Mind your own business!

As a business guy I hate fairness, I don't like equality, I hate fair playing fields because they are always only fair to the ones who get to decide what's fair. Enter the Market Fairness Act, which has a real potential of being passed unless you reader write your senator of course and protest the act as aggressive and sloppy legislation designed to harm the consumer aka you and me for the benefit of mega-corporations.

Check it out sometime, Even if you reader are an anti-Capitalist and so you probably wouldn't believe a word I say towards that Capitalism doesn't cause the suffering of the world, so the paragraph above may come off as odd so I suggest you check out the Market Fairness Act for yourself.

In short the pro MFA side says that Brick and Mortar stores are benefited by this act because now taxes are flattened across the board. So for example, the current legal system says if you bought a sprocket from a retailer in New York and you lived in New York it would cost 7 dollars and 1 dollar of that would be taxes. If you bought the same product from NJ you could pay 6 dollars if you bought it online, usually with free shipping. Okay that's fine but the reality is that the odds are the retailer you bought it from locally was a part of a major conglomerate that has at least one store in nearly every state. These are not the traditional Brick and Mortar, the real Brick and Mortar was that obscure store you bought it from in NJ that swear by their quality to the point where they even sell their own emblem printed T-shirts so you can support their store. Being taxed for something from a state you do not live in is presently illegal since a result of it is being understood as taxation without representation.

The MFA is designed by incumbents using politics as a legal avenue to prevent themselves from being disrupted and the Government loves the idea of forcing the consumer to be restricted in where they can make purchases since they can tax it easily and legally. The reason why people will be forced to buy within their own states is because producers for small stores that don't have a store in your state will -if this act is passed- have to file taxes for any State they ship to, there are over 9000 different tax jurisdictions, for example food in one tax jurisdiction may be considered a grocery but in another it counts as a prepared meal.  The rates each are taxed further alter based on the local, city or state. The cost from this on these up and coming real Brick and Mortar online stores in time and lawyers becomes a reason to either close up shop, move out of the country or sell within your state; where they are run out of business by local mega stores who can eat production costs to price the small time businesses out, like they have been doing for years. While pricing wars are in the short term good for the consumer the reality is that the prices are artificially low and once competition is gone or regulated the prices become artificially high as mega companies work with one another in government sustained oligopolies like cell phone, internet and insurance companies.

Blame the Messenger

So who should be President of the United States?





My only beef with Ann Coulter is that she's a conservative but otherwise her personality is perfect for the job. Today she was berated for saying that Megan McCain and her sister should be killed in order to get Republican Senator John McCain to get on board with the gun control bill.

She was attacked despite the fact that Martin Bashir in a conversation with US Senator Elihjah Cummings was the one who said and I quote: "Do Republican Senators need to have their family members killed in order to have this gun control bill passed?" Ann Coulter in response to the exchange writes an article in criticism saying, "...yes and how about we start with Megan McCain then..."

Sadly Ms. Coulter lacks the whole package because she didn't even understand that what she did wasn't humorous and should never have been intended as such. It was criticism, end of story and it should have been explained as such by her when she took the heat for saying it as Bashir did but only adding who should go first.

I could see her being a the kind of President I was talking about with a friend though, but she's missing a certain quality I think, she seems to have a level of cowardice about her that prevents her from really going all out and turning a phrase so quickly your head would fly off as it spun like a helicopters propeller.

As for the families of Sandy Hook...

My issue with the sobbing pictures of women tearing and fathers mourning and mourning is that they want to set the agenda for an entire nation. How god damn obnoxious do you get, it's gotten to where I don't even feel sorry for their losses. But what are you saying reader? You're saying that I'm a monster? Surely you don't read this blog of mine only to call me names, I'll give you a second to form a rational argument... okay are you ready, then have at it. Ah I see so you think that by banning guns or making it harder to get weapons that we will be safer. But reader please recall that in 2001 over 3000 Americans were killed and not a single shot was fired nor gun pointed.  And if that wasn't enough then how dare you reader, how dare you forget the hard workings of Mr. Andrew Kehoe who even to this day holds the record for the most kids killed while they were in school, he didn't even hold a gun through the entire ordeal and had planned the whole thing months in advance.

For the record Mr. Kehoe didn't play video games since that was in 1927, yes school killings have been around for quite some time.

But let's say that we had right next to Michele Bachman, and that black guy who kept going on about simplifying taxes, the almost about to kick the bucket doctor, oh and the Mormon a Ms. Ann Coulter in the 2012 election race. Wouldn't the most sensible person in the world look to pick for President the only person who has stood up to the craziness of Mr. Bashir to this date as the GOP nominee or whatever party she would run for? I mean you'd have to actually listen to what Ms. Coulter says -though I'm sure she would prefer you buy her books- to understand her position on other topics.

But if she had run, and her character was this clear to us, it would only make sense that now we could say on grounds of morality "This person stands above the rest!"

For the record I'm not on the right which means by default I'm not a conservative, but I do like Ms. Coulter's machismo and I do respect her drive to push the perspective most others seem too afraid to evaluate.

Conservative Melt Down

After the 2012 elections were... no they aren't over yet even in the middle of December actually so it would be more accurate to say after the President was decided on by the 51% well 52% of Americans it was clear that every high hope for the conservative side went out the window. The meltdown began and I watched as conservative pundits took off the gloves and folks I knew also took off the gloves and threw them to the ground. The progressives I know were nothing but smiles though, hey after all they knew who they were voting for and so the question is one of perception; what makes this election any different for the conservatives?

Well to be fair Bush Jr. was seen as the Satan by most left wing pundits and never even got credit for his humanity in the aids research work he did. But never did I get the feeling that the losing party of 2004 and 2000 thought America would literally end under a Bush presidency. In fact quite the opposite I felt several things that gave me the impression that America was very strong moving to just strong as we wages two wars. The same can't be said of Obama's America from the conservative perspective.

So let's get this clear first: Barack Obama is ideologically attuned to third world perspectives of the United States, the reason why probably has something to do with where he was from fine but I don't think that's really the case. There is an argument I've encountered before from the far left that America has been a negative force on the world at large and especially in the third world. My dear friend tells me that essentially the US uses the IMF to keep a good country down.

In life there are winners and losers, it's not the way we like it or want it but that's how it works and if you are not winning then you are losing and I think Barack Obama uses the leftist idea that there is a middle ground, which is if memory serves the foundation of the redistribution position. Except it isn't just Obama but the idea the left has about how to square things in the world, the idea that America has enough to actually level the playing field globally. This socialistic twist globalism has none of the markings of capitalism except to domestically incorporate a crony form of capitalism regulated by an elite group of politicians.

The conservative melt down isn't so much that a democratic president got elected twice since Clinton was also elected twice, it isn't that Barack Obama has a browner skin shade than the average president since the GOP was pushing to replace him with an even browner alternative. The reason for the meltdown might just be something I'm familiar with as a business guy, the ticking clock on the American welfare state. To put it simply America is 80 years too young to run some of the programs it's currently running, it could do it in another 80 years but for not the technology isn't here that would allow for a socialism to work without the classical showing of collectivism.

It's more than just financial ruin and through political diffuse that awaits America to the conservatives, also ideologically the Humes definition of conservatism is no longer of import and so they know that Mr. Obama will be working this year to lean the courts to a more progressive cast and then for the 2nd time in American history he will attempt to augment the Bill of Rights. A change like this to the constitution is only ever attempted by dictators of the constitution of other countries, so this will be interesting for me to see if the courts can resist the temptation to make political a document about restricting future government from messing with basic human rights. So also ideologically conservatives are desperate.

I've got my popcorn for this one,.

Debunking "the media": Iran

There seems to be a consortium effort that is in the business of making news worthy subjects appear more so worthy than the news purports, case in point Iran: By any fair standard of writing one could question perhaps if some eschatological and anthropological definitions had not been staked; this responsibility -and again I claim a fair perspective- would be subject to not some unfavorable letter grade but rather an “incomplete” marker that should leave any healthy observer at an impasse, clearly the information cannot be trusted but reasonably I would wish to know if my lack of trust is due to incompetence or premeditated incompetence and I fear that in both respects the culprit may be general ignorance. Leaders and speakers can be placed on two sides of a pole, on one end we have George Bush Jr. who himself was intellectually above average but was convinced that his fellow Americans were idiots and so spoke (if you’ve noticed) slowly and emphasized his vowels as well as kept his sentences very short . Then there is Paul Wolfowitz who has much to say but speaks using concepts and words you would only describe as manifold by the standards George Bush measured his receivers. This observation however doesn’t delve into the origin of truth but rather I intend to explain everything between that and perception.

If you haven’t heard someone say this by now you’ll hear it eventually; that “we should bomb the Middle East”. For the sake of sarcasm one must ask “which bomb?” -A tie-in to the popular misconception about the Iraq WMD issue- and if you do follow my instruction don’t expect laughter; expect much worse; expect a real answer. The absence of humor doesn’t only explain why we get defensive about a subject like Iran:  there are those who present an argument that sanctions, assassination and terrorism are what Iran suffers through and that we (The west) are giving fuel to the fire of hate.  The flaw in this logic should give itself away - right away, right away, the speaker of this kind of argument has fallen into using fear to make peace, and why it’s flawed is that this side of the argument always fails to know the details on one of two fronts or perhaps on both fronts. A person this side could tell you perhaps the reasoning behind each Sanction but could not tell you about the local political struggle between otherwise peaceful nations (Turkey comes to mind) and Iran. This side could possibly tell you about the assassination or forced exile of certain Iranians but could not offer any expertise on the political power structure revision in Lebanon as it is related to Iran or even the Turkish cosign on further perverting the ambition of the Palestinians to not just have a state but to also take the Jewish state “Drive them back into the ocean.” This is the side that suffers from one issue, that their ability to hold attention is gauged by their interest in a topic and their interest in a topic is wagered heavily by their passion of that topic. Here we find the absence of good humor is filled with the presence of passion, a detail that deserves remembering. But in much of the case around Iran and a Nuclear weapon – the issue at large isn’t about Iran, it’s about the countries around Iran and this is something that a person with this kind of understanding will always euphemize.

And here we have those that are certain Iran poses an immediate threat to America and/or American interest, here you will find not only has humor long been exiled but also wit has been democratically and astonishingly without any objection lobotomized. This is the side of excess as the United States still has enough economic muscle to turn most of Iran into a natural glass resource without the use of nuclear weapons. So what we have here is really fear, this time its reactionary fear and again the fear is a result of bad logic and the reason for such bad logic is the absence of information. The question this side should ponder on is why don’t we help them make a nuclear power plant?  Wouldn’t the best option have been to ask Iran to sever ties with Hezbollah, CAIR and by extension Hamas and in return we make them some power plants at a discount? The problem is that offer was put on the table by President Bush Jr.  and it was shot down, but to what end? This is the concern, it’s that the government of Iran domestically resembles all the pretenses short the sadism of Saddam’s regime. That in order to keep up appearances the Ayatollah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must see the British and Americans as suspicious and the champions whom which the Persian people should see as an insult to their three thousand year history. The power plant is but one step to show that Iran isn’t backwards compared to the west and a nuclear bomb would hold the same value domestically for the short term. Then comes the time to put to the test what being a nuclear power means on the foreign scene and that is what much of this text is about.  There’s no need to assume more or worse of the case, does Iran deserve our caution? Yes, do they deserve to have their nuclear scientists assassinated? Yes, do they deserve sanctions? Yes, should we have dealings with who they exile and other internal power struggles? No.

Now that the four of these backgrounds are made bare you can mix any two of them by keeping one as the background and the other as a medium and leave the other two points as opposing views on the issue.  The mistake I think by the media isn’t in just that they either euphemize a point I feel should be explained more or are ignorant of another point. It’s that they believe their readership is incompetent; such a position is supported through incompetent soft science.  In an almost -and I dare say with full awareness of the irony here- self gratifying manner a writer does not grasp his own incompetence when writing to those without understanding of what is wrote. And while I can’t say all people are not due more criticism, I can say that all writers should be criticized for their beliefs and writing and moreover be held accountable for taking any kind of elitist tone.

So are readers’ sheep?

Misthought

Sorry for the very long delay, I've been working on several projects and thought a quick blurt might be nice here. This is pretty much a observation and a writing down of a method of thinking.

If you are North Korean or Russian or Chinese then you may have to believe that American forces are driven by corporate interests - after all the last bastion of Marxist thought must be to proclaim ones sensitivity of Capitalism in any area. Much like being pious or holding faith -for such a retracted point which does not outright offer another candidate for something that we must presume then needs no candidate- deserves respect without consideration for it's implications. But the fleeting point here is that if we aren't talking about feudalism or some other pre-Capitalistic method of doing things we must then we are talking about socialism or communism. If this is the case then indeed as the anti-Americanizationists mean to say that if corporatism is bad then we intend for the state to make a loss from war. And I don't here exclude war as a premise only because no corporation has ever declared war.

William Lane Craig

It's a weird concession that's made when Craig gets a free pass to his evangelizing. He is a noted debater and often given the title of Champion of Modern Day Christianity. Craig offers up an explanation to trump any rational argument against him by saying areas of science -be it understood or not- explain for god, the complete one eighty from the usual theist argument that god explains science. He also doesn't rely on his belief as substantial evidence for god, he sticks with combative yet persuasive arguments that reminded me of Deepak Chopra with a well made script to hide any mysticism as he continues to intently avoid a suspension of belief.

There is however a set of fallacies with Craig's position, you see religion isn't religion without faith and to say that there is a scientific explanation for god brings two questions to the forefront as debating points. One, does Craig believe that science proves or explains for miracle works in some way and/or the supernatural which in other words; the what can only be explained by humans as supernatural? The second question is then if he believes the first or whatever derivable conjuration of the first question that he makes; does that mean science proves Zues, Odin, Set, Sol, Vishnu and so on or does science adhere to his dogma alone and only proves his god? Two fair questions I believe, there is no sense in debating Mr. Craig because he takes up the impossible task of saying science proves the supernatural when by virtue if the supernatural was provable by science it would cease to be supernatural. The challenge here is that gravity would be abstract unless we knew what it was before we named it and yet god remains abstract no matter what we name it.

Ego and Morals

Normally between guys we get into ego contests which are consummated as being a measuring of ones own  against another ones phallus. I can't rightly say I can challenge my dear reader to such a contest without a perhaps sinister sleight of hand being express - I guess not sleight enough. But I can make a short challenge between my reader and I on who has the larger frontal lobe, I've picked this only because I believe I could win, assuming you my dear reader are indeed more psychopathic than I am. 

A Gentleman by the name of Ahmed Omed Khpulwak a BBC reporter was killed by US soldiers when he reached for something as reported by the soldier; it was believed that he was reaching for something and his identity was mistaken for a suicide bomber. Now typically Press ID in a heated area is respected by NATO forces which probably means it wasn't in clear view, also he spoke English which makes me all the more suspicious. I'd imagine if I were an unarmed reporter I would be yelling at the top of my lungs in English to US troops while I was chin first on the ground and hands away from my person. And so I'll start the query off with what I believe to be a difficult proposition, should the family of Mr. Khpulwak be entitled to any damages?

I received a question earlier this week from a female friend, it was a telling reference of a past philosophical question on the use of a person if they were born blind, deaf or missing some other sense. I was taken aback at how incredibly aghast it must be for any literature hobbyist (my friend) to forget Hellen Keller and a sister one at that, the shame of it should be unbearable. And what a question it was; asking that psychopathic babble be weighed with rational thought as if they were on equal ground, what a pretentious and ill construed machination hiding behind the white veil of proper learning, with its eye lashes fluttering as to suggest nothing is amiss.

I hope that was interesting and take care.