Saturday, November 18, 2006

Facts, Conclusions, and Lies

Facts are true by definition. Conclusions based upon facts may or may not be true.

Example: A Ford has 4 wheels, has a steering wheel, it has brakes, it has thousands of parts and sub-assemblies, (building blocks), that are just like a Chevy. Facts!

Therefore the Ford and the Chevy are from the same parents or maker. ( Conclusion - False )

That is the problem with people who say, “These fossils are very similar to these fossils, and therefore they both are from the same parents.”

No, it is the part after the “therefore” that many have a problem with.

Just because my DNA and a Gorilla’s DNA are very similar, (Fact), that does not necessarily “force” the “conclusion” that we have the same ancestors, it just means we are made with many of the same “building blocks.”

The plain truth that I just explained will be totally ignored by many who are so blinded by their hate and their "belief" in their world view, that their brain will not even allow the entertainment of the possibility that my statements make sense.

Many conservatives believe in the “facts” of Evolution, the fact that there are fossils is indisputable for example.

The problem is that many conservatives don’t believe in some of the “conclusions” about Evolution such as MacroEvolution or biological evolution.

“Survival of the fittest” seems to be a logical conclusion, as the idea that there can be evolution “within” species. But the “conclusion” that there is evolution from one species to another “could” be a “false conclusion.”

There are those who will lie trough their teeth and accuse people who don’t support “all” of the “conclusions” of evolution to be people who are stupid or people who don’t acknowledge science or facts. They are being deceptive by using false logic to lie by saying that if you don't believe in "all" of the conclusions, then therefore you don't believe in any part of Evolution and therefore you also hate science.

Those accusations are coming from people who “claim” to be “fair minded” people who are “always” interested in the “minority” or divergent views, but evidentially not when the divergent views, (conclusions), are conservative or who's views don’t coincide with theirs.

Friday, November 17, 2006

The Death of A Giant

A tribute to Milton Friedman.

Back in the 1950’s, the prevailing thought about Economics was that Keynesian Economics was the correct one. It was what was taught at the Universities and most of the Elite in this country, ( and in most others), was the Left leaning, semi-managed economics of “a little bit of inflation is a good thing.”

Keynes had this theory that if you increased the money supply, it would stimulate the economy in basically the same way that a true increase in demand for goods would.

Keynes thought that by having more money in circulation, there would be more initial demand on goods, which would then stimulate sales. His thinking was that about 2-3 percent was about right.

He also said very emphatically that there could not be a “stagnate” economy and an inflationary economy at the same time. If my memory serves me, in the 1980's we had "Stagflation" and Kenyes was in trouble.

Along about 1962 Milton Friedman wrote a book called “Capitalism and Freedom.” See excerpts

This book and the Universities that began to recognize its importance, has been a major factor in “freedom” loving people around the world understanding the connection between “true freedom” and economics.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan were both big supporters of his. Once their success became widely recognized with the precepts found in Friedman’s books, Russian began to see the light and started to experiment with them.

Now even China has recognized that not only was Socialism a failed Economic principal, but its little brother called “Keynesian Economics” was too.

It is all about “Competition” setting the value of goods and services instead of some nebulous governing body, that can almost never guess the value correctly. The guesses bring shortages and black markets without fail.

Russia found that until they allowed farmers to “manage” their own farms and keep some “profits” that for some reason until that time there was never enough food, but with competition and ownership comes supply and often abundance.

Not only has Russia been moving more and more towards a “competition” based society and away from socialism and communism, but China has as well.

But alas, even with all of this proof, there are those in this country that want to go in the opposite direction. From Competition towards Socialism.

We have never had true "Capitalism", nor have we ever had a true “Free Market” system, but the basic principals are there if we ever recognize that moving more toward them is the right direction and not toward more government management of our Economy.

History will and has not only honored Milton Friedman with the “Noble Prize” for Economics, but with a great eye opening of the principals of the connection of freedom with the free market principals of competition, and also with the removal of government interference within that marketplace.

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Congratulations to the Democrats

First let me say that I am an American first and a participant in the political process second. Translated, I put my belief in the American system of government before any political party.

So, having said that, the Democrats have won a victory in securing both of the houses of Congress and they did it by the voting process. They did not “Disenfranchise” any voters, they did not “hack” into the voting machines, they won fair and square and I respect their right to gloat.

We, the ones who were defeated, will do self-examination and introspection to determine how to better convince our fellow voters that we have the better message. We will blame the people who deserve blame for not winning…us…. and try to do better.

Congratulations Dems.

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Why I no longer Vote Democratic

Note: In most of the descriptions below, when I am talking about the Democratic Party and the Dems in general, I am mainly talking about those in power and those in positions of influence. There are a great many voters who sincerely believe in the Democratic Party, as I did in the JFK days, but are being mislead by their Elitist Controllers in Washington.

Our way of life is under attack. Mostly from radical terrorists who want to “force” their view of religion/politics on us and the rest of the world. It is also partly under attack from those on who are in the Republican Party that believe the government needs more police powers without constitutional protections, and partly from those in the Democratic Party who would think you can negotiate with people who don’t want compromise. While I object to being "forced" to convert to a religion, I always welcome those from a church who wish to tell me about their "good news" (Gospel - means good news) without any force for me to join, only gentle persuasion.

Of the three above I worry about the radical terrorists the most and then the party who would love to see us lose in Iraq so they could try to appease them instead.

Not only does the Democratic Party think we can win the war on terror by abandoning the main front in Iraq, but they believe by turning tail and running, we can some how win by loosing. Again the war on terror is a very broad front, with Iraq being the main theater. I did not agree with us going in to Iraq, but I am even more opposed to us leaving before the Iraq people can defend themselves.

Everybody knows the terrorists want us to leave Iraq too soon, that should not be debatable unless a person is more interested in spin than truth. Here in this article, "Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat", from World Net Daily we can see that the Terrorist openly wish the Democrats would win the Congress. Does anyone deny that the terrorists are doing their best to send us home with our tail between our legs? I am sure there will be someone who says the terrorists wish we would stay and therefore we should vote Republican, so go ahead and see how silly that argument will sound.

The Old Media, NBC, ABC, CBS and most papers across the USA are without contradiction full of people who have liberal/Democratic bias and the honest ones will even admit it occasionally. While the talk radio shows openly admit their bias, Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. I am sure that since it is the Leading Cable News Network that the Liberals will contend that Allen Combs and the other Liberals on that Network don’t really exist or that they are by far in the minority, but I think that could be debated and they might have some points.

The left cannot stand the Military. They often will claim they don’t but then why do they fight so hard to keep the recruiters off of their strangle hold they have on College Campuses? Why did John Kerry say that I and my other Viet Nam Vets were all baby killers, “millions of them” that were created by the US government? Why did he say our Soldiers “terrorize women and children” during the middle of the night in Iraq? Why did Dick Durban say our soldiers were as bad as Pol Pot?

It is no secret that the Dems see themselves as champions of the “victim” class. Those people who need their help because they are all incapable of competing in the market place of ideas, in college, or in business without their help. They see all minorities as inferior people who must have their help. The Dems must give them daily handouts or they would not be able to make it. They quickly dismiss that their party was the party that was for Slavery. They forget it was the Republican Christians who for the most part operated the underground railroad, (unless my memory or facts are faulty.)

It is no secret that the Dems usually think with their heart instead of their brain and the proof is in the irrational belief and agenda of trying to convince us that there is no difference between men and women. Larry Summers was kicked out of Harvard for daring to suggest that men and women might actually think differently. The Dems worship science and almost a year doesn't pass that I don't read about a professor of biology that doesn't say that men and women are indeed different in so many ways that we had never realized, but the Dems never mention those professors.

I heard today that in New York there is now a law that men may choose to use a Women’s bathroom if he feels more comfortable than using the Men’s room. Which party again is “off it’s rational rocker?”

I think the Republican Party is still the closest to Conservative values, even though there are many instances when it is clear they have strayed toward the left, such as they have with their giant spending programs. But having said that, I remember the line from “Die Hard With a Vengeance” when Samuel L. Jackson said to Bruce Willis, “I don’t like you because you are going to get me killed!”

That statement about their plan to let the terrorist have Iraq as soon as possible, and their disdain for the Military along with their desire to blur the distinction between men and women, destroy traditional marriage, (they must not think it is very important because if they had their way, any two people should be able to get married including two brothers), then it must not be about raising a family, but rather just material, legal and other benefits.

Remember marriage is not about rights but about “government sanctioning” and benefits. It is “licensed” by the several states and therefore by definition each state can define the “limits” it places on that License. It defines limits such as two people instead of three or more, age limits, single adults, etc. So, it has never been about anyone being able to marry whomever they wanted. But not if you listen to the Dems.