On Having Faith

Again, they have sinned...

Listen, people.  This is no time to take comfort in your faith.  You may believe that by accepting Jesus as your savior, you can shed your earthly responsibilities and leave your fate in the hands of almighty God.  The problem is, your enemy is counting on you to do just that.  You see, your enemy uses comfort as a weapon.  He does everything possible to make sure you are comfortable by providing mindless entertainment, surprising distractions, consoling news, inexpensive and readily available "comfort" food, and most of all, soothing beliefs.  And when you are quite comfortable, despite the disturbing events raging around you, it is then that your enemy delivers the coup de grace.  Remember the Jews in Germany, how they left their homes, patiently boarded the trains, and walked quietly and orderly into the gas chambers?  They had great faith that their God would provide for them, when in fact evil men orchestrated their fate.

There are evil men today with the awesome power to create money out of nothing who use that money to manipulate judges, lawmakers, and leaders in the highest offices of the land.  These evil men have plans for you, either to enslave you and make you into a faithful servant, or to dispose of you if your loyalty cannot be turned to their selfish purposes.  And they know that the people with strong religious faith cannot be turned to do their bidding and will have to be exterminated.  Only now, the evil ones are much more sophisticated than the Nazis, so there will be no need to board trains to be transported to your death.  No, your death will be delivered to your door, perhaps in the very air you breathe, so that the comfort you find so soothing becomes the means to guarantee your quiet demise.

By focusing on Jesus and your personal salvation, you lose sight of the true evil in the world that is targeting you, the people you care for, and all the unborn descendants of such good people.  By turning your back on the world to concentrate on your personal salvation through "Jesus Christ, our Lord", you allow evil to sweep away the distracted forces of good like so much dust.  This must not be permitted.  The forces of good must not be allowed to wallow in their comfortable faith while evil cuts them down.  Many African tribesmen believed the white man's bullet could not harm them because powerful magic would protect them.  These warriors were cut down easily, and the families they were trying to protect were left defenseless.  The same will happen to the religious faithful who think accepting Jesus is the solution to all problems.  It's not.  It's a big part of the problem.  There is a crucial battle occurring between good and evil.  Take part!  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

The problem with communication

I used to think that communicating with the written word would be easy.  After all, we share a common language and a common culture (please excuse my blatant ethnocentrism).  Likewise, writing allows revisions and adjustments that should encourage greater clarity.  However, extended "conversations" with others on MySpace have changed my mind (particularly debates I've had with Zephram Stark and Over Unity).  At first, I thought this difficulty with language was because we are all idiots.  I still have difficulties getting past this perspective.  However, I also recognize that I suffer from the human tendency to oversimplify things, which of course is aggravated by living in a universe of mind-boggling complexity.  Realigning myself to that complexity, I now believe that it's incredibly hard to communicate, perhaps because it appears so easy and we take for granted a common foundation that is partly illusion.  So I certainly understand Zephram's desire to clarify things by creating a new lexicon, but I don't believe it's going to be useful to do so.  Let me explain.

Because of the way we learn language, there are often subtle differences in the meanings that each of us assigns to words.  People learn language from actual usage, not from defined lexicon.  We analyze context and use pattern matching to acquire meaning.  As a result, the meanings we assemble vary from person to person.  We learn very few words from a dictionary, and even a dictionary is just an incomplete record of the confusion that language carries.  After all, a dictionary uses words to define other words, the very definition of circular reference.  It doesn't help that words often have multiple meanings that are hard to tie down.  For example, an intelligence agency hires people of higher intelligence to gather intelligence.  And now Zephram has suggested another meaning for "intelligence," supposedly to make things clearer.  And he wants to give it a meaning that is already assigned to some extent to another word or words, as Over Unity correctly points out.  No thanks - I must politely refuse the new lexicon.  But I understand that Zephram sees the same problem that I see, a problem that has caused all of us great consternation, not only on MySpace but in many other areas of life.  The problem is that we too often find ourselves using the same words but speaking different languages without even being aware of it.  Unfortunately, we are analog creatures that lack the precision of digital machines.  We use "fuzzy language" in much the same manner that we use "fuzzy logic", and both get us into a lot of trouble, but they allow us to explore ideas that digital thinking could never take us to.  Of course, the flip-side is that we waste a lot of time exploring ideas that digital thinking would quickly eliminate.  So as analog creatures, our journey towards knowledge is richer and much more entertaining, but painfully slow.

My father tells me that when I was a very young boy, I brought him my tricycle and asked him to fix the seat.  "Do you want to lower it?" he asked.  "No, I want to higher it," I replied confidently.  That should have been my first clue that language was going to chew me up and spit me out, but I simply couldn't fathom how rocky a road I was to travel.  As you can see, I'm still trying to figure it out.

Idiot

Imagine that you could line up all the idiots in the world in rank order, with the most idiotic at the head of the line and the least idiotic at the tail.  I submit to you that we would all be somewhere in that line.  Being closer to the tail end of the line is of little consolation, because after all, this is a line of idiots, and you are in it.  Some of you will refuse to believe that you belong in this line, but rest assured, there is a place reserved for you near the head of the line.  You might even be convinced that there is a line for smart people somewhere, and that you rightfully belong in that line instead.  There is such a line, but it's the same line you are standing in - you need only view it in reverse rank order.  But by viewing it in this way, you simply choose to aggrandize your self-importance, essentially choosing arrogance over humility.  Humans often do that, you know.  So if you disagree with something I write, think it over carefully and please take the time to enlighten me as to why you disagree.  Your feedback is actually one of the ways that I change my position in the line.  Amazingly enough, it's also one of the ways that you change your position in the line.  Note that I didn't say whether our rankings improve or worsen.  And if enlightening me is too much trouble, you can surely take comfort in pointing out that I must be an idiot.  Humans often do that, you know.

Saving America

What ails us...
(only we have a new vampire now)

America's economy is being destroyed.  We need a plan to save our country.  I'm not hearing anyone suggest any simple plans that are doable, so I'm about to suggest one.  I want you to tell me why you think this plan will or will not work.

1. When government is bankrupting itself and our country, we need a common sense solution.  Freeze all government spending, budgets, and salaries.  Stop all government borrowing and the creation of new money.  Stop the bleeding, and do it now.

2. The federal government is too big, too powerful, and too self-serving.  Starting one year after the freeze, for at least the next 25 years, all government spending, budgets, and salaries will be reduced by 1% each year, automatically, with no exceptions.

3. The common people are paying too much tax to support a corrupted government that feeds on them like a monster parasite.  Raise the personal (and business) tax exemption to $100,000 so that no federal taxes are owed on the first $100,000 earned.  Throw off the parasite and let the common people prosper again.

4. The rich people are paying too little tax to a government that they currently manipulate and profit from.  Raise the personal (and business) income tax rate for those earning more than one million dollars to 35%, over 10 million dollars to 65%, and over 100 million dollars to 90%.

Will that do it?  Is it that simple?  Can America be saved in four simple steps?

Socialist !

I've been accused of being a socialist.  At first, I didn't quite know what to make of it, as the definition of socialism appears to be so broad and vague that it is hard to pin down.  Generally these accusations come whenever I propose changes that would be beneficial to all of society, meaning all people.  An example might be the universal availability of low-cost health care.  One would think that it would be beneficial to both society and individuals to promote health and deal efficiently with debilitating injuries and disease.  And when I say "deal efficiently," I'm thinking along the lines of the Golden Rule, which I believe is universally recognized as the cornerstone of any cooperative social organization.  In my mind, universal health care would appear to be "socialist," if socialism is defined as organizing to provide desired benefits to all individuals of a society.  And yet the implied connotation when I've been called a socialist is that I have evil or vile intent.

Other minds have considered the question of how to best organize society without diminishing the individual.  One of those minds eerily predicted the economic and social crisis that we are faced with today in the United States (and in most other countries):

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones.  The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.  This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature.  The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population.  Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).  It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."

I have long decried the overpowering economic control of the international central bankers, their control of the media, their outright purchasing of our government representatives and so-called public servants, the deliberate dumbing down of America, and the orchestrated mind control of the masses.  It appears someone agrees with me.  The above quotation was written 60 years ago by one of the most respected thinkers of the 20th century - Albert Einstein.  He was considering the problem humanity has struggled with for a very long time - overcoming what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development.  How can we move beyond the dog-eat-dog world of competition to the more egalitarian world of cooperation?  Einstein clearly saw capitalism as a manifestation of unhealthy competition, and he argued that a socialist approach was the only cure:

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.  Our whole educational system suffers from this evil.  An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.  I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals."

In order to ensure that social goals are pursued, a socialist economy will require an accurate feedback loop between individuals and the organization charged with guiding economic policy.  The details of this organization and the feedback loop are yet to be designed, but it is clear that the design must be inherently self-correcting in the same manner as the Golden Rule.  This is no easy task, as one need only look at the capitalist fable of the "invisible hand of the market" that was supposed to efficiently regulate excesses and likewise be self-correcting.  In actual practice, however, capitalists found it all too easy to manipulate markets, and this behavior was positively reinforced by their own self-interests with no mechanism to limit those self-interests, resulting in the very excesses "the invisible hand of the market" was meant to prevent.

Would it be more correct to define socialism as the means of organizing a society for maximum individual and social benefit?  If so, then I am hoping to become the best socialist I can be.

USA - RIP

Our government is an absolute mess.  It's dying.  It has reached the point where insanity is commonplace.  Can it be fixed?  I'm inclined to think not.  Just as bailouts can't save the banks (their obligations exceed the value of everything in the world, which they don't quite own yet), anything we do now is too little, too late.  However, we should learn from the mistakes that brought us here.  What were the mistakes, and what changes could have prevented them?

The source of most mistakes is Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate.  The biggest mistake Congress makes is borrowing money.  Congress can't control spending because there is no limit to the amount it can borrow.  So a new rule is needed in the next Constitution - government may not borrow money or incur any debt.  I can't think of a better or more simple rule to limit government size and power.  It also weakens the control the central bankers have over our government.

Legislation currently passes in Congress by a simple majority - let's change that to a 75% majority.  The higher the percentage, the harder it is to pass controversial bills and engage in party politics.  And the less Congress will get done (that's a good thing).  Complex bills that are too long to read must be prohibited.  Let's keep it simple by limiting legislative bills to a single subject and a single page (500 words or less).  And one more important fix - disallow legislation that benefits special interest groups.  Bye-bye lobbyists and "pork".

As for the executive branch, we should strip the President of the power to pardon - this just encourages the executive branch to hire people to commit crimes for them.  In fact, let's just get rid of the president and vice-president.  They serve no real purpose and are simply holdovers from the days of royalty.  We'll save a huge amount of money by eliminating presidential elections.  Congress can handle the duties performed by these two talking heads, and in one fell swoop, we eliminate the two biggest liars in government.

Finally, the judicial branch.  Our laws are impossibly complex and too numerous.  This has to be changed, but how?  My head hurts, so I'll leave this one as an exercise for the reader.  In other words, help!

My John Hancock

There are rumblings in this nation, and rightfully so.  The crimes are heinous, the injustice intolerable, and the deception disgusting.  The dystopia foreseen in 1949 by George Orwell, portrayed in his book 1984, is upon us in living color.  Those Americans still capable of independent thought and critical analysis are searching for answers.  It is not unexpected that they should look back into the past at the example set by their illustrious forefathers, who on July 4, 1776 publicly declared their independence from the oppressive government that ruled over them.

I have come down that same path and arrived at that same destination.  I no longer accept the government forced upon me, and I too feel the need to declare my independence.  I started to take matters into my own hands and began to write my own declaration, but then I stopped.  Surely others have preceded me, and this new Declaration of Independence must already exist.  I need only search for it.  I did, and I promptly found it.  It was very much like what I would have written myself, and I was anxious to add my name to the long list of signatures that would surely accompany this splendid document!  I signed, and then I quickly clicked to view all the other brave souls who would testify to their displeasure with the current government.  Alas, other than the original editors of the document, there was but one signature -- mine.

John Hancock is known to be the first delegate to sign the Declaration of Independence.  What is not widely known is that he was the only delegate to have his name attached to the original type-set copies released to the public.  From the British perspective, the only traitor acknowledging his role in creating the Declaration of Independence was John Hancock, a precarious position indeed for Mister Hancock!  It took six long months before a second series of type-set copies was released to the public with the names of all signers listed.  Most delegate signatures, including John Hancock's written signature, were not collected on paper until nearly a month after the Declaration was written, when a special hand-written parchment copy was signed on August 2, 1776.  This copy was not publicly circulated and is the one displayed in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

So, like John Hancock, there is only one "traitor" associated with the new Declaration of Independence, a precarious position indeed for me.  I only hope that I don't have to wait six months to see other signatures join mine.