Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Molesting Pope Benedict

It looks like the Atheist in the AP and the Perversion Activists who run the New York Times are commemorating Holy Week by molesting Pope Benedict.

"It is not the nature of the evidence but the seriousness of the charge" and that is apparently why it is more important to run headlines that simply repeat the charge.

The articles below the headlines never pay off; they simply talk in a parallel way about some pedophile or pederast priest and at the same time talk about the Pope in a way that seems to link them.

Only in the last few years have we come to understand that a certain part of any male population have a mental defect that leads them to be pedophiles. During the 60's and 70's certain liberal seminaries lowered the bar to keep their numbers up.

Also they were more concerned with "not judging" because in their heresy, being judgemental was the worst possible sin.Some of them welcomed the idea of "Judging is the worst sin" because the sins the were committing themselves were quite interesting.

What they didn't know was that the therapy and the therapists they placed their faith in could not rehabilitate people with this kind of a mental disorder. I tend to think that rehab has pretty much come to be understood for what it is (mental punishment.) Mental punishment cannot deter people who are insane; if you keep expecting a different result it just means more victims.

So to sum it up;
1 Priests are males

2 A certain number of any male population are pedophiles

3 They can't be cured or fixed

4 If given therapy and released they will do it again and again

5 They were released after being declared cured and safe by therapists

6 The Pope was in positions of leadership during these times.

Now the part that they don't talk about is that

1 The Pope never engaged in a repeated catch and release

2 The Pope was the most active in taking steps against the abusers

3 The Church has notoriously high bar for Church trials and it takes a long time to do anything because they are also concerned with the rights of the accused who might be innocent.

4 Pope John Paul II was used to the communists falsely accusing every good priest of as many crimes as they could think of; this made him the worst possible person to deal with this particular issue. It wasn't until then Cardinal Ratzinger stepped in that these cases began to be dealt with at the top levels of the Church; before that the local bishop dealt with it.

5 The press is all interested in selling stories, or stories that sell. It makes their job easy if they can run something sensational that they didn't have to prepare because it is soon-fed to them by a lawyer who is suing the Church.

6 A great deal of the press is angry with the Church because we are the last great pillar to stand on all sexual morality.

The good news is that this has caused a great purification of the Church

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Some ends justify disregaurding meaningless rules

To End abortion there is no rule of order, separation of power, or strictly man-made rule of law that would make me blink before stopping abortion. Anybody who says it must be done through a certain process, respect states rights, federalism, the role of the court, or anything else is probably not "down for the struggle".

They also haven't noticed that all the conventional rules have long ago gone out the window; we no longer live in a country governed by the rule of law. For those of us interested in such things there is only right and wrong to consider now. No pro-lifer should be worried about the details of the best way to end abortion; if abortion ends, then that is probably the best way.

If the president declares abortion illegal, if the supreme court does it, or if the people simply gather in a ten million man march and take the capital like has been done before in other countries a hundred times then that is good enough for me. Why should pro-lifers be the only ones left who are worried about process? Especially when it is results that matter.

Let's recap; the supreme court declared it the law of the land by fiat. It seems to me that by the same turn the president (a co-equal power) could declare abortion illegal by fiat. Or for that matter Congress could do it. But let me be clear, if a dictator seized power tomorrow and outlawed abortion I would consider it outlawed.

Whether I fought against the dictator or not would depend on how he governed (compared to the likely alternative) not to mention the likelihood of a successful overthrow of such a dictator (just war theory), but I would still consider abortion to be outlawed either way.

Anyone who doesn't get this is either stuck in political buggy-whip production mode or is offering us excuses for why abortion is not banned. If we are to overturn this we must be as bold as those who forced this on us. We should no more care for the rules than they did, much less so now that the rules only serve to bind us. Not only should we understand this, but we should say as much when we run for office. Let them know that the game is up.

The only rule left for us is "by whatever moral means necessary." That excludes terrorism and the like, but not much else. Just about anything Rahm Emanuel would do short of attacking naked men in the shower (no pun intended, only observed after the fact). Complaining that the other side broke with the process is a lot like complaining that the ref called the game for the other team; you not only still lost, but now you sound like a sore loser, and nobody cares.

Let the other side be the one who has something to complain about. After all the American public has a lazy wisdom that doesn't worship the founding fathers; they also aren't as interested in what goes on as in knowing the gist of what happened. The only reason they are paying attention now is because they are starting to sense that everything is going down and they are upset the gravy train might slow down or stop.

If the democrats complain that we have subverted the rule of law and caused a constitutional crisis, then the few people who still pay attention will say "It's the economy stupid" and vote accordingly.

It has begun

The collection of crony capitalists and statist socialists that are currently in control of our government have issued more debt than people are interested in buying. This is not surprising to me because I know that if a certain number of people are interested in a product at a certain price it doesn't always mean that many more people will be interested in the same deal.

Most businesses know that if they want to increase volume they will have to lower the price accordingly, or provide more value etc. The really smart businessman knows that at a certain point demand is met and no offering of more value or lower price will bring in more customers. A businessman grounded in Godly principals only wants what will provide for his obligations to his family, his Church, certain needs of his community, and charity.

It is interesting to note that Godly principals will keep you from learning this lesson the hard way. If we had a God fearing government they wouldn't have to learn the lesson they are about to learn; if they facilitated personal giving and charity by confiscating less of our wealth, then we would only need a safety net instead of the Lilliputian strings that bind us to their small-hearted ways.

So what can they do if their bonds won't sell, if not enough people will loan them money? Other than cutting the budget, the only thing that they can do is to monetize the debt. In other words they will print money to buy the debt with; this will lead to massive inflation because it will devalue the dollar.

Some economists speculate that the economy will remain so bad and demand therefore remain so low that inflation will not happen except in terms of our currency dropping in relation to other currencies. They further speculate that "when the U.S. gets a cold the world gets a fever" and therefore other currencies will also drop (in relation to things like gold, and oil)and so it will be a wash.

In other words currencies have become a "whose the ugliest contest" and they are only valued in relation to one another. Rather than in traditional objective measurements, they have a value that is relative to how bad other countries are running up debt or not producing. This may work in the short term but eventually people who produce real products will be looking to trade their product for things they can use, things they can be sure to exchange for future needs.

It cannot and will not work for the simple reason that many people will not work harder than is necessary to provide for their needs; if you provide for their needs without making them produce a useful product or service then they will not produce. At a certain point there are more people in the wagon than there are people pulling the wagon.

Nobody minds pulling the wagon for grandma, the cripple, the widow, or the orphan, but everybody hates pulling the slacker along. People will find a way not to do it, and if they can't beat them they will join them. When the wagon stops, then what? In the past the barbarians were always waiting for a sign of weakness, now our weakness is allowing signs of barbarianism to show.

Will this mean that some will be voted off the lifeboat; or will it mean that special interests, or groups, band together to get what they want at the expense of others? One thing is for sure, what they have started cannot end well. The more we are able to provide for our own needs in-house the better off we will be; if we aren't providing for our own needs we will have to accept whatever terms such things are offered at or go without.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Medical care could be cheaper for free!

I was talking to a guy whose Dad was a doctor in the F.D.R. Depression; he told me that his Dad used to take eggs and produce and a general "never-never" plan from anyone who couldn't pay. Back when most of us lived in small towns and most people had a sense of honor this worked pretty well.

Then came WWII and F.D.R. During WWII demand for skilled workers became so great that F.D.R put price controls on wages so companies couldn't compete for workers which would drive up costs. Clever employers found that they could offer pay "plus benefits" as a way to pay more without raising wages. F.D.R. liked this because he always intended to have government controlled medical care (along with everything else in his national-socialism scheme).

Soon it became standard that employers paid for medical insurance; then it became the law. The average workingman became divorced from the buying and selling of medical insurance and wasn't concerned with the cost, only the quality; doctors were no longer just dealing with the fellow citizens of their hometown, they were fighting the insurance companies for reimbursement.

The Average Joe went from having a family doctor to having medical insurance; when he needed medical attention he went to whoever his company had cut the best deal with. Because it was less common for a patient to have a personal relationship with his doctor it because quite normal to "sue his pants off" if anything went wrong. Any mistakes were unforgivable and beyond being "made whole" patients wanted punitive damages.

With the G.I. Bill millions of troops went to college; most of their parents had had eighth grade or at the most high school educations and many of them could have done the same jobs just as well if they had had a high school or a two year specialized degree, but instead the job market now demands a college degree for many positions that hardly demand it. (Not to mention the grades and degrees are being dumbed down as less qualified students are thrust into higher education.)

This trend continued to snowball through the Korean and Vietnam wars. In fact the low-interest loans that are subsidised by the taxpayers made it possible for even more kids to go on to college. Since the demand for college is always up, so too is the cost. It is ironic and unjust that the future-upper-middle-class have their tuition subsidized by their blue-collar peers who are already paying taxes. It is made worse by the fact that it is driving the cost of everything up.

By the same demand/price principal we can see that employer funded medical insurance caused the cost of drugs and medical technology skyrocketed far beyond normal. The profits were put back into research and development and more life-saving drugs and gizmo's became available at even higher prices.

If the average doctor wanted to provide medical care in his hometown the way his grandfather did he would not be able to pay his student loans, his medical malpractice (lawsuit) insurance, or for the drugs and hi-tech machines that are now the tools of the trade. A years worth of eggs, milk and tomatoes wouldn't do the trick.

It occurs to me that it would cost us nothing to cut off the lawyers gravy-train by capping punitive damages as they do in Texas and it would lower the costs associated with extra testing and procedures known as defensive medicine (defensive against lawsuits)

We could re-write the patent laws for future inventions (it is a matter of justice that this be phased in). I know it would discourage R&D, but who can afford to live this way anyway? To quote W. Bush "This sucker could go down." If they invent a new gizmo or drug we will all be obliged to buy it at whatever price they put on it, until the whole country is broke then that will be a worse evil.

We could allow for most care to be provided by nurse Practitioners with 4 and 6 year degrees instead of doctors with their 8 + years. There might be more mistakes and missed diagnosis, but I think most of us would make that trade-off. It would definitely meet our obligation to treat those who rely on public charity for treatment.

We could outlaw the advertisement of all prescription drugs to the general public; if you need it your doctor can prescribe it! We could mandate that they not sell drugs in other countries (like Canada)for less than they do here.If they want to give them away as charity then have at it!

We could mandate a nation-wide market for medical insurance with a certain level of "bare-bones" coverage with higher deductibles available linked to health savings accounts. We could set up health-care co-ops to lower prices and find alternative solutions.

We could encourage the return to midwives which are much cheaper and do a better job than a doctor anyway.

We could put salary caps on professors (especially the non-math and science guys who could never make that money in the real world) We could cap their pay by the hour; next cap the charge for tuition and cut off these schools public funds (they did alright for centuries on a lot less)

We could make all professionals dentists, doctors, lawyers and so forth post their rates on a state-run website that everyone could shop.

Finally, we could set up a state-by-state system in which every state is responsible for their uninsured and has the right to fine or garnish wages of anyone who doesn't have catastrophic coverage but has an income.

Friday, March 5, 2010

If our civilization crumbles.

If our civilization crumbles then what? I often entertain myself by dreaming up scenarios. In movies such an event is always shown to be immediate and severe; otherwise they wouldn't have much of a movie would they? This is not as realistic as you might think, except in the case of an electromagnetic pulse event, a new bubonic plague or something of that type.

The main reason Americans are bound to our current delivery system for goods and services is that we can't do these things ourselves anymore.We lack access to the raw materials, tools and know-how to make things outside of the capitalist mass production delivery system. Without pretty much total co-operation we would freeze for 3 days in the dark until we dehydrated, or if we had access to potable water, starve for 40 days.

The stores only have a maximum of three days of supplies (as long as not everybody wanted to stock up at once.) If you have stored food and a garden that has irrigation you will last until your seeds run out or people come from the city to steal it from you. So unless you have running water, irrigation, non-hybrid seeds, stored food, and a well armed family (with training)you will be "wolf poop 72 hrs after the Apocalypse" (as I once heard a talk-show host remark.)

If you had dairy cattle, chickens, pigs, non-hybrid seeds (seeds that aren't sterile), stored food, irrigation/adequate rainfall, a planted garden, potable water,and the weapons and personnel to defend your "survival farm" you would still very soon be naked and probably cold and in the dark all winter.

The survivalists who think that they will just hunt deer can forget about it; there are not enough deer to fully feed a significant number of people. Proof of this can be found in North Korea where the hungry population has killed all of the wild birds, quite a feat in a country where folks don't have shotguns. So all the folks buying up guns and ammo are insuring that they will not be easy victims, but they too will starve within a few months.

Another possible melt-down scenario is that business will degenerate to the point that all buyers must pay C.O.D or even before delivery.The barter system might even enter in if things get bad enough. After all our cash is based on "the full faith and credit of the federal government" and things could get to the point that people no longer have confidence in paper money. If things get to that point the government would just step in and redistribute food with police power as Stalin did to the Ukraine (and starved millions of dissenting farmers to death purposefully in the process.)

Like I said, nobody is truly prepared for such an eventuality and if it does happen not many of us will survive. The scary thing is that even if you had all the things I mentioned you would barely eke out an existence; "life was nasty, brutish,and short" before and it would be again. Even if you tried to replace all the goods and services available in our modern civilization you (and your family or small team of families) would spend all of your time surviving.

So it is suicidal for Americans to let things melt down in a sea of red ink, but it didn't make sense when Pharaoh drove his army into the Red Sea either, but I guess as the leader of the biggest, baddest civilization ever (up til then) he probably thought he was "too great to fail." You have to wonder if our leaders have thought these things out or understand that their deficit spending cannot go on forever without consequences. When I see how even now every bill is packed full of the most offensively ridiculous spending I have to conclude that obviously not enough people are worried enough yet.