without taking a lot of muscle relaxants and pain medication; needless to say I wasn't going best times even though I managed to compete.

For most of my college athletic experience I suffered from some pretty bad back pain. I would be 'fine' but then I would move a certain way or push myself a little too hard and I would spend the next week barely being able to move. Funny thing though, all those years I spent avoiding exercises that would 'set' my back off like dead lift, squats, Romanian dead lifts, didn't do me any good. I have a friend, very knowledgeable in lifting, that forced me to do the exercises with light weight and perfect form. I gradually worked my way up to heavy weights and I noticed that by the end of it I no longer had any back pain, spasms, weakness anymore. I wouldn't say I am 100%, but I am at least 85% or better.  But I digress,the point was simply to state that I was probably injured enough that if I had really tried I could have sought out disability of some sort if I was lazy and unscrupulous.

The point is that there are a lot of people out there claiming fraudulent disability and there are probably even more receiving disability for ailments that could be fixed if they only put in the time and effort. Considering that they are drawing public funds you would think that the government would have an incentive to make sure fraudulent claims were filed or that people would get off their roles as soon as possible, in the case that they physically could fix themselves, but there is an overriding force at the moment.

We know what this force is, progressivism, and how it incentivize people from making decisions that do not benefit society at large because the this force disincentives individualism and personal responsibility. And we also know that our government won't address this issue with 100% resolve because every person off of disability is another person that counts towards unemployment.

Universities Are Worse Than Wal-Mart

Another blog post courtesy of an article sent ot me by my girlfriend; she even offered an angle on comparing Universities to Wal-Mart. The article, which is really just a sob story piece, covers how adjunct professors are poorly paid and can barely make ends meet.  I wasn't exactly a hundred percent sympathetic to their plight on being unable to get tenure, I think tenure is an absolutely terrible idea, and I even laughed at loud at this particular gem:

“are not being given the quality their money is paying for, e.g. a well-rested professor who isn't a walking zombie from holding numerous teaching jobs to barely make the rent each month.”

My response to that particular individual is welcome to the 99% of Americans who hold jobs outside of academia.  Now, I have relatives who work in academia, some as teachers and some as professors, so it isn't like I hold my views in a vacuum or that I have a complete and utter disdain for highly degreed individuals; I don't, but I've learned to take a larger look at the various issues which has inundate me to sob story rhetoric the prevails in news media today.  For far too long individuals and groups have used our emotions and propensity towards charity to take our money. The cries of it's for the needy, education the enviroment only serve as shields with which they deflect warranted criticism. Question the veracity of their claims that increased spending on education will solve our problems when education spending increased by around 200% from 1970 to 2006 with no increase in test scores? Well obviously your simpleton who hates chidlren. Suggest that the problem isn't a lack of money but a severely structually unsound educational system and you might as well be a vampire to most academics. But back to the subject at hand.

While it may be unfortunate for adjunct professors of theology, literature, history or some other liberal arts field that their pay is so low the fact is that this is how the market works.  We live in an age of near ubiquitous information, meaning information is cheap. Why would you pay a university for a history degree specializing in ancient history when you can listen to top notch podcasts like the history of rome for free, or s small donation? What we now pay for is the instructor, his reputation, and ability to teach. Would all the professors making $ 800 a month teaching a course earn more if, rather than work as an employee of the university, set out and created their own programs and tried to draw in their own students on the merits of their ability? Most individuals would say of course they would earn money. But that just begs the question: why aren't you then? And the fact is that there are some individuals out there who would earn more money because they are phenomenal teachers. Conversely, there are many who probably are earning more than what they would ordinarily earn because they get to use the reputation of the university.

But lets look at the numbers, do they have a case for their complaints?

The tuition of a major state school in my city, the University of Washington is $ 12,950 a year. This doesn't include housing, books or any of the other myriad of college expenses that a student will incur during their tenure, this is tuition and tuition only.  The University of Washington has a quarter system, meaning that a student will acquire 45 credits each year.  This means that every credit costs around $ 287, and since most classes are worth 5 credits, each class can reasonably be priced around $ 1,438 quarter or $ 479 a month.  Quick recap:

University of Washington tuition: $ 12,950
A year of study: 45 credits
Per credit cost: $ 287.78
Cost per class a quarter: $ 1,438
Cost of class per month $ 479.63

Digging around, I found varying numbers for the University of Washington average class sizes.  The largest average class sizes were lectures, with 46 students, and the smallest were seminars, with 17 students. Using the cost per month this means that a class, depending on the class size, nets anywhere from $ 7,253 to $ 21,162 a month for the university.  The monthly pay for an adjunct, according to the article, is $ 900 a month. That leaves anywhere from $ 21,162 to $ 7,253 a month left over after paying for the instructor.  Another recap:

Average lecture class size in number of students: 46
Average lecture class size for a seminar: 17
Amount class earns a month for a lecture: $ 22,062
Amount class earns a month for a seminar: $ 8,153
Median pay for adjuncts a quarter: $ 2,700
Monthly pay: $ 900
Funds left for lecture classes: $ 21,162
Funds left over for seminar classes: $ 7,253

Running a university must be the greatest racket of all time. As a college you get to charge exorbitant sums, because of the public blind faith in institutionalize education, and short change your employees due to cost constraints, real or imagined. There very well may be cost constraints as universities have ratchet up their bills due to the addition of nice new buildings, machinery, departments, athletic centers and art pieces that are completely absolutely unnecessary if a university wants to become a first tier institution. Never mind that the university of eastern nowhersville in podunk USA has no hope of ever rivalling a top tier institution, the money must be spent!  It's the university version of accreditation, another ill of progressivism.

This is something that most professors don't understand about progressivism in its current incarnation. It's part because many don't hold very strong political viewpoints, though they do reliably vote progressively, due to greater interest in esoteric knowledge and a predisposition towards believing the technocratic fallacy. And part because some professors are simply politically zealots fanatics that hold ideology more important than empirical reality.

The fact is that universities are, not only the perfect breeding ground for statist progressives, but also the perfect example of what happens in a truly progressive society.  Universities, socially, are incredibly hierarchical and feudal. I would wager that this has always been the case but would also claim that progressivism exacerbates this issue.  The pecking order is very harsh, and department heads can run their departments like despots if they so choose. Ultimately both educator and educatee suffer for it, as real education and debate is stifled so that the university may impart its ideological worldview. The efforts, and ill-gotten results of progressivism to eradicate 'inequality' has been well documented, so I won't waste your time rehashing it. So I will just say that the end result is exactly the opposite of what is desired by the ardent believers; instead of an egalitarian society you get a very stratified one.  In the end, any ideological system that adheres to collectivism versus individualism will fall prey to the unscrupulous, and unlike in an individualistic society, little recourse is available. This is what has happened to the university.

The universities have become cash cows, and in the truest nature of progressivism, the most equal get first dibs. The presidents and administrators stick their hand in the trough, then it goes on to department heads and notable academics, and by the time you get down to the individuals teaching the students, there's nothing left. Individuals may protest my claim, but this is exactly how Soviet Russia worked then, and how China works now. In either nation the goal wasn't to be productive, innovative or an entrepreneur but to have connections. Most millionaires and business owners from China started out as bureaucrats or highly connected family members and because of that they have insider information which enabled them to build their wealth. But I digress, the ultimate point is that in a progressivism, or should I say the modern fuedal system, the lowest on the totem pole are screwed.

And ultimately this brings me to my point. Many leftists will argue about how horrible Wal-Mart is and how it is exploiting their workers. Frankly, I am not a fan of Wal-Mart and their Chinese made garbage, but Wal-Mart is only responding to what we the consumer demand. At the very least with Wal-Mart you benefit from cheaper goods. So the employees are screwed over, but you aren't.This isn't the case with the University. You pay more for a product that is fundamentally little changed from decades ago and should be cheaper due to technological innovation and your professor is paid very little relative to what they could be paid. So if an institution is like Wal-Mart, in the respect that it pays it's employees little, but unlike Wal-Mart, charges it's customers more for a product that should be cheaper, doesn't that make them demonstrably worse than Wal-Mart?

The Importance Of The South China Sea In Two Images

 

I've been writing about the South China sea and the growing focus of the US trying to contain China and China trying to avoid containment.  Here are two images showing why future saber waving and bellicose rhetoric and continued US focus is assured in this part of the world.

 

Crude Oil Shipments

 

 

LNG Shipments

 

 

These images make it increasingly apparent why China claims the areas it does for its exclusive economic zone and why the nations of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan and even Korea and Japan have a vested interest as well.  I've detailed China's fears of US containment and the threat that of having the straits of Malacca choked off, this image just brings that point home.

 

For the other Asian nations it isn't just that about national pride or the natural resources on the sea bed floor, the entire sea is literally fuel lifeline of Asia. While exclusive economic zones aren't the same thing as territorial waters, under the complete jurisdiction of the nation that controls them, it isn't the same thing as open unclaimed ocean either. The other Asian nations won't acquiesce to Chinese claims, outside of the readily the  apparent economic reasons, because to do so would be to say that under the influence of China. What would that mean?

 

Ever gone on a cruise in the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico? In almost every port of call you will see a US coast guard cutter. The US presence is everywhere and you cannot get away from it, which isn't all that bad considering that piracy is rather rare in that part of the world.  The Gulf of Mexico is indisputably under the domain of the United States. This is what China wants for the South China Sea, and what the other Asian nations don't want.

 



Launch From North Korea Imminent

At least according to the Pentagon, who say they believe that North Korea is preparing to launch one or more of its ballistic missiles.  Now before everyone starts hypothesising nuclear armageddon or an outbreak of war on the Korean peninsula we need to remember that no one has mentioned where the missile will go.

If the we believed that there was an imminent threat of a ballistic missile being launched into South Korea then we would have already mobilized our forces to neutralize those ballistic batteries; I am 100% certain of that. We also need to acknowledge that North Korea has fired missiles, sometimes ballistic missiles, before from its east coast into the sea of Japan. 

Long story short I am not particularly alarmed by the news headlines, though everyone and their mother on the major news outlets will be wringing their hands.  North Korea has a history of this kind of behavior, and despite all the rhetoric from our politicians and pundits, they aren't crazy (just evil) and I doubt they would cross the line. Toe it via rhetoric? Certainly. Bend it with border skirmishes? At times. North Korea is pretty certain that those kind of actions won't result in full out war. Launching a ballistic missile into South Korea, or Japan, would be a different story all together. At least that is my take, and I could be horribly wrong, guess well see.

Geopolitics: Laser Weaponry

As you've no doubt probably read already, the US Navy unveils a ship mounted laser capable of shooting down unmanned drones and disabling smaller boats. Being like the majority of red blooded American males I have an inherent fascinating with weapons of war, doesn't mean that I don't think some of these weapon systems or programs are a waste of money, and given my interest in geopolitics I am fascinated by the geopolitical ramifications.

First off, I always have operated under an assumption that a military body, or a government, will not reveal a weapons system unless, they either want to score points on the geopolitical scene, or they have something better out there.  This, of course, ignores nations like Iran or North and their Potemkin military technology announcements. So when the US navy announces that they have a working, albeit just in field tests, laser weapon system it makes me ask wonder about a few things.

1) How well have they worked out the many practical operational limitations around laser weaponry systems?

A pretty simple question with a pretty simply answer. They obviously have something they think is workable, but how workable is what they may be trying to find out.

2) Why did they choose an amphibious transport ship and not an aircraft carrier or one of the Aegis destroyers?

I think this is a pretty interesting question. Apart from the obvious , the article made it very clear that this weapon was still very much in operational testing, there are some interesting, almost conspiratorial ideas. 

Either these weapon systems have long been installed on a select number of our destroyers and today is simply the first anything has been said about it, or the US navy has something even bigger in the works that may already, or be near, operational completion.  Of course, a US Defense official stresses that the laser does not posses full capability, but its a nameless source and so it's veracity is hard to determine.

3) Why did the US navy, given their propensity to shroud other military programs such as the stealth bomber in secrecy, announce such a program?

Laser weaponry would be a game changer in terms of military combat.  Near instantaneous, for all intents and purposes, and much more accurate than any kinetic based weapons system. This would give what ever military that had it a serious advantage over its competitors, especially in regards to certain types of combat.  There is of course space based combat and a lasers ability to knock out enemy satellites would be extremely valuable but I am going to focus on something else.

The Navy plans to use the laser to combat missiles and other threats from the air, to ward off threatening ships and to stop other foreign threats. Eventually the system will be able to stop an incoming missile.
 

The article mentions that this ship is being deployed to Iran. While I don't want to downplay the importance of such a weapons system in that portion of the world, I don't think we are designing such a system because of the Iranians. It's for the Chinese. For further context, here is this image:

A few years ago China announced the DF-21, the worlds first confirmed ballistic missile. This is of course assuming that the US and Russia never developed an anti-ship ballistic missile system and I remain doubtful that they haven't.  The DF-21, if it works as intended, would be able to strike at enemy ships throughout the South China sea and past the archipelago of small and major islands that are potential forward bases in any potential naval blockade of China.

What is interesting is that, so far, the US has claimed that there is no workable defense, if the ballistic missile system works as the Chinese intend, at this place and time. This has forced a shift in US military strategy to relying more on our ballistic destroyers and less on relying on carrier power projection alone.  Naturally it has also increased our interest in a weapons system that we have been researching for quiet some time.

One thing we always have to be aware of when the government makes a press release is that there is what the government says and what it says. In my mind, this press release is a message to the leadership of China. What it says is that while they may have a ballistic weapons system capable of destroying an aircraft carrier the US will develop, or perhaps already has, a weapons system that can counter it.

Whether or not we have such a system we can't say with any real certainty. A single article from mainstream news source, that only cites an unnamed defense official, isn't enough to make me take anything written in the article as anything near approaching the truth. In fact, this whole entire article could be nothing more than a giant psych out, though the US has long been interested in laser weaponry and I wouldn't doubt for a second we have the capability.

It will be interesting to see how China, Iran and even Russia react to this new development in military technology.

Please No

I don't have as high a distaste for nepotism as the Captain, his feelings on the matter are well known and his rants legendary, and it probably is more align with Aurini's view on the matter.  But one thing I hate seeing is political careers that are started on nothing more than the family name.  That is why speculation like this gets my blood pressure up, it's not that she announces that she is considering running for office one day,and I assume an hard line progressive statist (she will and is.). Nor is it that she is related by blood to two politicians.  If that were the case I would have to predisposed against Rand Paul but I am not; largely because I think he does a pretty decent job.

It's because she will probably win solely on her name, by virtue of running in an area that is solidly in her camp. She will, most likely anyways, have to run on nothing more than her parents name and a few leftist platitudes.  This is what angers me. She will win, not because she will have run a better campaign or articulated a better vision for America, but because no one is going to run against a Clinton in the heart of blue territory. Not to excessively draw parallels to Rand Paul, but could anyone imagine a Clinton, Bush or a Kennedy doing what he did, facing the opposition he did, or even having the balls to run against his own party? I can't.

Ultimately I think this is another great argument as to why we need term limits. Because what is going to happen is that Chelsea Clinton will win whatever office she for, outside an any office were she would actually have to compete, and will probably squat in that position for as long as she can.  Now I know it is too much to hope for a libertarian leaning Clinton but maybe, just maybe she will actually display real qualities of leadership; after all it really shouldn't be too hard to surpass her father. But given the reality distortion field she has probably lived in her entire life I am very doubtful.  Maybe we should just have our elected office filled up via lottery, after all, I can't imagine how Joe or Jane American would do any worse a job than our current crop of elected leaders.

If You Got An Degree In Liberal Arts

Then for the love of God do not compound your mistake by going for a post-graduate level degree. But hey, don't listen to me, listen to a PROFESSOR OF HUMANITIES telling you not to go.  What I find most interesting is he accurately points out why most individuals end up pursuing those types of degrees anyways.

With the prospect of an unappealing, entry-level job on the horizon, life in college becomes increasingly idealized. They think graduate school will continue that romantic experience and enable them to stay in college forever as teacher-scholars.
 

In a nutshell, they don't want to deal with the real world. It's incredibly rare to find someone who is able to disassociate what benefits him from what is actually good for the student.  Far, far too many college counselors, teachers and professors are unable to do the same. In fact an entire industry of individuals has been created around one of the most evil scams of all time. I have even meet 'freelance college advisors', who were in their 20s. I'm still trying to conceptualize how a something like that can even exist. Think about that for a second, you have someone who is barely out of college themselves, advising an 18 year old on perhaps the most important decision of their life which is to go or not go to college. 

Now giving advice, be it father/motherly or brotherly/sisterly isn't a bad thing; I did it for my brother and I like to think that it is why, when entering his college, he only considered accounting or engineering as his two choices and is now doing accounting. My problem is that college advisers, whose only experience is either being a student or a college advisor, is incredibly stupid because, due to their experience, every answer to every question will invariably end with them saying "You have to go to college" because they no one is going to pay someone to say "eh..maybe you shouldn't go to college. Maybe you should learn how to use a wrench instead."  That would get them fired.

 

 

Biggest Stimulus Yet

Japan has announced a stimulus bill that amounts to a whopping 10% of their current GDP.  To put this in context, the President's stimulus was a between 5-6% of the US GDP back in 2009 depending on which numbers you use, which many Keynesian's argue wasn't large enough to adequately stimulate the private sector.

Any takers on how successful Japans latest round of stimulus will be? Considering that Japan has a history of pumping debt into their economy resulting in nothing more but burgeoning their liabilities section of their balance sheet; I will bet against the addition of any more debt helping. But this does signal something important.

What is signals is that Japan isn't going to even attempt to pay back their debts since they have already passed the event horizon it's time to abandon all pretext of fiscal responsibility. Japanese politicans', and perhaps much of the Japanese population by virtue that they elected their leaders, have signaled that they don't give two craps about weighing down their unborn children with debt that can never ever be repaid.  Japan has a debt to GDP level in excess of 200%, or a debt level almost as large as our own considering they have a $ 5 trillion dollar economy. Considering that Japan has struggled even to maintain growth rates above 2% I'm not optimistic about their ability to grow outside their debt levels, or even attract foreign debt buyers once their domestic sources have dried up.

Add in the fact that Japan's population has peaked and they will soon enter demographic decline, baring major technological advancements, it's game over for Japan.