0xC9

Using The Higgs Boson To Prevent Terrorism

2011-08-11T10:22:00.001-07:00

Imagine an elaborate system to prevent terrorism by using the theoretical quantum particle known as the Higgs boson.

To do this, one must build a rigid set of guidelines with a directed point of failure. The point of failure will be used to decide if a Higgs boson particle should be created.

This boson doesn't "want" to be created. The Higgs boson is a particle that should not exist in this spacetime frame. It only exists in other frames of space-time. If we cause this boson to appear in this frame of space-time, we will create a paradox. But basic causality will prevent the Higgs boson from appearing in this frame. It's just a fact of nature. It's a scientific law.

In this way, it's similar to lightening. Lightening travels through the path of least resistance. In the case of a temporal paradox, causality will use the easiest effect to prevent a cause. Cause and effect are reversed in the situation of a paradox framework.

When I say "easiest," I am not referring to Occam's Razor. The actual effect that prevents the cause may appear to us as the least obvious effect. So directing the effect is very difficult.

I think the best way would be to use encryption. Each airplane that we would like to protect will carry several encryption keys all over the plane. They will be made of very fragile material. Under normal circumstances, if they plane remains intact, they keys will be retrievable. If the keys are retrievable, they can be returned to the facility that will decide to then not attempt to produce the Higgs boson particle.

The keys are encrypted in order to prevent counterfeit keys from entering the equation.

That's the setup. To summarize: Got all the keys? Yes, we do? Ok, then we will make no attempt to produce the particle today. We'll try again tomorrow with new keys.

The tricky thing to remember is that the Higgs boson particle will only be produced if and only if a key is missing. The idea is to build a system that will mean the easiest way to break down key retrieval is to destroy an airplane. Since that is the easiest thing to do, causality will require terrorism to become harder.

Got all the keys? No? Uh oh, one or more is missing? Ok, we shall now attempt to produce the particle that "doesn't want" to be produced (which then prevents the terrorist attack in the past).

It is important to ensure that the Higgs boson particle will be created in earnest if even one key is missing. If the key is missing because a plane was destroyed, it is imperative that they attempt to proceed. Doing so will then produce the effect to prevent the cause.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bob the Builder Lives in a Socialist Society

2011-07-02T10:59:00.001-07:00

Can I over-analyze everything? Yes I Can! Just remember that when you read this article.

So Bob the Builder is a children's TV show, depicting Bob as a building "contractor." I use scare quotes because he doesn't ever formally contract with anyone. The show is broadcast in many countries, but originates from the UK.

One of the things I noticed is completely omitted from the show is the concept of money and economics. Now, you might say that's fine because it's a children's show, so why complicate it with such ideas?

And you would be correct, except that I'm not talking about the lack of focus on these concepts. I'm talking about the active and conscious omission of these topics. Money in specific and economics in general are purposefully removed from the show.

Sure, maybe I'm over-analyzing. Maybe I see things in a distorted way because of my views. Not only that, but how does one prove a negative like this? You can't. So with that in mind, bare with me.

In "Snowed Under: The Bobblesberg Winter Games," there is a perfect opportunity to depict money or even just a credit card. Bob checks into a hotel; Spud orders room service and even gets a job. Yet there's no mention of cost or pay.

In "New To The Crew," the town's folk build all kinds of things out of an old willow tree. "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!" There is no association made between how much time it takes to do all these things and what the town's people could have been doing instead. In economics, this is known as the "marginal alternative use" of resources.

The labor from the rest of the town is being hindered by the disposal of the old willow tree. That is the marginal alternative use of this labor. Therefore, it is of utmost importance in this sector to be acquainted with the relevant investors and to manage the transaction process ideally. That process is completely missing. But it's not just ignored, it's actively omitted.

There are times when lack of labor is depicted. But usually it is a result of poor character on the part of Bob's workforce (the machines do not represent automation, they represent labor only). They are usually messing around and have a lesson to learn in the end. Labor being misallocated never results in a labor shortage. If there's a chance of labor shortage, Bob just brings in more machines with no explanation as to how they are acquired.

Bob and his team always evaluate the ability to accomplish the task by Bob asking, "Can we fix it?" His team always enthusiastically responds with "Yes we can!" But they never ask "Should we fix it?" A socialist society would never be able to answer a question "Should we fix it?"

Is it better to have a bonfire with the wood from an old tree or have the whole town build random stuff with it? Is it time to tear down a stricture or repair it? They don't ever know the answers for sure. This is because a socialistic society is blind without prices.

You might say that depicting intricate economic concepts like this is beyond children. Most children's shows skip money. On the other hand, Bob talks about intricate environmental and ecological concerns all the time. They depict civics and regulations. They even depict endless paperwork. Wait, what? So why not at least touch on economic concerns then? Why this and not that?

Instead, economic ideas are purposefully removed. The desire to simplify can lead to economic illiteracy, which we have plenty of already. Granted, the show is meant for a world-wide audience. To depict prices means showing currency, which might tie the show to a specific geographical locale. But that's a lousy reason to omit something.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

That Bin Laden Killing

2011-05-02T15:45:00.001-07:00

I have some vague sense that many people are opposed to capital punishment, and for good reason, and especially when there is no trial and conviction, and yet we are expected uncritically to celebrate the death of Bin Laden at the hands of the U.S. state. The government needs glory and we are supposed to provide it, regardless of the cost (which, as Anthony Gregory points out, has been American liberty itself, in addition to possibly millions of lives). Lew Rockwell points out that there is a reason for the timing of this announcement. Regardless, so intense is the pressure not to question any aspect of this that the Cato Institute took the trouble to issue a note of congratulations and inform us all of what a “huge debt” we all owe to the government for its magnificence. The killing also permits simple minded people to imagine that all U.S. foreign policy struggles with Islam are due to one bearded guy with a grudge and have nothing to do with, for example, the American penchant for invading other people’s countries and stationing troops in the lands that Islam considers holy.

via blog.mises.org

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Road Trip, 2011

2011-04-30T09:14:00.001-07:00

I meant to post this sooner but the time would always get away from me. In fact, I started this post on the trip, thinking I'd be able to finish it along the way. Yeah right. I also lost part of the article in an error, so I had to reconstruct that part of it (mostly just image placement). Anyway, here we go.

Karen let me load a GPS Tracker application on her phone so we could get data points for the entire trip. I really appreciate her letting me record the data this way. It meant she had to leave her phone in the GPS Tracker application, due to how it's designed. Thanks, Karen.

This is more of an analysis of the road trip and the places we visited along the way.

We started our trip at about 10:00 AM on March 26th. By the time we reached Richfield, nine and a half hours later, we had traveled 528.7 miles. Well, you can see these kinds of stats in the map data. And as I mentioned to my mother, 93 MPH is likely due to the speed required to overtake, and the fact that the speed limit in Utah is 80 MPH.

I could have also blamed GPS jitter on the recorded max speed. GPS is not a reliable method for detecting speed. A variance of 15% can easily be introduced by GPS technology. But the fact is, I did indeed see the speedometer reach about 90+ MPH.

Of course, the "average speed" is incorrect. This average is robotically calculated using the "portal-to-portal" method, not taking into account any stops along the way.

This route took us right through Las Vegas. Hannah was impressed with the buildings, especially the ones with the gold windows. The land forms gradually got more and more interesting as we briefly drove through Arizona then into Utah. It really did look painted. And in Utah, the land was just as colorful, but with the added detail of snow to top it off.

By the time we reached Richfield, the kids really had enough. It really was "drive until you puke." And it was a good thing we stopped when we did because there were no services for a very long time after that.

We stayed at the Comfort Inn, Richfield, at which Hannah was very impressed with the luggage cart she got to ride in. Hannah also discovered a few constants. She finds constants comforting, as many children do. She is a self-saving princess when it comes to these details. I guess it's a coping skill. One constant she noticed was that each hotel has individually wrapped plastic cups. They also usually have a pad of paper and a pen stashed somewhere for her to write with.

Also, come to find out, the room had quite a view, which the kids didn't notice until the next morning. On your left was the indoor pool, in basically a greenhouse thing. And directly in front was a giant pile of dirt. If you know our kids, this view was absolutely mind-blowing. Both Hannah and Benjamin were frantically working out their spacial reasoning to find a path to these attractions. Didn't work.

We had our complementary breakfast and we were off again like a herd of elephants.

The snow was still high above us in Utah. Notice the purple line along the 50, above. This is a gap in the cellular signal for data (voice apparently worked alright, if you like that feature). That purple line is also about the distance we saw "no services" signs, if I recall correctly. There is really not a lot going on along the 50 in Utah.

Again the average speed was extremely low, this time because we stopped for lunch just after reaching the Colorado border. We reached our first planned stop of the trip: Uncle Roddy & Aunt Heather in Eagle. Or, as Benjamin and TJ would recall, if you asked them: The Place With the Working DVD Player!

The next morning, it snowed.

So I posted a picture of the snow on Facebook. Not long after I posted the picture, I got a reply:

- Bruce Snow?! I'll bet he's excited to see it. We've got some here in Colorado this morning too, poor little wet flurries trying so hard. They don't stand a chance on the warm spring ground.
  March 28 at 11:07am
- Anthony Yeah, that's Colorado snow, actually. :)
  March 28 at 11:59am
- Bruce Anywhere near Lakewood? Coffee's on!
  March 28 at 12:25pm
- Anthony It appears we are two or three hours away, and we're going in that direction. We'll bring the PB&J!
  March 28 at 2:08pm

The drive out of Eagle seemed rather daunting due to all this new snow. But the plows had already done their first passes, so we had asphalt most of the way. Only commercial vehicles were "advised" to use chains. Even so, all vehicles were expected (under threat of violence) to have chains just in case things got worse.

When we came down 5,000 feet, we were past most of the snow, for the moment. It was a lovely visit Stormy and Bruce in Lakewood (except for the part where Benjamin threw a huge rock down the stairs). We watched a Barney video, had PB&J, and talked.

Bruce
Enjoyed our visit with Anthony Martin and family. Quote of the day: Hannah, on our porch, looking at the trees and the mountains - "Wow! Wow, this is so NICE! Wow! And in heaven it'll be even NICER!"

We found another Comfort Inn in Burlington just before entering Kansas. The luggage cart was totally beyond Hannah's expectations. It was gold and had a gold ball on top. She thought it was simply lovely. And Benjamin spotted a Doritos truck in the inn's parking lot and yelled "CHIPS!!"

The next day, it snowed. Again. And it rained the whole time we were driving in Kansas. In fact, this part of our journey has the best travel stats of all legs going in that direction ...

One state. One day. Did you know Kansas has about fifty Oz Museums? We did stop for Burger King in Kansas City. We stated at the Econo Lodge, Chillicothe, which is a type of Best Western (according to a traceroute I ran out of their WiFi). It was probably the best of all on this trip, except that they had no luggage cart. There was no need for one since we parked right in front of our room.

Missouri is the state I got pulled over for driving too fast on the wrong lane (that's only the passing lane, I guess). After presenting our papers, the trooper let us go with a wink and sort-of a verbal warning. I didn't have to try to convince him that states don't exist or anything like that. Yay!

Eventually we made our way to the house of my friend Aaron and his family. Now Aaron would have me believe the Jackson Family was just on their best behavior due to the presence of the Martin Family. But I think they're a nice bunch and he doesn't give them enough credit.

We also stopped off for a while at a mall in Indianapolis before reaching Columbus Ohio. We stayed at the Super 8 in Ohio.

There is a really neat Burger King in Fredrick, Maryland. That's where we had dinner before reaching our destination in Middletown, Delaware. Here's the Burger King:

So we stayed a week in Delaware, on a farm. Karen's grandparents have such a nice home. Take a look:

We also visited some family in Virgina. We had a blast spending the day with them. We met everyone at Red Robin then set the kids loose at a nearby park.

I mostly documented the trip home on Facebook, so take a look at my wall for details about that. We went to Virginia to see some more of Karen's family, saw the sites there, drove down to North Carolina and stayed a couple days. After that, it was the long drive home. Apparently we just missed the biggest tornados anyone has seen in a long time.

Would we do it again? I think most certainly. The drive was long, but I think it was worth it. If anything, the country is smaller now to us because of this trip. Now I personally know what we can tackle in a day and what we can tackle in a week.

All GPS tracking information provided on behalf of InstaMapper.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

An Evening of Eschatology The Meaning of the Millennium

2011-04-28T12:27:00.001-07:00

You’re listening to An Evening of Eschatology

Watch:

Full Length

Listen:

Full Length

Download

Video: Full Length

Audio: Full Length

The following is background by John Piper on this event and the issues being discussed. Listen to the audio or watch the video for the conversation itself.

On September 27, 2009, Desiring God and Bethlehem College & Seminary hosted “An Evening on Eschatology” at the Downtown Campus of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. It was attended by about 800 people who sat in the darkened sanctuary while six cameras were trained on the brightly lit roundtable where the four participants sat in a circle.

via desiringgod.org

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Toy Story Birthday

2011-03-05T13:29:00.001-08:00

See the full gallery on Posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Pie Index (final)

2011-02-14T07:55:00.001-08:00

Well, looks like this is my last entry for Pie Index. I haven't been updating this section of my blog because the price hasn't really changed for quite a while. Then this happened:

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Literally

2011-01-19T09:22:00.001-08:00

via i.imgur.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Question Digested!

2011-01-10T09:09:00.001-08:00

Question Digested: 1470

The Internet Oracle has pondered your question deeply. Your question was:

Oh great and powerful Oracle ...

I like your Old Spice commercials. Keep up the good work.

And in response, thus spake the Oracle:

Hello supplicant. Look at your query, now look at me, now back at your query, now back to me.

Sadly, it isn't a query. But if your query stopped using a ladies scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, it could ask me a real

question.

Look down, back up, where are you? You are asking a question that is truly a question and not merely suck up to the Oracle.

What's in your hand? Back at me, I have it. Its an oyster with two tickets to that thing that you love. Look again, the tickets are now

diamonds. Anything is possible when your query smells like a man and not a lady, and actually poses a question for the Oracle.

You owe the Oracle some lavender scented bubble bath.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Anatomy of a Straw Man | The Threshing Floor

2010-12-31T14:42:00.001-08:00

Practice dummies used for military training are supposed to represent the enemy, but are much easier to attack and defeat. When it comes to arguing a theological position, Strawman argumentation is far too common place. When arguing against a particular position, you should be able to state the opposing position in such a way that someone who holds to it would say in response to your summation of it “Yes, that is what I believe.” However, far too often the one engaging in apologetics will rather confuse his own assessment of an opposing position for that position itself.

What do I mean?

Let’s take Calvinism as an example. The stock objections to Calvinism (that it makes all men out to be puppets or robots, that it contradicts the love of God for every sinner, etc.) have been answered ad infinitum in many forums. Yet, when the assessment comes from the opponent of Calvinism, it is based on a faulty understanding of the doctrines of grace. Usually the critic’s arrows are aimed at Hypercalvinism and not Calvinism properly so called. Be that as it may, the objections are continually re-asserted and usually without the benefit of addressing the proponent’s specific defense of what he holds to be revealed in Scripture.

So, here’s a little exercise for you. When an opponent’s assertion is made, ask someone (if possible) who holds that position “Do you believe {fill in the blank}? I think you’ll find the answers interesting.

What’s the anatomy of the Straw Man? Let’s consider:

Bob holds position X.

Larry disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Therefore Y is a distorted view of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.

2. Quoting an opponent’s words out of context–i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions

3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments–thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

5. Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

That’s why when I read apologetics, one of the first questions I ask before I dig too far into the argumentation is, “Does this person really understand the position he or she is attempting to refute?” Look for the summation statement of what the author is attempting to attack. The answer will be very telling. It will also save you a lot of time, as you would best be served by reading the critics who actually understand the “enemy”.

[reference Wikipedia under "Straw Man]

via winnowingfork.wordpress.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bitcoin Mining Cartels: A Total Non-Threat

2010-12-15T12:44:00.001-08:00

The short SHORT version of the problem: Cartels are bad.

My short SHORT version of the solution: Fix bugs. Focus on p2p. Stay the course. Ignore the cartels and they'll go away.

There is an interesting discussion on the Bitcoin forum about mining cartels. Some of the forum members are worried that a group of individuals might mount an attack on the Bitcoin network using a cartel style attack.

How is a cartel style attack potentially more of a problem than a non-cartel style attack?

Any cartel entity coordinates itself to represent a threat to the non-cartel entities. It is comprised of people who want to subvert their target by allying themselves together to share resources and maintain "out of band" communication to that end.

In this case, the worry is that mining cartels will form to target the Bitcoin network.

How can this approach succeed against the Bitcoin network? A cartel could generate blocks ahead of the network, holding out on announcing these new blocks until they get an advantage by manipulating these withheld blocks. In other words, they can try to hoard new blocks while they monkey with them by creating cartelized blocks.

A cartelized block contains cartel approved transactions. If you are being rewarded by the cartel, your transaction will be included in the block. If you are being punished by the cartel, your transaction will be delayed or dropped completely.

I left out a lot of details in my explanation above. If you want to know more, take a look at the original thread.

The reason I am skeptical that a mining cartel would ever represent a threat to the Bitcoin network is that in order for the cartel to succeed, it would have to run a very tight ship.

The folk in the thread I mentioned shows that there are all kinds of technical roadblocks to prevent this attack. The most likely roadblocks typically implement more p2p solutions, not less.

In other words, add more p2p oriented features to Bitcoin so the cartel must cope with things like keeping timestamps in the proper sequence.

And I'm totally in favor of a greater p2p focus, beyond what is already implemented. The more, the better.

Beyond that and fixing bugs, nothing formal should be done to deal with mining cartels.

Why? Because they'll do what every other cartel has done in history. They will self destruct on their own. It may take some time, but down the line, I can tell, that every cartel in history either self destructs or gets violent.

An example cartel in history may have started off as a friendly pact among good business associates. But once someone inside the cartel betrays his buddies, something has to give.

And the more p2p focus there is, the less likely violence will be possible in any meaningful way, so the mining cartel can only self destruct. Maybe it can try to start over with a smaller, more trusted circle. That's the only option for it: cartel fragmentation. Fragmentation reduces the chance of a successful attack.

In historical examples, cartels get overtly violent or they join up with government so that the violence becomes legitimized by law. Cartels benefit from the "captured regulator" effect when they join up with government so they can regulate away competition. That's just not an option for a well focused p2p implementation.

So what if the cartel is able to maintain control of its members to keep them from breaking ranks? Well, that's the ultimate boogie-man, isn't it? It only takes one member to take it down. But ok, let's say it happens. Then what?

I'm not suggesting this would be a quick fix, but if the cartel has really done damage to the integrity of the network, then set up a new p2p currency and abandon Bitcoin, if it really is that bad off. Call it Bytecoin or something. Or Twobitcoin. I liked the name Hashcash, but the name doesn't matter. The cartels can have their own private currency all to themselves. Either they keep spending CPU time on the old abandoned network they just took over or they start completely over with a brand new network. Competition makes everything better.

And as Fred Brooks said, "Make one to throw away, you will anyway."

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1PEVK4G27Lp8q8GnAbBiJqVQzCAK5hZGcB

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Did You Give Up On Bitcoin?

2010-12-11T22:09:00.001-08:00

One of the more compelling ideas of Bitcoin is that everyone has a chance to be the Ben Bernanke. Meaning, everyone has a chance to "print money out of thin air." The specification of Bitcoin is such that its money supply is "generated" by individuals who run the client on the network in "generate mode." If you run it long enough, at least for now, you have a chance to produce 50 BTC (BTC is the currency code that stands for Bitcoin).

But if you were attracted to this idea, lately you may have noticed that it has been harder and harder to generate. The simple fact is, the more people trying to produce, the less of a chance you'll have yourself. On top of that, there are more people who resort to using their GPUs (graphics card) these days than ever before. In a matter of months, the opportunity to generate Bitcoins seems to have dried up.

The good news is that there are new opportunities. If you want to generate, I would like to recommend the Bluish Coder:

http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/

This is the group that picked the Bitcoin Remote Pooled Mining application to collect lower powered machines together so they can have a chance to generate. If you have Windows or Linux (Mac OS X has limited support if you really dig), you can contribute your own CPU time to the mix and get a cut. It's not 50 BTC, but it's something.

The amount you generate depends on the speed of your system, how long you participate, and how many other users are in the pool. Yes, the amount is much smaller, but it's much better than nothing.

Of course, just like the carrot of 50 BTC, there's a chance your efforts will not pay off. But you never know unless you try. Since the time this pool was established, it generated 2 blocks, which means it distributed 100 BTC, so far, among all those who participated. But the more people who participate, the smaller the winnings.

The advantage of pooling in this way is that none of the participants work against each other. If you have two systems churning away on the official client, they are working against each one another by definition. But in an alternative system like this, none of the systems in the pool do redundant work.

It is even possible to set up your own private pool with this kind of software, if that's what you want. That way, if you have multiple computers, they would no longer work against each other. But if you have only two computers to devote to Bitcoin generating, you may not see any results.

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1PLoWWLHU27p1c66r9S3wkjRCNcL8AcY8D

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bitcoin Declines After Rally to Record Prompts Investor Selling

2010-12-07T21:36:00.001-08:00

Bitcoin declined after a rally to a record prompted some investors sell and as the strengthening dollar reduced the appeal of the crypto-currency as an alternative asset.

Recent price gains have led to profit-taking by some investors but it has probably not lead to an overall digital cash downtrend. This is likely temporary profit-taking before the end of the year. Bitcoin will continue to be favored through next year as a haven.

The dollar rose for a third day against most of its major counterparts on expectations an extension of tax cuts will bolster an economic recovery in the U.S. President Barack Obama agreed to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two years. A report tomorrow is forecast to show U.S. initial jobless claims declined. Bitcoin typically moves inversely to the greenback.

Bitcoin has jumped 29 percent these last months after governments spent trillions of dollars and kept borrowing costs low to bolster economies hurt by the most severe global recession since World War II.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

US Judge OKs confession extracted by threatening suspect with rape #09CARACAS442

2010-12-05T16:28:00.001-08:00

Original story reported back in May by Reuters:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idCATRE63R2DF20100506

Now it's being reported that this a perfectly valid form of:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/08/15yearold-gitmo-detainee-threatened/

"In one of the first military commissions held under the Obama administration, a US military judge has ruled that confessions obtained by threatening the subject with rape are admissible in court."

There's also a leaked cable that lists rape threats as one of the methods "Cuban Police" use to coerce CMPP applicants of something called a "US Embassy issued YY visa foil."

http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09CARACAS442.html

So this is yet another "do as I say, not as I do" situation.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup #09TEGUCIGALPA645

2010-12-04T16:20:00.001-08:00

This one really bugs me for some reason. It reminds me of the School House Rock spoof video "Pirates and Emperors."

First of all, I think it's interesting that Wikileaks is being lambasted for releasing these cables. But I do have a question. Is there a given cable that should have been kept a secret? Taken as a whole, it's easy to be critical. But if you look at them one-at-a-time, specifically which cable do Wikileak's critics claim should not have been released? If you can find one, I'd be willing to evaluate it. But all collectivists always love to generalize everything (that's a little dry humor, by the way, I realize I just generalized). The point is, what is so critical to national security? Please be specific.

I know it would take quite a while to look at them one-at-a-time. And sometimes the problem isn't readily apparent on both sides. So I'll agree that not all of these cables are smoking guns if the critics are willing to admit not all of them as a whole represent a breach of national security.

Taking them each carefully, there are some examples of U.S. "Hegemony" demonstrated in specific cables. In the political game, you can't be against hegemony if you are nationalistic. So that's simple, I'm not nationalistic. Do I like the regimes that the U.S. government is monkeying with? No, not really. But not liking a regime doesn't mean I want to topple it using a relativistic approach.

I can be against elected national socialistic regimes without undermining them by using relativistic means. I guess the democratic process is the best in the world until it isn't. That seems to be the criteria the U.S. government uses.

U.S. "interests" trump everything, apparently. Why would we support it?

The article below mentions an Oliver Stone documentary at the end called "South of the Border." It's a bit dry. It makes the point over and over that the U.S. foreign policy is being used all over South America. The cable confirms this notion. Internally, the U.S. has no issue secretly attempting to topple governments it doesn't like. And while these South American governments are socialist regimes that are totally wrong, it doesn't mean anyone has to police them and "fix" them, at tax payers expense.

Believe me, I think people like Hugo Chavez and his ilk are a desease of South America masquerading as its own cure. But U.S. involvement is like recommending cancer as a cure for AIDS.

All the U.S. does is make enemies for itself. It spreads the IMF and the DEA which actually create more problems than they solve. And this is the democracy that is so wonderful? Really?

The Oliver Stone documentary also holds out the hope that the Obama Administration would correct the mistakes of past administrations. It looks like this specific leaked cable proves nothing of the sort. No administration is willing to leave its neighbors alone. Yet supposedly the U.S. is hated for its freedom. But we all suffer the consequences, giving ammunition for our neighbors hate us.

By July 24, 2009, the U.S. government was totally clear about the basic facts of what took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. The U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa sent a cable to Washington with subject: "Open and Shut: The Case of the Honduran Coup," asserting that "there is no doubt" that the events of June 28 "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup." The Embassy listed arguments being made by supporters of the coup to claim its legality, and dismissed them thus: "none... has any substantive validity under the Honduran constitution." The Honduran military clearly had no legal authority to remove President Zelaya from office or from Honduras, the Embassy said, and their action -- the Embassy described it as an "abduction" and "kidnapping" -- was clearly unconstitutional.

It is inconceivable that any top U.S. official responsible for U.S. policy in Honduras was not familiar with the contents of the July 24 cable, which summarized the assessment of the U.S. Embassy in Honduras on key facts that were politically disputed by supporters of the coup regime. The cable was addressed to Tom Shannon, then Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs; Harold Koh, the State Department's Legal Adviser; and Dan Restrepo, Senior Director for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the National Security Council. The cable was sent to the White House and to Secretary of State Clinton.

But despite the fact that the U.S. government was crystal clear on what had transpired, the U.S. did not immediately cut off all aid to Honduras except "democracy assistance," as required by U.S. law.

Instead, a month after this cable was sent, the State Department, in its public pronouncements, pretended that the events of June 28 -- in particular, "who did what to whom" and the constitutionality of these actions -- were murky and needed further study by State Department lawyers, despite the fact that the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh, knew exactly "who did what to whom" and that these actions were unconstitutional at least one month earlier. The State Department, to justify its delay in carrying out U.S. law, invented a legal distinction between a "coup" and a "military coup," claiming that the State Department's lawyers had to determine whether a "military coup" took place, because only that determination would meet the legal threshold for the aid cutoff.

QUESTION: And so - sorry, just a follow-up. If this is a coup - the State Department considers this a coup, what's the next step? And I mean, there is a legal framework on the U.S. laws dealing with countries that are under coup d'état? I mean, what's holding you guys [back from taking] other measures according [to] the law?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I think what you're referring to, Mr. Davila, is whether or not this is - has been determined to be a military coup. And you're correct that there are provisions in our law that have to be applied if it is determined that this is a military coup. And frankly, our lawyers are looking at that exact question. And when we get the answer to that, you are right, there will be things that - if it is determined that this was a military coup, there will be things that will kick in.

As you know, on the ground, there's a lot of discussion about who did what to whom and what things were constitutional or not, which is why our lawyers are really looking at the event as we understand them in order to come out with the accurate determination.

But the July 24 cable shows that this was nonsense. The phrase "military coup" occurs nowhere in the document, a remarkable omission in a cable from the Embassy presenting the Embassy's analysis of the June 28 events, their constitutionality and legality one month after the fact, if that were a crucial distinction in assessing U.S. policy. And indeed, initial press reports on the statements of top U.S. officials in response to the coup made no such distinction, using the descriptions "coup" and "military coup" interchangeably.

Why did the State Department drag its feet, pretending that facts which it knew to be clear-cut were murky? Why didn't the State Department speak publicly after July 24 with the same moral clarity as the July 24 cable from the Embassy in Honduras? Had the State Department shared publicly the Embassy's clear assessment of the June 28 events after July 24, history might have turned out differently, because supporters of the coup in the United States -- including Republican Members of Congress and media talking heads -- continued to dispute basic facts about the coup which the US Embassy in Honduras had reported were not subject to reasonable dispute, and U.S. media reporting on the coup continued to describe these facts as subject to reasonable dispute, long after the Embassy had firmly declared that they were not.

As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted in an August 2009 report, in the previous 12 months the U.S. had responded to other coups by cutting U.S. aid within days. In these cases -- in Africa -- there was no lengthy deliberation on whether a "coup" was a "military coup."

What was the difference?

A key difference was that Honduras is in Central America, "our backyard," so different rules applied. Top officials in Washington supported the political aims of the coup. They did not nominally support the means of the coup, as far as we know, but they supported its political end: the removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. On the other hand, they were politically constrained not to support the coup openly, since they knew it to be illegal and unconstitutional. Thus, they pursued a "diplomatic compromise," which would "restore constitutional order" while achieving the coup's central political aim: removal of the ability of President Zelaya and his supporters to pursue a meaningful reform project in Honduras. The effect of their efforts at "diplomatic compromise" was to allow the coup to stand, a result that these supporters of the coup's political aims were evidently content with.

Why does this matter now?

First, the constitutional and political crisis in Honduras is ongoing, and the failure of the U.S. to take immediate, decisive action in response to the coup was a significant cause of the ongoing crisis. After nominally opposing the coup, and slowly and fitfully implementing partial sanctions against the coup regime in a way that did not convince the coup regime that the U.S. was serious, the U.S. moved to support elections under the coup regime which were not recognized by the rest of the hemisphere, and today the U.S. is lobbying for the government created by that disputed election to be readmitted to the Organization of American States, in opposition to most of the rest of the hemisphere, despite ongoing, major violations of human rights in Honduras, about which the U.S. is doing essentially nothing.

Second, the relationship of actual U.S. policy -- as opposed to rhetorical pronouncements -- to democracy in the region is very much a live issue from Haiti to Bolivia.

Yesterday there was an election in Haiti. This election was funded by the U.S., despite the fact that major parties were excluded from participation by the government's electoral council, a fact that Republican and Democratic Members of Congress, in addition to NGOs, complained about without result. The Washington Post reports that the election ended with "nearly all the major candidates calling for the results to be tossed out amid 'massive fraud.'": "12 of the 19 candidates on Sunday's ballot appeared together at a raucous afternoon news conference to accuse the government of President Rene Preval of trying to steal the election and install his chosen candidate, Jude Celestin."

Yesterday's election in Haiti had the fingerprints of the U.S. government all over it. It was funded by the U.S. "Security" for the election was purportedly provided by UN troops, paid for by the U.S. And the crucial historical context of the election was the 2004 coup that deposed democratically-elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide, a coup engineered by the U.S. with years of economic destruction clearly intended to topple the elected government.

Last week, Bolivian President Evo Morales called out the U.S. for its recent history of supporting coups in the region.

AP's treatment of President Morales' remarks was instructive:

Morales also alleged U.S. involvement in coup attempts or political upheaval in Venezuela in 2002, Honduras in 2009 and Ecuador in 2010.
"The empire of the United States won," in Honduras, Morales said, a reference to the allegations of former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya that the U.S. was behind his ouster.

"The people of the Americas in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, we won," Morales continued. "We are three to one with the United States. Let's see what the future brings."

U.S. officials have repeatedly denied involvement in all of those cases and critics of the United States have produced no clear evidence. [my emphasis]

It's certainly true that critics have produced "no clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" in any of these cases -- if your standard for "clear evidence" of U.S. "involvement" is a US government document that dictated in advance everything that subsequently happened. But this would be like saying that critics have produced "no clear evidence" for the Armenian Genocide because researchers haven't yet found a Turkish Mein Kampf. [Some who dispute that there was an "Armenian Genocide" do actually claim something like this -- "there is no proof of a plan" -- but claims like this are generally not taken seriously by U.S. media -- except when the U.S. government is an author of the crime, and the crime is recent.]

In the case of the coup in Venezuela in 2002, we know the following:

- Groups in Venezuela that participated in the coup had been supported financially and politically by the U.S.

- The CIA had advance knowledge of the plans for a coup, and did nothing to warn the Venezuelan government; nor did the US do anything meaningful to try to stop the coup.

- Although the US knew in advance about the plans for a coup, when these events played out, the US tried to claim that there was no coup.

- The US pushed for international recognition of the coup government.

- The International Monetary Fund, which would not take such action without advance approval from the United States, announced its willingness to support the coup government a few hours after the coup took place.

These facts about U.S. government "involvement" in the coup in Venezuela are documented in Oliver Stone's recent movie, South of the Border. This is why it's so important for as many Americans as possible to see this movie: because there are basic facts about the relationship of actual U.S. government policies -- as opposed to rhetoric -- to democracy in Latin America that major U.S. media simply cannot be counted upon to report straight. In order to successfully agitate for meaningful reform of U.S. government policy in Latin America, Americans have to know what the actual policy of the U.S. government has been, something they are unlikely to learn from major U.S. media.

And this is why Just Foreign Policy is urging Americans to organize house parties on December 10 -- Human Rights Day -- to watch South of the Border. You can sign up to host a screening here.

Here is a clip from South of the Border, in which Scott Wilson, formerly foreign editor of the Washington Post, describes the "involvement" of the U.S. in the coup in Venezuela:

And here is a clip from South of the Border in which President Morales talks with Oliver Stone about the role of the media:

Oliver Stone: "Now [Morales] is joining the Hugo ranks, becoming more the 'bad left' in the American media."
President Morales: "The media will always try to criminalize the fight against neoliberalism, colonialism, and imperialism. It's almost normal. The worst enemy I have is the media."

South of the Border Clip #2 from Cinema Libre Studio on Vimeo.

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

via huffingtonpost.com

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Private Banking and Other Free Market Myths

2010-12-02T21:27:00.001-08:00

It's time to have an adult conversation about private vs. public. There is no private banking system, at least not on the large scale. If we had a private banking system, it would be able to go under. The ability to fail is one of the main criteria that makes something private. Safety nets obscure this notion. It blurs this distinction. If the safety net is big enough and strong enough, it obliterates this distinction.

No organization that is shielded from failure is private. It can't be. Failure avoidance is the incentive that makes organizations efficient.

If you could eat ten cheesecakes with no risk, wouldn't you? I mean no risk at all. If the cheesecakes were free ... if you knew you wouldn't feel sick later in the short term ... if you knew you wouldn't gain weight in the long term ... if you knew you would have no chance of a coronary in the very long term ... what would stop you from eating ten cheesecakes every day?

Failure and risk are natural checks and balances. It's the ultimate cost of doing business.

The same is true financially as with the cheesecakes. There is no credible risk of a large bank going under. Even if a bank looks like its at risk, it will be absorbed by another. Assets will be transferred, liabilities will be wiped out. The executives get their pay. Their bonus will resume. Did you know CEO bonuses are higher today than they've ever been, even in the middle of this recession?

I don't want to focus on the bonuses. They are a drop in the bucket. Focusing on executive bonus is just an indicator, similar to porkbarrel spending, which is also a drop in the bucket. But if you want to know the health of an institution, take executive bonuses for banks and porkbarrel spending for legislators to extrapolate. When they're out of whack, the institution is in trouble.

"Too Big To Fail" is just a cute euphemism for nationalization. The banks have been nationalized long long ago. You could say it happened in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. It took a long time to devalue the currency to this point. It's just like the frog in luke-warm water. The frog has been in there a very long time. It's a very tender frog.

In the real private industry, if you do a bad job, your profits are hit at some point. You might be able to shield or cloak your losses for a while. But eventually, reality sets in and you have to deal with the problem. The more deception used to shield the loss, the more the losses pile up. And if you can just call your "uncle" to make the losses just disappear, then guess what? You are no longer in the private industry. You've been nationalized. It's that simple.

So what's wrong with nationalization? Well, the failure guarantee is no longer implicit. The failure guarantee becomes explicit. Is there an implicit guarantee for banks anymore? No. It's completely explicit. Therefore, they are a nationalized industry. There's no need for speculating when nationalization will happen. It's a done deal. The implicit guarantee is an indicator that will lead to the explicit guarantee.

Has healthcare been nationalized? Yes it has. Is the doctor guaranteed to get paid? Well, at the moment, the guarantee is just implicit. If enough of them suffer devastating losses (high malpractice, financial ruin from non-payment, anything you can think of), they will become "Too Important To Fail" (or come up with some other cute euphemism). So while doctors are still at risk of financial ruin at the moment because the relationship between doctor and government hasn't been completely hammered out in practice, there is no doubt in my mind, if a sudden crisis hits the medical field, government will pull out the safety net. If the sudden crisis isn't forthcoming, it will be created. "Never waste a disaster," as they say.

Is this all some big mistake? Nope, it's by design.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Reply to The Underground Economist, Why Bitcoin can't be a currency

2010-11-29T10:47:00.001-08:00

I wasn’t going to make a post bashing Bitcoin because their FAQ clearly states that its value only stems from the fact that merchants are willing to accept it. Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped people from pushing it as the currency of the future, so regretfully, I feel compelled to post why this is not so.

While Bitcoin has managed to bootstrap itself on a limited scale, it lacks any mechanism for dealing with fluctuations in demand. Increasing demand for Bitcoin will cause prices in terms of Bitcoin to drop (deflation), while decreasing demand will cause them to rise (inflation). What happens in each of these cases?

Let’s start with deflation, because right now demand for Bitcoin is on the rise. What do people do when they think something’s value will be higher tomorrow than it is today? Well, they acquire and hold on to it! Who wants to give up money that’s constantly rising in value? In other words, rising demand causes demand to rise further. Irrational exuberance at its finest. Deflation begets deflation, ad infinitum, or at least until something breaks. You could make lots of money on Bitcoin, provided you get out of the market at the right time.

Eventually, of course, prices won’t be able to fall any further. Either people won’t be spending their Bitcoin anyway because they’re making so much money just by holding it, or the merchants will get tired of changing their prices every few seconds, assuming they don’t hit technical issues first, like the indivisibility of coins or their software not being able to handle all the zeros after decimal points.

At this point or shortly before, people will start taking their profits. They’ll start spending or selling their hoarded coins. If this manages to start any inflationary momentum at all, you’ll see the deflation scenario played out in reverse. And who’s going to stop it? The supply of Bitcoin is fixed and there is no other use for it besides as a currency. I doubt prices will have much of a chance to rise, since this will happen so fast. Merchants will go from taking one coin for a year of porn to not taking Bitcoin at all, and a bunch of people will be left with worthless Bitcoin.

The reason this can’t happen with government currencies is that government currencies *are* backed. They’re backed by bullets. If demand for USD starts to fall faster than the USG would like, the USG can just raise taxes without increasing spending, increasing demand and reducing supply simultaneously. There’s a bunch of stuff the FED can do, of course, and the FED tends to act first, but its operations are harder to explain. This is obviously not a perfect mechanism, since bubbles are still blown and popped, but even this mechanism is not available with Bitcoin.

Negative feedback loops like this are basically homeostasis. In nature, positive feedback loops like exist with Bitcoin are lethal; the only thing that’s even kept Bitcoin alive this long is its novelty. Either it will remain a novelty forever or it will transition from novelty status to dead faster than you can blink.

via undergroundeconomist.com

This is an interesting and honest critique. I especially like the part about how governments can protect their currencies with bullets. That is so true.

It is true that merchants must update their prices to reflect the current market price of Bitcoin. But there are mechanisms to make this less tedious. For instance, if you use the MyBitcoin.com shopping cart integration, you can peg your product against USD so your BTC price stays in sync. This isn't a perfect solution because getting an accurate peg relies upon the fledgling market data that comes from the Bitcoin exchanges.

Another barrier against the falling price against the BTC value is the use of inventory. This is something somewhat unheard of in USD denominated economies. If you prepare your inventory blocks for multiple sets of price, when you run out of inventory at one price, then inventory in another price becomes available. Welcome to the deflationary economy. It's fun!

Another problem cited by the author above is the problem of having to handle all the zeros after the decimal point. But many government currencies have this same problem in reverse. I.e., they have to handle all the zeros *in front* of the decimal point.

So the author is very worried about Bitcoin deflation. But I am looking forward to it very much. If demand for Bitcoin is that high, it should be very interesting indeed. I, for one, think the coin division isn't prepared *enough*. I think we should be expecting 10^-32, just to be on the safe side. If you have even 50 BTC, right now, hold it. When scarcity *really* sets in, that will be a tidy sum (e.g. if you think 20¢ one-month rise against USD is a lot, you ain't seen nothing yet).

If you liked this post, send me a tip: 1DfDcStVbwjWtuuxQs6vNj1zG7KKDDrekA

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bitcoin May Rise on Demand for Alternative Currencies, Survey Shows

2010-10-20T16:06:00.001-07:00

Bitcoin, which rose to a record this week, may extend its advance on demand for an alternate currencies, a survey found.

Twelve of 18 traders, investors and analysts surveyed that the "crypto-currency" will gain next week. Five forecast lower prices and one was neutral. Bitcoin rose to a record 9.2¢ today by the end of trading on BitcoinMarket.

The dollar yesterday slid to the lowest level against the yen in 15 years and dropped to an eight-month low against the euro on speculation that the Federal Reserve will ease monetary policy more to bolster U.S. growth. The Bank of Japan lowered its main interest rate to “virtually zero” this week.

It is speculated that as long as central banks are willing to be led by the Fed down a never-ending pathway of debasement, bitcoin will continue to rise.

The weekly bitcoin survey that started six months ago has forecast prices accurately in 19 of 33 weeks, or 58 percent of the time.

This week’s survey results: Bullish: 12 Bearish: 5 Neutral: 1

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Special

2010-10-07T16:44:00.001-07:00

The original is here.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

New California Driver License

2010-10-07T11:37:00.001-07:00

Here's an example of what the news paper reports as the new driver license.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

A4 - Span

2010-10-06T13:33:00.001-07:00

Span by Anthony Martin
Download now or listen on posterous

Span.mp3 (4117 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Apprehension in the "New Wine" of Dispensationalism

2010-08-16T21:24:00.001-07:00

If you don't go along with what many in the Church and State define as "Support For Israel" (whatever that means) then you run the risk of being on the wrong side of the debate. I have gone over Romans chapters 9, 10, & 11 several times (in pieces) in response to some people's attempt to get me to climb on board to the "land grant." But apparently I come to the wrong conclusion so I'm thrown back into the brier patch (a phrase with very heavy baggage in my family) where I have to do it over and over again until I come to the right conclusion.

I define a "new wine" doctrine is any eschatology topic that all of the great minds from St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Charles Haddon Spurgeon missed; though they had read I Thessalonians 4, they failed to understand the "important" teaching of a pre-millennial, pre-tribulation rapture. One example of a "new wine" doctrine is when someone says, "If you don't support my politically charged, Zion centered hermeneutic, you are picking a fight with Israel, and that will not go well for you."

Basically, the challenge I am faced with is that Israel and her interests must be supported or else I'll even find myself on the wrong side of the "battle" when it all ends. And unless I get my act together, stop "turning my back" on Israel (whatever that means), and believe what I'm told, it'll turn out poorly form me.

One thing to keep in mind is that I have always maintained that the Old Testament writers did not clearly foresee how their own prophecies were to be fulfilled. The prophecies were fulfilled in ways quite unforeseen by the writers of the Old Testament and unexpected by the Jews of the time of Christ. With regard to the first coming of Christ, the Old Testament is interpreted by the New Testament. A non-dispensational eschatology forms its theology from explicit teaching of the New Testament. This kind of eschatology reveals that the original authors cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end would have been fulfilled.

I am usually faced with a statement that Romans 9, 10, & 11 will "literally come true" for the Jews. I am perennially accused of "turning my back on the Jews" and warned that if I imply such a thing, it is heresy. I am also perennially accused of twisting the word of God to exclude promises to Israel. The people who do this have concluded that Romans 9, 10, & 11 can only mean one thing and since I don't support that conclusion, I preach heresy.

So I'm going to give a rundown of what exactly Romans chapters 9, 10, & 11 mean. Note, I don't mean to imply they mean something to me and something to you. These chapters can only mean what they were intended to mean. And as always, we must allow scripture to interpret scripture, not this relatively new idea of reading the daily paper to interpret scripture, as some suggest.

By the way, here are some of the things I'm not looking for:

... the Anti-Christ
... the 10 lost tribes of Israel
... the mark of the beast
... Gog and Magog
... the "hidden hands" of world Zionism (or the "new world order")
... wars and rumors of wars
... the signs of nature
... the signs of society
... the spiritual signs
... the signs of world politics
... the signs of technology
... the signs of Israel
... weapons of mass destruction
... endless controversy

You can look for them if you want, but to me these are distractions that believers just don't have time for. Maybe your "new wine" doctrine sees them in scripture, I just don't care if they show up today or not. I'm only ever looking for one person today: Jesus Christ, whom God the Father raised from the dead. Yeah, that guy.

To that end, I'll be going straight through Romans 9, 10, & 11, but I'll also take us through a few rabbit-holes as necessary.

Romans 9 - "God's Sovereign Choice"

Here we find in verses 1-5 that Paul himself now records and accounts a rejection of the Gospel by most of his fellow Jews. In verse 1, Paul uses the words, "my conscience ... witness" but it's interesting that scripture itself doesn't define conscience, even though it's used about 30 times. This doesn't mean we are at a loss as to what it means. In Romans 2:15 and Romans 13:5, Paul clearly thinks of "conscience" as moral self-awareness informed by divine revelation. So it's clear Paul is taking special care to make a lawful oath to swear what he writes with sincerity.

In verses 2-3, Paul takes personal anguish and echos the sentiments of Moses in the face of the unbelief of the Jews (Exodus 32:30-32), even while he is the apostle to the Gentiles. The Jews are his own countrymen and he agonizes over them in love, such that he'd be willing to suffer God's curse for them.

Paul uses the words "to them ... the adoption" in verse 4 to confirm his earlier statement in Romans 3:1-2; here there were eightfold privileges juxtaposed to their magnified unbelief and rejection that (verse 5) Jesus Christ is God and man (John 1:14).

As of verse 6, we see that the word of God delivers the promise and plan which will be the God of Abraham's seed (Genesis 17:7-8). In the Old Testament era, natural descent did not automatically guarantee inheritance of the promise. God chose who should inherit it. This argument and principle is evident in the families of Abraham and Isaac. Paul's case of Jacob and Esau clinches this argument in three ways, because ...

... they were twins, as nearly equal in nature as possible.
... the purpose of God reversed even the small distinction that did exist, by causing the older brother to serve the younger.
... the purpose of God was stated before they were born (and therefore was not dependent on their actions).

Election (verse 11) is not based on foreseen actions, deeds, or even faith. Rather, it is based on God's sovereign predestinating grace. In fact, (verse 13) this distinguishing purpose of God in election is further confirmed by the words of Malachi 1:3-4, which explain God's love to Israel as rooted in His free choice of Jacob rather than Esau. "Hated" here cannot be reduced to "loved less," as the context of Malachi 1:3-4 makes clear. It must carry the sense of rejection and antipathy (enmity).

In verse14, "what shall we say then" should be compared to Romans 8:31, "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?" Paul recognizes that his previous statement cannot be allowed to pass without further comment. Could the distinguishing sovereign purpose of God throw into jeopardy His attribute of perfect righteousness? The idea is clearly unthinkable, "by no means" (Paul uses the same kind of language in Romans 6:2, 15; 7:7).

Paul explains why "by no means" by citing two biblical texts (Exodus 33:19; 9:16) in verses 15, 17, from which he concludes that God is righteous in showing mercy to some while He hardens the hearts of others. When God shows mercy it is not a person receiving a reward earned by one's own efforts, but God's sovereign free grace extended to persons who are morally incapable of any acceptable effort (Romans 1:8-3:20). God owes mercy to none, so there is no injustice when mercy is not shown. Mercy is a divine prerogative (God's own); it rests on God's good pleasure. When God hardens Pharaoh's heart (verse 18), He does not create fresh evil in it, but gives Pharaoh over to his already evil desires as an act of judgment, resulting eventually in God's display of power (verse 22) in the destruction of Pharaoh's army (Exodus 4:21; 14:17-18; 23-28). It was God who thus spoke to Pharaoh through Moses (Exodus 9:16), but for Paul the words of Scripture and the voice and authority of God are one.

As in verse 19, "Why does he still find fault?" What right can God lay the blame for their sins on those He has hardened against Himself? Paul answers partially in terms of human experience (verses 20-21). It is unreasonable and irreverent for anyone to question the rightness of God's ways. Potters have every right to do as they please with the clay (Isaiah 64:8). All belong to the same lump (compare verses 10-13) of fallen humanity in Adam (Romans 5:12-14); all actively sin even before God hardens them in sinning (Romans 1:18-28). That God should show mercy to any from the "Adamic" lump and create vessels of honor from it is the kindness of grace; that others should become vessels for lesser use is a matter of His sovereign prerogative and is itself a display of perfect justice towards them.

So who resists His will? Everyone!

Where we see (verse 23) "... which he has prepared beforehand," the "predestination" word is often used to signify God's foreordaining of all the events of world history (past, present, and future). The usage is quite appropriate. In Scripture and reformed theology, however, "predestination" refers specifically to God's decision, made in eternity before the world existed, regarding the final destination of individual persons. In general, the New Testament speaks of predestination, or election, of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life (see Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:4-5, 11), although Scripture also on occasion ascribes to God an advance decision about those who are finally not saved (here in verses 6-29; 1 Peter 2:8; Jude 4). For this reason, it is usual in reformed theology to define predestination as including both God's decision to save some from sin (election) and the corresponding decision not to save others (reprobation).

Let me take a break from Romans and explain this predestination rabbit-hole a little more fully.

It is sometimes asserted that God's choice of individuals for salvation is based on His foreknowledge that they would choose Christ as their Savior. Foreknowledge in this case means passive foresight by God of what individuals will do apart from His foreordaining their actions; But there are weighty objections to the view that election is based on passive foresight.

"Foreknown" in Romans 8:29; 11:2 (clarified in 1 Peter 1:2, 20) indicates not only an advanced recognition, but also an advance choice by God of His people. It does not express the idea of a spectator's passive anticipation of what will happen spontaneously. God's knowledge of His people in Scripture implies a special relationship of loving choice (Genesis 18:19).

Since all are naturally dead in sin (cut off from the life of God and unresponsive to Him), no one who hears the Gospel will ever come to repentance and faith without the inner renewal that only God can impart (Ephesians 2:4-10). Jesus said, "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65, also clarified in John 6:44; 10:25-28). Sinners choose Christ because God chose them first, and moved them to their choice by graciously renewing their hearts.

Though all human acts are free in the sense of immediate self-determination, such acts are also the outworking of God's eternal purpose and foreordination. We have difficulty understanding precisely how divine sovereignty and human freedom and responsibility are compatible, but Scripture everywhere assumes that they are so (Acts 2:23; 4:28, et al.).

Christians should thank God for their conversion, look to Him to keep them in His grace, and wait with confidence for His final triumph, according to His plan.

Ok, done I'm done with that rabbit-hole, so back to Romans 9.

In verses 23-29, Paul does not elaborate on the preparation in view. The addition of "beforehand" in connection with the vessels of mercy may be pointing to the mercy that originates in God's good pleasure from eternity (Romans 8:29-30), while the wrath in view is in direct response to existing ungodliness and unrighteousness (for further clarification on this idea, see Romans 1:18-32). The distinction between elect and reprobate does not lie in anything in themselves (all deserve wrath), but exclusively in the will of God. Within the context here, however, the objects prepared for destruction experience wrath that is the only possible and just reward for sin.

Romans 9 - "Israel's Unbelief"

As in verse 30, "What shall we say, then ..." See verse 14 for the same language, yet again. Having accounted for Jewish unbelief in terms of divine sovereignty, Paul now diagnoses it as due to a fatal prior commitment to a false way of righteousness. Divine sovereignty and the guilt of human willfulness are for Paul two aspects of reality. By God's grace and sovereignty, Gentiles who did not seek God's righteousness have now received it through faith in Christ, but Israel as a people have failed to receive it because they sought it by basically a legal means in which it could not be found. Christ has been a stumbling stone for the Jews (this image is from Isaiah 8:14; 26:16) over which they have fallen (compare verses 32-33 to 1 Peter 2:8).

Paul probably has the Mosaic law in view again (verse 31). The mistake that the Jews have made lies not in what they pursued, but in the manner of pursuing it ("not by faith, but ... works," verse 32).

Romans 10 - "Israel's Unbelief, cont."

In verse 1, Israel's unbelief is developed by Paul more as a heartfelt appeal to the sympathy of his fellow Christians, the poignancy of which is underlined by his recent reference to his relatives of the flesh (also defined back in Romans 9:3), "that they may be saved." Paul's concern in chapter 9 was with the salvation of the Jews, not merely with their role in this overall redemptive history that follows. Paul speaks in verse 2 from personal experience, as to both the reality of the zeal and its wrong-headed and wrong-hearted character (same in Philippians 3:4-6).

Paul contrasts the divinely established righteousness with a person's efforts to establish one's own, in verse 3. Also, the word "establish" is covenant language (like in Genesis 6:18; 17:7). We express our love for God through doing what pleases Him, and He in His kindness promises to reward us for what we do. As St. Augustine noted, God in rewarding us is graciously crowning His own gracious gifts. But even in the context of the covenant God had made with the Jews, they perverted His grace by seeing it as dependent on their own works of law-keeping.

Yet, in verse 4, we see that Christ is the goal or purpose of law-keeping (Galatians 3:24). For believers, Christ makes the law obsolete because they no longer strive to establish their own righteousness by it.

Romans 10 - "The Message of Salvation to All"

Paul's quotation from Leviticus 18:5 is set originally in the context of God's redemptive grace requiring a person's responsive obedience (Leviticus 18:2, clarified further in Exodus 20:1-17); it is not a statement about self-established righteousness. Deuteronomy exhibits God's salvation as achieved not by humanity's strenuous efforts, but by divine grace bringing it near. In particular, Deuteronomy 30 sets this in context of an anticipated return from exile/judgment (specifically Deuteronomy 30:1-6). Paul sees this fulfilled in the new covenant by verse 6 in Christ (Jeremiah 31:31-34, clarified in 2 Corinthians 3:7-18). Thus Christ was the end (goal) of the Mosaic law. To seek a self-established righteousness now is equivalent of attempting to do what God alone could do and has done in Christ's incarnation and resurrection. By contrast with all human efforts, God has brought near the word of salvation, and with it salvation itself.

In the parallelism of verse 10, Paul reverses the order of verbs in verse 9 and thereby indicates that heart-belief and mouth-confession belong together for justification ("righteousness") and salvation (verse 11).

In verse 12, this lack of distinction is confirmed not only by the unity of universal kindness of God, but specifically again by teaching of the Old Testament in Joel 2:32, the statement so dramatically fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:21).

In verses 13-15, we have an analysis of what is involved when anyone calls on the name of the Lord in order to be saved. "Him in whom," is literally "Him whom," which is an indication that for Paul, Christ Himself is the one true preacher of the Gospel (this idea is clarified in Ephesians 2:17; John 10:16). The ministry of preaching Christ is therefore one of great honor, hence the quotation in from Isaiah 52:7 (as in 2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

The immediate context of the citation in verse 18 from Psalm 19:4 is that of God's great general revelation (fuller context: Psalm 19:1-3). Paul's use of it here is used to prove from Scripture that Israel has heard the message of God, which implies that his quotation of this section of the psalm carries with it the teaching of the entire psalm. It speaks of both general revelation in nature and special revelation in His word. The latter takes place in the context of the former. The underlying logic: If those without special revelation have heard the message of God's glory in creation, how much more have those who received special revelation heard that message?

So the failure of the Jews (verses 19-21) cannot be excused because they did not hear the message or because they could not understand it. Moses and Isaiah contrast God's own people with those who lack understanding (as in Deuteronomy 32:21) with those who were not God-seekers but who were brought to know Him (as in Isaiah 65:1).

Romans 11 - "The Remnant of Israel"

Now, Paul pointedly asks whether God has rejected His people (verse 1). The verb "rejected" conveys the sense of vigorous pushing away from Himself. The form of the question in the Greek anticipates a negative answer. I.e., Paul has an impeccable lineage that can be traced back to Abraham as well as Benjamin. Paul himself is evidence that God has not fully and finally rejected the people whom He set His love. Just as a believing remnant could be found in Israel in Elijah's day, so there continues to be a remnant formed by God's grace. There is a hint in verse 2 that God's special love and gracious choice of the Jews makes it unthinkable that He should finally reject them as a people, even though they have now rejected Him by rejecting Christ. By grace the elect obtained the salvation they sought. The rest were hardened.

In Elijah's time, there was wholesale apostasy, and yet the pretense of a remnant of the faithful (verse 5) indicated that God had not fully and finally rejected His people. Paul's thinking about the remnant is rooted in the teaching of Isaiah, whose son Shear-jashub's name means "a remnant shall return" (Isaiah 7:3, clarified by Romans 9:27; Isaiah 1:9; 6:13; 10:20-22; 11:11-16).

But again, in verse 6, the way of grace is contrasted with works of the law (Romans 3:20, 27-28; 4:2, 6; 9:12, 32). There is a biblical pattern cited in verses 8-10 that describes the divine activity in judicial hardening of hearts (Deuteronomy 29:4; Isaiah 2910; Psalm 69:22-23). This is a pattern Paul repeats in his own day.

Romans 11 - "Gentiles Grafted In"

The rejection of the Jewish people is neither total nor final. Just as the rejection of Christ in favor of the law among the Jews has led to the acceptance of the Gospel in spite of the law among the Gentiles, so God means to use the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to envy the Gentiles' blessings (verse 11), leading to their salvation by the same Gospel and correspondingly greater riches than would have resulted by the law.

Again, Paul questions if "they stumble in order that they might fall" in anticipation of an answer in the negative. The Jews' rejection of Christ is not irreversible. Paul sees a pattern and purpose behind the unbelief of which the Jews are guilty. The pattern of his thought in verse 11 is as follows:

... the transgression of the Jews has lead to the justification of the Gentiles.
... the salvation of the Gentiles will cause the Jews to envy.
... the envy of the Jews will draw them to the same salvation as the Gentiles through the Gospel.

Of course, "full inclusion" in verse 12 can only signify their reception of Christ and their restoration to God. But the more difficult question is whether the term "full" points to a) a full restoration of the remnant or b) to the full restoration of the full number of the nation in any sense. I have to admit the second seems to fit better in the general direction of the later part of the passage (verses 25-32), but I am skeptical of this interpretation when people use it to support the "new wine" doctrine.

Let me take another little break from Romans to ask some questions.

Why my skepticism about what "full inclusion" means? A "new wine" dispensational teaching says that the rapture will happen when Israel suddenly has a large Christian population, and they routinely cite Romans 11:12 as evidence for this. At the moment, my news paper reports 40% of Lebanese are Christians. How does that compare to the Christian population in Israel? And how will it compare under the "new wine" teaching that will "trigger" the rapture? If Israel is only 99% Christian, are we still "rapture safe?"

But oh, that's right. Not all of Israel is Israel. So 99% is probably excluded as being the "trigger" threshold. So we really don't know what "trigger" the ratio really is. It is foolish to fascinate over this unknown. The "full inclusion" ratio is defined by God and kept a secret so it's no more important than any other statistic of any other nation. In fact, to focus on the "trigger" event is to miss the whole point of what Paul was saying in verse 12, i.e., "If it's good for the world that the Jews missed Christ, how much better for the world will it be that they find Him?"

Again we go back to Romans 11.

So why does Paul single out the Gentiles in the church at Rome at verse 13? Actually, this is made clear in verses 17-24. Paul also provides unique insight into his thinking about his own ministry to the Gentiles; it too has his own Jewish people in view, with regard to Romans 9:19; 11:11 (also see Acts 9:15; Ephesians 3:1; Galatians 2:8). The phrase "life from the dead" in verse 15 is probably indicating unprecedented blessing. Although some theorize the phrase refers to general resurrection of the last day, with an understanding (as in verse 12) that the conversion of the Jews is to be an event of the end times, an immediate herald of the final resurrection, I have my doubts because the theory here in verse 15 depends heavily on a wording that is slightly different from Paul's normal usage (i.e. "life from the dead" vs. "resurrection from the dead," see 1 Corinthians 15:12-13, 21, 42).

Another quick break from Romans to make a quick point about my parenthesis in the last section..

Why do I make a distinction of "life from the dead" vs. "resurrection from the dead" written by Paul? Because I think "life from the dead" literally means salvation, whereas "resurrection from the dead" literally means exiting a grave. I could be wrong and there is no material distinction. But yes, I think Paul is being literal in both cases. To confuse the two would introduce implications Paul never intended. Yes, they have similar spiritual connections that should not be ignored. But words have specific meaning and we should stick to those meanings if we are to make any sense of theology.

Therefore, we can't conclude definitively that Romans 11:15 is talking about a final resurrection event of the end times.

Returning to Romans 11.

In verse 16, Paul applies the principle that the first-fruits spiritually serve a a pledge of the final harvest (as originally explained in Numbers 15:17-21). In keeping with the harvest theme, take a look at Jeremiah 11:16; Hosea 14:6. In verse 17, we see that Israel is an olive tree that has had wild shoots grafted into it. These wild shoots bring fresh vitality because Gentiles have been grafted into the people of God "contrary to nature" (verse 24). Because the Gentiles' salvation is entirely by grace, they have no cause for boasting or despising their fellow Jewish believers. Such Gentile arrogance (verse 18) in relation to Jews would just mirror the same old spiritual pride that led to the Jews' hardening (see Romans 2:17).

The retort to Paul in verse 19 is formally true, that the breaking off of the Jewish branches was an act of righteous judgment on unbelief, and the ingrafting of the Gentiles is a matter of grace and therefore of faith. Their ingrafting is not therefore based on any superior quality of the Gentiles. The fear mentioned (verse 20) is to inspire a tender-spirited awe, not arrogance, as the appropriate response to God's grace.

Note, we need to avoid errors in two extremes with verse 17-24. Some would deny Gentile New Covenant believers the right given to Gentile Old Covenant believers, that is, the right to the name "Israel" and full and absolutely equal status as part of the people of God. These have claimed that the Church and Israel are two separate peoples of God and have nothing to do with each other. According to this view, God has two separate peoples and two separate plans. This view essentially denies full glory to Jesus and the gospel. In effect it says the salvation which has come in the Messiah is only a plan, not the plan and all who believe are not the recipients of all blessings, just some (clarification 1 Peter 1:3-12; Ephesians 1:3). Those of the other extreme have claimed that God is finished with the Jewish people as a people (though not as individuals) and say the Church has replaced the Jewish people and become the only true Israel. In such a theology the Jewish people themselves are incorrectly denied any use of the name Israel.

Neither extreme is correct. The first extreme fails to see the centrality of Jesus in the meaning of Israel and the second fails to see the continuation of the Jewish people in the purpose of God as a people who are still heirs to the Covenants as taught by Romans 9:4 and further ahead from here in 28-29. I think good theology must be Biblical rather than a polemical (or straw man) overreaction to error.

We need to affirm the Biblical position that all believers are grafted in to the tree of Israel, whether they are natural or "wild" branches, and that God can, and will, graft in once again the natural branches, the Jewish people (here in verses 11-24). Gentiles need to recognize that they have been grafted into Israel, and therefore have a certain kinship with the Jewish people. Jews are no less Jewish for believing in Jesus. Jews do not become Gentiles when they come to Jesus, rather all who trust in the Jewish Messiah and serve Him are part of that Spiritual tree rooted in the Patriarchs.

Romans 11 - "The Mystery of Israel's Salvation"

Paul's reasoning in verses 25-32 has been understood in perhaps three major ways:

... showing how God saves all of His elect people (e.g. "all Israel" in verse 26 being taken as basically synonymous with the church, that is, spiritual Israel).
... showing how God saves all the elect of Israel who are predestined to be saved.
... showing how God will, in the future, bring such widespread salvation to the Jewish people that, in an obvious general sense, it can be said that "all Israel will be saved."

While not without difficulties, some form of the last view above seems most likely for the following reasons. First, hints of it seem to appear already in verses 11-12, 15-16, & 24. Second, verse 25 suggests that and end to the partial hardening of Israel is in view. Third, the Israel mentioned in verse 26 is not naturally interpreted as signifying a different entity from the Israel mentioned in verses 1-24 and verses 28-31, where national Israel (not spiritual Israel) is in view. Fourth, a mystery in verse 25 would seem inappropriate and exaggerated if Paul's teaching were simply that all elect Jews would be saved. Finally, the third view fits well with the quotations in verses 26-27 from Isaiah 59:20-21; 27:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34, which appear to speak of a comprehensive banishment of that sin that has been the cause of Israel's alienation from God.

Let me take a moment to point out one example I can demonstrate about promises being fulfilled literally vs. spiritually. Moses was promised a city, but he died in a tent. Isn't that right? God prophesied that he would be given a city, and instead, he died in a tent. In fact, all of the Old Testament prophets, judges, and "men of old" did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect. But we accept this at least partially spiritualized fulfillment.

The mystery in verse 25 is a divine secret that has now been revealed. Some interpreters conclude that what immediately follows constitutes the mystery (the widespread conversion of the Jews). But others hold that the mystery is in the pattern of God's working in the Jew-Gentile interrelationship referred to in verse 11. The "fullness" term may be taken to have a specific numerical connotation.

The term "has come in" is an expression used infrequently by Paul, but commonplace in the Gospels to describe the entrance into life or the Kingdom of God.

The term "all Israel" is a critical expression at this point in Paul's argument and one who's meaning is much debated. It could mean "all (spiritual) Israel," that is, all elect persons both Jew and Gentile. Alternately, it may also mean "all" Israel in the sense of "all Jews destined to be saved throughout history." Or, as suggested earlier, it may point to a time of mass conversion among Jewish people. The exegesis of "all Israel" will depend heavily on the interpretation and weight of other factors in the passage.

That the Deliverer will come from Zion in verse 26 is a reference to Psalm 14:7 (the place where God most personally and directly revealed his presence, from the Father); Isaiah 27:9 (their debt to divine justice for their idolatry will be paid on a national level after the destruction of their high places by atonement, from the Son); 59:20-21 (by and with the Word in our hearts from the Holy Spirit). And the gifts are irrevocable in verse 29.

So Paul's argument concludes at verse 30 in a manner parallel to Romans 3:19-21, stressing that Jew and Gentile are united in two things: the disobedience of sin, and the offer to them of the mercy of God. The wisdom and sovereignty of God's grace are demonstrated in the way in which His purposes are fulfilled: the disobedience of the Jew leads to God's mercy reaching the Gentiles; the mercy of God to the Gentiles leads to the reception of mercy by the Jews. There is no difference. All (Jew and Gentile alike) have sinned (Romans 3:23), and God has mercy on both (Romans 1:16).

Having drawn together the various threads of his argument, in verses 33-36, Paul now responds in lyrical fashion with a song of praise that reaches heights that correspond to the depth of concern he had sounded in Romans 9:2-3. God's dealings with Jew and Gentile display a cross-section of His majesty in which His sovereign will ("from him"), His sovereign activity ("through him"), and His sovereign glory ("to him") are richly displayed.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

The Prime Directive is Immoral

2010-08-11T20:02:00.001-07:00

Remember The Prime Directive from Star Trek? It is Starfleet's General Order #1, the most prominent guiding principle of the United Federation of Planets. And it is totally and 100% morally bankrupt.

The Prime Directive is defined thusly:

WHEREAS, the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred.
WHEREAS, interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United Federation of Planets, in meeting duly assembled, accepts and supports the following findings: No Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

The Prime Directive violates morality since this moral behavior should be preferred (or proscribed) for all Starfleet personnel in all places at all times (i.e., universal). Starfleet is included as a protected culture since no exemption of any culture is listed.

For a proposition to be defined as moral, it must advocate a logically consistent set that violates The Prime Directive, such as “do not interfere.”

Anyone who argues for The Prime Directive must do so using clear language, arguments, logic and evidence; all based on the principle that truth is better than falsehood.

Clear language, argument, logic and evidence (and a universal preference for truth over falsehood) are all examples against The Prime Directive because the United Federation of Planets can only argue The Prime Directive by violating The Prime Directive. This assumes anyone who argues is acting on the premise that clear language is universally preferred to gibberish, logic to illogic, and truth to falsehood.

Since The Prime Directive can be opposed by accepting the premise of The Prime Directive, it must stand as an invalid concept.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

The Good Stuff

2010-07-04T14:51:00.001-07:00

I am told I am a very negative person and I don't say enough good things about the United States. Well, part of that is because we so often base our perception of the US as being its government. But the people are the rulers, thus the elected officials are the servant government. At least, that's how it should be. There is also supposed to be a division between a country's private sector and its public sector, otherwise we have state run for-profit initiatives, which is a bad thing (fascism).

So I've decided to look for the good things about American, inside and outside the government. This is by no means an exhaustive list. This is more-or-less a grouping of accolades and accomplishments I've singled out for specific reasons.

And remember, all praise is relative opinion.

Warren G. Harding

I was asked who my favorite president was in the last 150 years. Off the bat, President Warren G. Harding came to mind. The reason is, when they started to see economic problems, his solution was to invite his buddies over to the White House to play cards and drink booze.

I like that approach. Doing nothing was a pretty good plan. True Laissez-faire.

In other words, he did nothing and the economic problems subsided quickly. But in the process of doing nothing, he also allowed the Federal Reserve System to continue to exist, so that was a Bad Thing. Not his fault, but not something he saw fit to fix either.

Harry Truman

There had to be another president on my list, so after doing a little more research, I've decided Harry Truman is another favorite. He did a lot more than nothing. He got the federal government out of the way of the free market. He started to restore the gold standard after the war. He repealed price controls that were put in place for the war. In other words, he did things that were detrimental to the growth of the Federal Government. He took his oath seriously.

Any president who puts us back on the gold standard gets a AAA rating in my book. If Bush had done it even after all of what has happened, even after saying, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system," I would have given him a AAA rating if he would have at least put us back on the gold standard. Keep in mind, if Bush did that, the dollar would probably have to be revalued to $40,000 per gold ounce instead of $35 like in Truman's day, but that's a step in the right direction (I just pulled that number out of the air, same place the dollar comes from).

SpaceX

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) is an American space-transportation startup company founded by PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. It is developing partially reusable launch vehicles - the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 - and the Dragon series of space capsules.

Source: Wikipedia

The reason this is impressive is that they did this in spite of all the resistance and interference of the government. But it also illustrates where private industry is technologically.

Chinese Food

Technically, I'm referring to American-Chinese Food, but this 15 minute video sums it all up:

Is America Number One?

Here's an ABC special from late 1999 featuring John Stossel. It's 40 minutes long and outlines exactly why I'm happy to be here.

Coming To America

So there you have it. That's the good stuff about America. I'm sure there's a lot more, but remember, I'm a curmudgeon.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Save PDF to iTunes (for iBooks)

2010-06-30T09:38:00.001-07:00

Want to read a PDF in iBooks? This is how you do it for Mac OS X users (assumes iOS 4, iTunes 9.2):

Create a folder called "PDF Services" in your Library folder (~/Library/PDF Services).
Create an alias of iTunes (right-click on Applications/iTunes, click Make Alias).
Drag the new alias (called iTunes alias) to PDF Services.
Rename the alias to "Save PDF to iTunes".

Now you can "Save PDF to iTunes" in any app that understand what that means. So really, that's any app that can print. For instance, if you double-click on a PDF, it'll usually open in Preview. Click on File, Print..., PDF, Save PDF to iTunes. Now the PDF will be in iBooks next time you sync.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Your Token Government

2010-06-13T18:34:00.001-07:00

As part of an ongoing dialog with fellow Christians, when the discussion leads to politics, as it does many times, my position seems to perplex. Many times, it boils down to the question, "What is the legitimate role of government?"

And if you know me, the answer I give is none whatsoever.

I concede that if we are forced to have a government, then the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and private property. Or, to put it even more simply, the role of government is to protect individual rights. Anything more is an overstep of bounds.

But if we are forced to have a government, that force can go beyond the original role. Why? Because it was forced upon us in the first place.

Yet this is what people probably mean when they say they are in favor of small government. They're in favor of small force, hoping that it won't become big force. Of course, this also turns on the notion that any person in favor of government smaller than you  like is considered to be some kind of anarchist.

With Christians, the discussion leads to Romans 13 and other parts of scripture. Ok, so if that's you, then here's a question for you:

How can anyone defend small government using Romans 13? I don't think the original audience saw Rome as a small government.

Also if you can manage to demonstrate that small government is authorized by Romans 13, how small can it be before it becomes unbiblical?

Well, I have yet to get a good answer to those questions.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling

2010-05-03T11:17:00.000-07:00

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Hannah's Birthday Party

2010-05-01T18:47:00.001-07:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Without the Gospel

2010-04-19T09:20:00.001-07:00

What difference does the gospel make? What difference does it make in your life? These are good questions to ask, I think, and good answers to ponder. How does your belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ impact your life? In what way is your life, even your Christian life, distinctly different because of the gospel?

Here is a quote I found somewhere or another, that addresses these questions head-on. It comes from the pen of John Calvin.

Without the gospel everything is useless and vain; without the gospel we are not Christians; without the gospel all riches is poverty, all wisdom folly before God; strength is weakness, and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God. But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children of God, brothers of Jesus Christ, fellow townsmen with the saints, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, heirs of God with Jesus Christ, by whom the poor are made rich, the weak strong, the fools wise, the sinner justified, the desolate comforted, the doubting sure, and slaves free. It is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe.

It follows that every good thing we could think or desire is to be found in this same Jesus Christ alone. For, he was sold, to buy us back; captive, to deliver us; condemned, to absolve us; he was made a curse for our blessing, sin offering for our righteousness; marred that we may be made fair; he died for our life; so that by him fury is made gentle, wrath appeased, darkness turned into light, fear reassured, despisal despised, debt canceled, labor lightened, sadness made merry, misfortune made fortunate, difficulty easy, disorder ordered, division united, ignominy ennobled, rebellion subjected, intimidation intimidated, ambush uncovered, assaults assailed, force forced back, combat combated, war warred against, vengeance avenged, torment tormented, damnation damned, the abyss sunk into the abyss, hell transfixed, death dead, mortality made immortal. In short, mercy has swallowed up all misery, and goodness all misfortune.

For all these things which were to be the weapons of the devil in his battle against us, and the sting of death to pierce us, are turned for us into exercises which we can turn to our profit. If we are able to boast with the apostle, saying, O hell, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? it is because by the Spirit of Christ promised to the elect, we live no longer, but Christ lives in us; and we are by the same Spirit seated among those who are in heaven, so that for us the world is no more, even while our conversation [life] is in it; but we are content in all things, whether country, place, condition, clothing, meat, and all such things. And we are comforted in tribulation, joyful in sorrow, glorying under vituperation [verbal abuse], abounding in poverty, warmed in our nakedness, patient amongst evils, living in death.

This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father.

via challies.com

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Yunjin Kim with NY Mag

2010-04-07T15:47:00.001-07:00

via lostspoilers-odi.blogspot.com

My theory: I think Jin will cross over to the sideways timeline. They will trade places then each be reunited with the wrong Sun.

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

iPhone Forgets Where Audiobooks and Podcasts Left Off

2010-03-27T10:16:00.001-07:00

Problem solved. I've had ongoing problems with my iPhone forgetting where audiobooks and podcasts left off. It's very frustrating and, naturally, causes me to give up on long audio. A friend gave me a quick-and-dirty suggestion to help avoid the frustration without actually addressing the root cause. He suggested that I take a screen capture (hold the "home" button, then hit the "power/sleep" button) to record how much progress has been made listening to a particular track.

That's all well and good. It's a workaround when you're away from your desktop and just have to keep track of where you are. But a better solution is to get iPhone to remember where you are like it's supposed to.

The solution is begin with a regular sync to your desktop in iTunes. Then, after that is complete, click the "Restore" button. I know this sounds scary. And yes, it will result in a factory fresh reset of your phone. This takes a long time to perform, but after that, you're not done. After your phone has been wiped, restore your last backup. If iTunes won't ask you which backup to restore automatically, you can tell it by holding Option and clicking the "Restore" button again.

This time, it'll ask you where the backup is that you'd like to restore. Navigate to the backup directory, which is:

On Mac OS X: /Users/[username]/Library/Application Support/MobileSync/Backup/ On Windows XP: \Documents and Settings\[username]\Application Data\Apple Computer\MobileSync\Backup\ On Windows Vista and Windows 7: \Users\[username]\AppData\Roaming\Apple Computer\MobileSync\Backup\

Remember to replace [username] above with your user name.

Once this long process is complete, you'll be able to resume audio. Some things will be missing, like certain password settings, which you'll have to reenter. And believe me, there were probably other things wrong with your iPhone that were fixed by doing this.

As with all kinds of data recovery, your mileage may vary. Make sure your backups are up-to-date before performing this operation. Be advised, there is no warranty, implied or otherwise, in association with this author and the advise herein.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Providing Effective Services

2010-03-21T13:52:00.001-07:00

If you were doing business with an organization that made the same mistake fifty times and, try as they might, they were never able to correct the problem, would you continue doing business with them?

Say you want a nice New York style cheesecake for your dear old mother's birthday each year. Every year, you go to the same bakery, and every year, for fifty years, they fail to print her name on the cake correctly. And her name is Gurtrude, so maybe you understand it's not the easiest name to get right. But would you really go back to the same bakery year after year, times fifty?

If this was the only bakery in town, maybe you'd eventually go to the next town, just to see if someone, anyone, can get her name right, just once.

Or maybe you'd attempt to write the happy birthday message yourself. How hard can it be? At this point, you might reason that if a bakery can't handle this, what makes anyone think they can produce a tasty cheesecake in the first place? You might just make your own.

In other words, you have options. That fact alone keeps stuff like this from happening fifty times in real life. After about the third time, the bakery will realize they need to handle the problem because they're losing business because of their own ineptitude.

So this other story didn't take place over the course of fifty years like my illustration. But a mistake was made fifty times (and cheesecake was involved, although it wasn't part of the ongoing problem).

This should help illustrate two things.

First, monopoly is a bad idea. If an organization is able to remove choice and alternatives, how can effective pressure be applied to that organization if it has systemic flaws? The only way to initiate change in such an organization is from the inside. But the removal of choice and alternatives means internal change has less, if any, motive.

Second, if they can't fix this problem, an honest mistake, what assurance does anyone have to expect other more serious problems to be addressed, especially when they can so easily be hidden by the thin blue line?

NYC cops sorry for pounding couple's door 50 times

NEW YORK (AP) - Cheesecake in hand, the police commissioner personally apologized Friday for the 50 or so mistaken, door-pounding visits that police have made to the home of a bewildered elderly Brooklyn couple in the past eight years.

It seems a glitch in computer records had led them over and over to Walter and Rose Martin's modest home in the Marine Park neighborhood, about 7 miles southeast of the Brooklyn Bridge.

The most recent intrusion came Tuesday, with officers pounding on both the front and back doors, yelling "Police, open up!"

On Thursday, detectives from the NYPD's Identity Theft Squad went to see the Martins again - this time to apologize. "And we wanted to be sure perps weren't using that address for identity theft," NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne told The Associated Press on Friday.

The detectives told 82-year-old Rose and 83-year-old Walter that Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly had ordered them to solve the problem, which started eight years ago and was first reported this week in the New York Daily News.

To bring home the sincerity of the NYPD's contrition, Kelly showed up Friday at the Martin's house with a gift: New York cheesecake.

The commissioner rolled into the quiet Brooklyn neighborhood at midday, stopping in front of the Martins' small, neatly kept house, a large American flag fluttering by the front door.

Kelly "went to apologize - and to explain," Browne said. "They expressed appreciation that the police commissioner came and they showed him pictures of their grandchildren."

The snafu started in 2002, when police used the Brooklyn address as part of what Browne called "random material" to test an automated computer system that tracks crime complaints and records of other internal police information. Before that, the work was done manually.

The couple first complained about the harrowing police visits in 2007, when Rose Martin wrote a letter to Kelly. "And we identified the problem then," Browne said. "It was a mistake by the police department."

Police wiped the Martins' address from the system.

Or so they thought, Browne said. Instead, the visits continued, and some computer files bearing the Martins' address stayed in the system.

"We thought all the test data had been purged, but apparently it had not," Browne said. "The Martins' address ended up migrating to various complaint forms and warrant information."

Most of the visits came in 2006 and 2007, he said. After the latest, "We realized we still had a problem and went back and further purged the records," the deputy commissioner conceded.

To make sure it will never happen again, Browne said the address has been flagged with alerts, so if there's any record indicating officers should question the Martins, "they're barred from doing it."

Rose Martin has asked the department to write her an official letter to that effect.

"It seems like too simple a correction for something that has been going on for eight years," she told the New York Daily News, which first reported the story.

"I'm not feeling well today," she told the AP after the commissioner's visit, adding that neither she nor her husband could comment.

But they did their best to carry on their business. Walter Martin left the house briefly to walk the dog, with a young man helping him.

Source: AP

I have attached a podcast short (25 minute) episode from "School Sucks Podcast: The END of Public Education" that explains how government provides services versus how regular people provide services. The only difference is that this podcast episode uses education to illustrate the business plan. But it's the same for any government service, including police and public education.

Episode 1: The "Business" Plan by School Sucks Podcast: The End Of Public Education
Download now or listen on posterous

Episode 1_ The _Business_ Plan.mp3 (17381 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Playing With Buzz

2010-03-20T20:05:00.001-07:00

Download now or listen on posterous

Memo.m4a (4025 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

TJ KONG

2010-03-20T10:15:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

2010-03-17T13:17:00.001-07:00

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]

[CITE: 13USC221]

[Page 27-28]

TITLE 13--ST. PATRIC'S DAY

CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER PERSONS

Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully

neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized

officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency

thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized

officer, to wear green, to the best of his knowledge, any of the attire

on any article submitted to him in connection with any ST. PATRIC'S DAY

or wearing green provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter

5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs

or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the

occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.

(b) Whoever, when wearing green described in subsection (a) of

this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in

such subsection, willfully wear green that is false, shall be fined not

more than $500.

shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious

beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

(Aug. 31, 1954, ch. 1158, 68 Stat. 1023; Pub. L. 85-207, Sec. 15, Aug.

28, 1957, 71 Stat. 484; Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13, Oct. 17, 1976, 90 Stat.

2465.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., Secs. 122, 209, and section

1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed., The Public Health and Welfare (June

18, 1929, ch. 28, Sec. 9, 46 Stat. 23; June 19, 1948, ch. 502, Sec. 2,

62 Stat. 479; July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title VI, Sec. 607, 63 Stat. 441).

Section consolidates the first paragraph of section 209 of title 13,

U.S.C., 1952 ed., which section related to the annual ST. PATRIC'S DAYS

of population, agriculture, etc. (see subchapter II of chapter 5 of this

revised title). For remainder of sections 122 and 209 of title 13, U.S.C.,

1952 ed., and of section 1442 of title 42, U.S.C., 1952 ed. (which section

has been transferred in its entirety to this revised title), see

Distribution Table.

The language of section 209 of title 13, U.S.C., 1952 ed., providing

that it should ``be the duty'' of all persons over eighteen years of

age, to wear green correctly, to the best of their knowledge, when

requested, etc., was omitted as unnecessary and redundant. The

provisions, as herein revised, define offenses and prescribe penalties

for committing them, and are deemed sufficient for the purpose of

enforcement. However, some of the language used in the omitted

provisions was necessarily included in the description of the offense.

[[Page 28]]

The designation of the first offense, herein described, as a

``misdemeanor'', was omitted as covered by section 1 of title 18,

U.S.C., 1952 ed., Crimes and Criminal Procedure, classifying crimes; and

words ``upon conviction thereof'' were omitted as surplusage.

References to the Secretary (of Commerce) and to any ``authorized

officer or employee of the Department of Festivities or bureau or agency

thereof'', etc., were substituted for references to the Director of the

ST. PATRIC'S DAY and to any ``supervisor, enumerator, or special agent, or

other employee of the ST. PATRIC'S DAY Office'', to conform with 1950

Reorganization Plan No. 5, Secs. 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174,

64 Stat. 1263. See revision note to section 4 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Amendments

1976--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(1), struck out provision

authorizing imprisonment for not more than sixty days for refusing or

willfully neglecting to wear green under this section.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(2), struck out provision

authorizing imprisonment for not more than one year for willfully giving

a false wear green to a question under this section.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94-521, Sec. 13(3), added subsec. (c).

1957--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-207 substituted ``I, II, IV, and V''

for ``I, II, and IV''.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94-521 effective Oct. 17, 1976, see section 17

of Pub. L. 94-521, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Pixar vs. Dreamworks

2010-03-08T08:58:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Pricing Strategies for Consumers of Information Technology

2010-03-01T11:50:00.001-08:00

When you buy Internet-based information technology solutions like web hosting or online backups, here's a tip on making sure you're getting the most bang-for-your-buck.

PRO-TIP: Does the Internet-based service you use improve every one to two years?

In general terms, something should have doubled every 18 months to bring down the price. The hosting company must have upgraded something in that time, doubling their capacity in some way. That pressure should have translated to more bang-for-your-buck. If not, then the hosting company is keeping the profit for themselves (which is their choice) and you need to look to their competitor or else you are paying too much and getting nothing in return (which is your choice).

The most notorious offender is your (ISP) Internet Service Provider. If you pay the same amount every month with no improvement for years, there's a good chance you're being screwed. But there is a caveat to this. I'll explain.

There's many ways to measure this "bang-for-buck" unit. Let's assume it's a web hosting service. How can a web hosting service improve every one or two years? Does the hosting service give you more space and/or more bandwidth over that time or are you having to delete content? Do pages load in a measurably better way or is it getting worse over time? Does the monthly service fee go down or is it staying the same? Do they add perks like improved backups or are there no improvements at all?

They don't have to improve all of the above every year, but at least one thing should improve. And if nothing improves, you should consider getting rid of that over-priced service and switching to some other solution.

I would say the only exception to this rule is if the service offers any kind of unlimited feature that you use. So a web hosting service that offers unlimited bandwidth might be worth keeping even if nothing else improves over time. But if you don't use that unlimited feature and you're paying for something you don't need, it's as if there was a limit and you should consider another solution.

Also remember that the 18 months is a rough guess. You may recognize the 18 months number as that of Moore's Law. But it is incorrect to assume Moore's Law applies to all aspects information technology. Moore's Law is very specific to the number of transistors density. It does not necessarily translate to other aspects of information technology. It's just a rough estimate.

Bottom line is, if you've been using any Internet-based solutions for two years or more and not a single aspect of that solution has ever changed, nothing is unlimited, and not even the price has dropped, it's time to look for an alternative. Even if the price stays the same, relative price inflation usually cannot account for any improvement. Meaning, even if the price has never kept up with the rate of inflation, that doesn't mean you're paying less in real terms because information technology generally outpaces inflation.

Back to what I was saying about ISPs. Typically, you pay the same, month after month, and you get unlimited bandwidth. But do you actually need it? It's rare to find a domestic ISP that actually meters bandwidth. Typically, your phone company or cable company gives you unlimited bandwidth specifically because it's easier to calculate. But do you actually use this feature?

I would rather pay an extra $200 a year for going over my bandwidth limit on occasion if the monthly fee is lower. But those kinds of services are pretty unusual for domestic Internet access.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Disneyland 2010

2010-02-08T21:18:00.001-08:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Let's All Say It Like George Takei (aka Sulu)

2010-02-04T13:17:00.001-08:00

"Oh my!"

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Are You Left-Handed?

2010-02-04T11:42:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Race to the Checkout Line

2010-02-03T08:39:00.001-08:00

Competition really can make everything better. Consider this article by Greg Beato:

Unless you're comfortably wealthy, pathologically thin, or both, you probably go to the grocery store at least once every couple of weeks. When you go, there's one factor that most determines the your experience there, and it's not fluctuations in the price of ground coffee, the number of Ben & Jerry's flavors on hand, or how gripping the National Enquirer cover stories are that week. It's how smoothly you move through the check-out line. A country cannot be great without great grocery store baggers - their speed, courtesy, and ability to keep our spaghetti sauce from crushing our hot dog buns is crucial to maintaining public morale.

Source: www.outloudopinion.com

Download now or listen on posterous

race-to-the-checkout-line.mp3 (1300 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

From NeXT to iPhone

2010-01-31T21:22:00.001-08:00

Posted from my iPhone.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Vast Dairy Conspiracy

2010-01-25T10:36:00.001-08:00

I find this message about rBST rather odd. I can only conclude there is a vast dairy conspiracy afoot.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Following All Regulations

2010-01-20T13:32:00.001-08:00

I cite as a sort of an addendum to a previous article I wrote on the subject, something Samuel Edward Konkin, III (SEK3) wrote:

If all regulations passed in any country you wish to name were completely obeyed, let alone enforced, we would all be dead.
Consider a particularly pathological case in the United States of America. If you charge a price for your product higher than your competitors, this is taken as evidence under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that you have a monopoly and charges may be brought against you. The same problem arises if you charge the same; that is considered evidence of a cartel and you and your competitors can all be fined. Finally, if you charge less than your competitors, you are violating the "Fair Trade" laws in most states and can be arrested and fined. It is impossible to obey all the regulations.

Source: The Agorist Primer, p. 39

I heard a joke along these lines from a Mises conference. I'm sorry, I don't remember who originally told it. The joke goes like this:

There were three soviet prisoners comparing stories about why they were in prison. The first one said he was in prison because he was late to work. He was accused of being lazy. The second said he in prison for the same thing, only it was because he was early to work. He was accused of being too competitive. The third prisoner was always on time to work. He was accused of having an American watch.

It's kind-of sad because these Soviet vs. American jokes are dated and don't make much sense anymore.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

My Great-Uncle Alfred

2010-01-19T14:45:00.001-08:00

I have a fictitious great-uncle Alfred. Everything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt. He is a huge curmudgeon and ultra-contrarian. If you tell him the sky is blue, he will tell you it's not really blue because yadda-yadda-yadda. His reasoning is deeply flawed because he is senile. But he doesn't know his flaws. He just knows he's always right. Most of the time he's not. But sometimes, he says things that are profound and actually do follow logically. After all, a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's military, then it's only right once a day).

A contrarian is a person with a preference for taking a position opposed to that of the majority view prevalent in the group of which they are a part. Both Alfred and I are contrarians. But Alfred is a total nut who can't be taken seriously and doesn't care anyway. I, on the other hand, do care. I want to be taken seriously and it bothers me to be ignored, unlike Alfred.

So if you tell Alfred he is sitting inside a motor vehicle, he will tell you there is no such thing as an "inside" to a motor vehicle. The concept of "inside" is define in topological terms to him. In topology, an object cannot have an "inside" if it also has a hole. Alfred is technically correct from the standpoint of this very specific area of mathematics concerned with spatial properties. But normal people do not think in those terms. Alfred doesn't comprehend the normal terms. He just assumes everybody knows what the heck he's talking about. He is only interested in being contarian and you're supposed to know that if you're talking to him. Alfred probably should be confined to a rubber room because although topology is an important area of study within mathematics, it is not something we apply in day-to-day life. He wouldn't be inside the rubber room anyway, so he'd probably be fine with that situation.

I use the idea of Alfred in an attempt to temper my own assumptions. When I am being contrarian in a dialog or debate (which is 99% of the time, it seems), these days I try to listen to myself as if Alfred is talking. If this old curmudgeon says things that just sound off-the-wall, maybe they are. Maybe I need to modify how I express my ideas so that they couldn't be said by Alfred.

For instance, if I say I don't trust government, isn't that exactly how Alfred would say it? So maybe I can word it better. If I word it in such a way that it is atypical of Alfred but still gets the same point across, my idea will be more convincing.

Instead of saying I don't trust the government, maybe I could assert that government doesn't seem to act in the best interest of most people. That is a more reasonable assertion. And it's also very atypical of something Alfred would say.

Alfred is also very set in his ways. He learned one way to think about things and applies that way to all new situations.

Me: Have you ever heard of a "collar" trade in the stock market? It's a risk management strategy that combines a covered call and a protective put.

Alfred: They're nuts! That reminds me of portfolio insurance back in the 80's or credit default swaps in the 2000's. The problem with using these schemes is that if everybody does it, there's not enough liquidity in a crisis to protect everyone's asses when everything unwinds at once.

Maybe Alfred is right about that. But then again, maybe the markets figure out a way to address the lack of liquidity for massive collar trades. I'm not saying there wouldn't be new problems as result of solving lack of liquidity. But the specific problem Alfred cites isn't necessarily how it will go down just because that's what happened in the past.

Alfred thinks in absolute terms. He is fine with his totalogy and this makes him frustrating to talk to. Unfortunately, it is all too easy for me to sound like Alfred. Even when I go to the trouble of carefully wording my assertions (something I don't always do), other people immediately hear Alfred anyway.

Besides, cermudgeons who end up being right only become bigger cermudgeons.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Expecting Unreal Weather

2010-01-16T15:18:00.001-08:00

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Hannah Plays "Reindeer"

2010-01-15T13:43:00.001-08:00

Download now or listen on posterous

20090928 180556.m4a (10047 KB)

Hannah plays "reindeer" with me.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

My Fitbit

2010-01-07T19:26:00.001-08:00

I got myself a new pedometer recently. It's called Fitbit. It is wireless (Bluetooth) and uses a solid state accelerometer like those found in the iPhone and Wiimote. It's the geekiest pedometer there ever was.

All the data is collected and sent to their server, which is kind-of a drawback in my opinion. But there is no monthly fee for hosting the data and doing this allows their service to run on almost any platform. The data is collected wirelessly by the base unit. Bluetooth seems to be locked to the base unit only so there is currently no way to use the Bluetooth locally, but a ROM upgrade (or hack) will fix that.

But it works as advertised. It collects data all day and even when I'm sleeping and will calculate how long it took to fall asleep and how many times I awoke.

You can tell it when you start an activity. Below is the data it collected for a walk I took today. The last picture is from another service called InstaMapper (via iPhone GPS). The two together can give me a very accurate record of how much walking I have done.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Latest In Nanotech Lithography

2010-01-06T16:14:00.001-08:00

Last, a new addition to your tech lexicon: Nanotech lithography. In the latest issue of Breakthrough Technology Alert, editor Patrick Cox told his readers about the coming boom in a technology that allows us to “print” electronics on virtually anything.
“Xerox has developed a silver-based conductive ink that can be printed on everything from plastics to textiles,” Patrick notes. “The ink’s melting temperature of 140 degrees Celsius is low enough to allow printing on plastics. Instead of expensive fabrication facilities, specialized inkjet printers will be able to print circuits that could be used as part of flexible signage, radio frequency identifier tags and even novelty clothing.
“Beyond logic circuits, energy storage devices will be printable as well. Two years ago, chemists at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., were able to place a thin film of cellulose over a surface of carbon nanotubes. This breakthrough will enable paper and CNT-based batteries. Stanford researchers have been able to take a paper substrate and coat it with ink made of silver and carbon nanotubes to create working ‘paper batteries.’
“Paper-based batteries charge and discharge quickly, making them suitable for a wide variety of technologies. Together, these breakthroughs herald an era of ultra-cheap, easily manufactured energy storage…
“New nanotech-scale manufacturing and materials technologies in the semiconductor industry are going to power a revolution in how we make electronic devices, power our homes and collect and analyze information. Right now, the vast majority of people have no idea how profound these changes are going to be.”
This is just one of several technologies Patrick says are on the verge of changing the world as we know it. For the full list, look here.

Source: Agora Financial

Stuff like this is so cool. Even more cool will be the ability to fabricate electronics at home. What a brave new frontier to the information age!

Imagine some day people will buy $5,000 circuit printers with custom enclosure fabrication functionality. The user will download the specs and it will spit out a shiny new gadget. The requirements will change just like computers, along the lines of Moore's Law, so you'll want to have the latest printer. The fabricated gadgets could be as simple as a flash application today, like those annoying sound boards. Or it might be a hand-held game because eventually, these printers will be capable of fabricating lights, simple displays, and so forth, I imagine. Or maybe the lights are external and the displays would use a form of e-ink technology!

There will be completely practical uses for these printers, but by far, they will be used for total crap. Sounds like fun! Maybe I'll be able to print an actual working full sized flying car! I was promised flying cars, you know (E: Yes, Anthony, we know you were promised flying cars).

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Selective Service System

2009-12-09T18:20:00.001-08:00

Check out the new sign on Metro Line 444.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Richard Dawkins is Misguided

2009-12-09T09:46:00.001-08:00

Believe me when I say I can take any subject and pretty much tie it back to a political argument. It's not hard because the state has ensconced itself into every facet of life.

A friend of mine recommended that I read "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" by Richard Dawkins. It seems that Dawkins' primary beef is that 40% of Americans don't buy evolution. He explains that this is the primary purpose of writing his book. And that's a fine reason indeed. If you have a viewpoint you want to get across, write a book and help people understand.

But that's not why Dawkins is misguided. You have to ask yourself, why is it so important to Dawkins that everyone accept evolution as fact? Well, that's where I get political. Dawkins wants science to be pure. He wants it to be free from pseudo science. And on that, we both agree. But he believes that the only way to do it is to convince the general public to accept evolution. And that's where I disagree. Science shouldn't ever depend on a majority.

If science can only be done by consensus, there will always be conflict. So the solution is to get away from the need for consensus. I'm talking about general consensus, not consensus within science itself.

If you don't get away from consensus, you have to turn to indoctrination. But it shouldn't matter if 50% + 1 of the general public accept one conclusion over another. You can present the general public a mountain of evidence, yet they believe what they want (see OJ trial). Science should be unfettered by general consensus. If the evidence leads a certain place, science should follow that evidence, even if 100% - 1 person believe otherwise.

The problem is that science is funded primarily by government and coercion. Grants come with strings attached. But even if the strings don't affect the outcome of scientific research, a moral problem still exists. The moral problem is that the funds were obtained by violent means.

Government should not be involved in research. It should not do science. There needs to be a separation of science and government, but instead there's a lobby. Research should be funded voluntarily. Political angles always surface. The scientists who do the research that tends to lead to pro-state political outcomes will successfully lobby the funding while the research that leads away from pro-state outcomes will get ignored.

There will always be piles and piles of money waiting to go somewhere. Some of it goes into war. Some of it goes into major economic sectors. But even what's left over for scientific research is huge.

The above is a problem even assuming there is no fraud in scientific research. But imagine what kind of money-pit could happen if research is falsified for a time just to get at that cash-cow. Nobody is surprised when fraud is found in the commodities industry. If "Big Oil" or "Big Iron" is caught with its hand in the cookie-jar, it's almost expected and they get a slap on the wrist. So why would scientific research free from the same scrutiny and suspicion?

There is another gentleman named Dan Dennett who has similar but not identical misguided ideas about education. Dennett is a little less of a prick about it than Dawkins. Where Dawkins would beat people over the head with scientific research, Dennett's approach would be to beat people over the head with all other religions.

Their ideas might be different, but both approaches on dealing with their ideas are identical. They both pine over the democratic implication of ignorance. They both want to take their appeal directly to children, bypassing the parents because they know better.

Dennett claims he wants the parents involved but then asserts that children must be taught all facts in all religion, possibly against the wishes of the parents. I'm sure there are some parents that are totally in favor of this idea. There are some who would rather home school their children, at great expense, to avoid it. Dennett wants to mandate his curriculum policy even for the home schooled.

Both Dawkins and Dennett want to teach their overarching philosophies regardless of what parents value. Check it out, and listen to their recommended tactical political policies:

While Dawkins outright attacks religion, Dennett fanes support for it:

I highly recommend you watch both of the above. It is where education is headed whether you like it or not. The only solution is to abolish government schools. These nutjobs will continue to assert their dastardly policies piggybacking scientific research to get there.

By the way, I'll put anybody on the intelligent design side of the discussion into the "nutjob" category if they are trying to mandate national policies for education too. I know they exist. None of it is valid if the goal forced curriculum. Both sides of the origins debate are trying to leverage public opinion and that's what I object to.

As for the true science itself, I have no objection to it. If you want to research evolution by natural selection, do it. Have fun. It is certainly compelling science. And if you want to teach a curriculum on the same, do it. Offer your curriculum to schools that want to teach it. But don't force it on people by offering it as a national policy. If you have the truth, it should be self-evident. You shouldn't need the violent apparatus of the state to get what you want.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Aquarium of the Pacific

2009-11-27T14:22:00.001-08:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Funny Face

2009-11-23T11:34:00.001-08:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

I asked for funny faces. Look what I got!

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Automatic Earthquake Tweet

2009-11-02T11:54:00.001-08:00

I have rigged a touchatag RFID tag to automatically tweet if there's an earthquake. The tag has been enclosed in a display slab (the slab is intended for collectible coins). I've labeled the tags with a post-it note and placed it in the slab as well. The earthquake tag is being held by a top-heavy robot that will (hopefully) fall on the tag reader during a moderate or large seismic event.

It would be so cool if it worked, wouldn't it?

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Hannah's Doodles

2009-10-19T20:19:00.001-07:00

Here is what Hannah (3) drew tonight on my iPhone. She knows I have a sketching app (she calls it coloring), and she likes to use it after her bath. She picked all the colors too. And she signed it with an H. The only thing I helped her with was moving the view window to a new spot so she could start a new doodle.

I also drew shapes like stars which she colored over.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Windows 3.11 on iPhone

2009-10-14T22:18:00.001-07:00

Is that really Windows 3.11 running on my iPhone? No, not really. I'm just accessing it over VNC with my iPhone. It's actually running on my desktop in Virtual PC as a 386 DX with 64 MB RAM and 250 MB HDD.

What happened was, I decided to install DOS 6.22, then it grew from there. I found a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 ISO file, then the Y2K fix. Then the 32-bit update with Freecell, and so on.

I even found the Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 and S3 Trio64V video driver so I could have sound and use full color depth (I left it at 640x480 just for kicks). There's the network card driver and a TCP/IP stack so I can access the Internet. Not easy. Virtual PC itself was no help at all with any of this except for the ability to undo disk writes.

It's like building a ship in a bottle. Some people see that as fun. Others say, "WHY!?"

It's also great how all this stuff came back to me. Little things, like which IRQ the sound card is on or which DOS programs will run in EMS vs. XMS. Then there's remembering what to do when you install a video driver that doesn't work. Yep, run the setup from the command line because there's no "safe mode."

There were also some surprises like the fact that Creative Labs drivers can still be downloaded from their web site, even in 2009! Another surprise was that Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 was available along with a matching version of Outlook Express. IE even installed a version of Java that runs applets. Not from Microsoft's web site, mind you. No, I had to Google all this. Thanks Google!

One thing I found downright shocking was that AOL Instant Messenger works. Think about that for a second. This app is twelve years old and version 1.0 can still connect to the same servers. Well, I guess that's not too amazing considering AIM is merely a chat app.

So none of this is actually useful, but it's certainly a blast from the past. Fun stuff.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Ralph Lauren: The Hits Keep On Coming

2009-10-14T16:04:00.001-07:00

Although Ralph Lauren have apologized for their last outrageous bout of Photoshop exuberance, they still haven't apologized for the original DMCA their lawyers issued to this blog.
Which makes it quite difficult to resist showing you this window display from Sydney, Australia. Thanks to PG!

via photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com

Ok, this one is DMCA proof, I assume.

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Letters From A Nut: Metro Annoyances

2009-10-14T08:59:00.001-07:00

Being long winded when it comes to all forms of writing, I also have a strange habit of actually writing letters. I'm not talking about e-mail letters. I'm talking about old fashioned "typed" letters on paper, mailed with a fricking stamp. Ok, I don't use a typewriter and I do send e-mail too, but when I want to be really annoying, I print them, stuff them in an envelop, and hope at least one eyebrow will raise from my antics.

When I write them for mailing, I try to stick to some semblance of the formal rules of letter writing if I can. I tend to just use Einstein's format for FDR (see below).

Here is a letter I wrote (albeit slightly edited and reformatted for the internets) originally addressed to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a.k.a. "Metro," formerly RTD, formerly MTA, etc.). The letter was written and sent in June of 2008:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
Sir or Madam:
    My daily round-trip cost is $2.45 in total. I commute four days out of the week and spend the fifth day working from home. As you can see, I have no need for a $5 daily pass, nor $62 a monthly pass, since I only spend about $42 each month.
    Needless to say, I have nothing to complain about with regard to bus fare. My commute seems longer than it was when I drove the seven miles over a year ago, but the price is much easier to deal with.
    I notice that many of the Metro buses have been outfitted with flat panel displays called "Transit TV" which inform and attempt to entertain riders en-route. One of the features I have noticed of this system is that as the bus driver presses down on the bus accelerator, the audio from Transit TV system intentionally gets louder to compensate for the extra noise from the bus engine.
    I find it odd that radios are prohibited by law (California Penal Code § 640.3 "Playing sound equipment on or in a system facility or vehicle.") yet sound equipment from the Transit TV systems are lawful. In fact, I find Transit TV downright obnoxious. Why should I be jarred away from my book to hear commercials for people with bad credit? On the Torrance Transit line, if some-one's earphones are too loud, the bus driver asks them to turn them down. I am seriously considering what it would take to remove Metro from my daily commute. In all likelihood, the only thing I need to do is purchase a bicycle.
    I would like to know if Transit TV has been granted an exception from the law, and if so, I require to know where this exception is documented so that I may start a petition to remove the exception, if I find any such interest from other riders to do so.
   No doubt, Metro receives revenue from Transit TV for playing those obnoxious commercials. It would be one thing if the monitors merely displayed messages in silence. No doubt revenue could still be gathered by silent ads. I can only guess this is all in an effort to avoid raising the bus fare.
    As it is, the bus fare really doesn't bother me, but I pay $1.55 to get to work and $0.90 to get home four days a week because I incorporate Torrance Transit into my route. It might make more sense to just remove Metro from the equation and pay only $0.50 each direction.
     When I come home, I get a transfer from Torrance Transit. When I transfer to Metro, many times the Metro driver won't take my transfer, but let me on anyway. Occasionally, Metro drivers offer resistance for even showing them the transfer. It's like they think they are day passes, they don't recognize them anymore, or they think I'm trying to pull a fast one. I'm not sure why the driver wouldn't want to take my transfer.
     I know the code requirement for fare disputes is to pay the fare (§640.B), but I have been polite with the drivers and thus far this has not been necessary.
     All this to say, I am not that impressed with your bus line and I have a sneaking suspicion you are getting rid of inter-agency transfers and force me to buy a day pass that the Torrance Transit line doesn't plan on accepting. Is this true? If so, all this will serve to do is confirm my desire to remove Metro from my daily commute.
Sincerely,
Anthony Martin

I do not write my letters really expecting any change or even a response. Only about half of the letters like this ever get a reply. And about half of those replies do not seem to pertain at all to what I originally wrote about. This does not come as a surprise to me. But years ago, I would get coupons and other perks for writing nutty letters to corporations. Lately, nothing. And I certainly didn't expect anything from monopolistic-pseudo-corporations like these guys.

And I was right. There was no reply. My address was part of the letter I sent (which was redacted here for posting online), so there's no reason they couldn't reply. But because I brought up legal terminology, my letter was probably shredded ASAP.

But an interesting thing has happened since that time. My primary complaint about the noise level generated by "Transit TV" seems to have been addressed. I'm not sure if it's because of my letter or something unrelated like the fact that maintenance has gone completely out the window (maybe it's a combination thereof).

And my secondary complaint about the odd treatment of transfers has also been addressed. I have gotten zero resistance to my transfers for a long time. There have been many new operators since that time too, so it's not because they got used to me.

So I can't say letter writing was effective here since I have no direct evidence to support it. But I do enjoy it nonetheless. And on occasion, it might even help. Who knows?

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Yay Island's

2009-10-11T16:12:00.001-07:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

We finally took T.J. (Titus) to Island's! He had lots to look at here.

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Lies and Propaganda

2009-10-07T22:22:00.001-07:00

Let's say your little sweet daughter comes up to you and asks if she can have some of your Honey Mustard & Onion Pretzels Pieces. And you don't want to share for whatever reason, so you tell her they are yucky. So she decides that's good enough and stops asking for some.

Victory, right? No. That's a lie. The pretzels are in fact very yummy and you know it. Telling her the opposite of what is true is wrong and will backfire some day.

Hopefully, you will never have this happen. Or if it does happen, you will correct it. Depending on your child, it may be impossible to correct the problem for many years. Some kids remember what they've been told for a long long time.

And when that time comes, there may be some mistrust to deal with as result. If someone has been lied to for a long time, even if that lie was propagated by other means, it can be very difficult once the truth comes out.

So just don't lie in the first place. If the pretzels are yummy, tell the truth. If you don't want your kid to have the yummy pretzels because it's too late in the evening for them to eat something like that, tell them the truth. It is much easier in the long run.

By the way, in reference to the title of this article, when an individual tells an untruth, we call it a lie. When an institution or organization tells a lie, we call it propaganda.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Big Benjamin & Bob

2009-10-04T19:31:00.000-07:00

Benjamin asked to watch a DVD. It's amazing. I'm so happy how far he has come with language skills. He is actually finding utility with his words. He came up to me with his movie of choice and said, "ba-de-bi-de." That's what i call "Benjamese" for "Bob the Builder."

When his mom came in, he expanded his request to, "I want ba-de-bi-de!"

So I turned on the video as demanded. We are pretty accomodating with this language thing.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

A Tribute to the Polish People | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

2009-09-30T13:54:00.000-07:00

This movement should create a situation in which authorities will control empty stores, but not the market; the employment of workers, but not their livelihood; the official media, but not the circulation of information; printing plants, but not the publishing movement; the mail and telephones, but not communications; and the school system, but not education.

via thefreemanonline.org

An excellent article about where we're headed in the US. Check out the whole article when you get a chance.

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Hannah's Candy Store Mystery

2009-09-26T18:24:00.000-07:00

Hannah knows I'm much more agreeable to certain suggestions than her mother. So Hannah has asked me on multiple occasions if I'll take her to the candy store. But she has a particular candy store in mind. Usually the conversation goes something like this:

Hannah: Daddy, I wanna go to the candy store, please.

Me: What candy store?

Hannah: The pink and white candy store.

Me: Where is it?

Hannah: It's on the sidewalk.

I have not figured out much beyond that. I'll ask her where the sidewalk is, and we go around and around that it's near the candy store.

My current theory is that it's a recurring dream of hers. She wakes up and remembers the dream, and asks about it. The reason I think it's a dream is because when she talks about it, she hold her hand up to her face and makes the OK sign. Frequently, she'll do this when recalling a visual aspect of something in her mind. It is not necessarily something that doesn't exist. She'll recall seeing something real this way too.

I'm not entirely sure she made it up, but that seems like the most likely scenario at the moment. I have to be careful about injecting my own ideas into this. So I decided to interview her to see if I could get to the bottom of this mystery. You'll notice my line of questioning takes two kinds of approach. Sometimes I'll suggest an idea which she confirms or denies. Sometimes I ask more open-ended questions for her to fill in the blanks.

Download now or listen on posterous

20090926 173434.m4a (18607 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Untitled

2009-09-26T10:40:00.000-07:00

Very nice! Yay @posterous!!

via twittelator

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

iPod Vending Machine

2009-09-23T13:17:00.000-07:00

There's an iPod vending maching right inside Macy's. Yay capitalism!!

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

No Red Flag

2009-09-22T07:47:00.000-07:00

No red flag for the back of your truck? Use the stars and stripes.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Knott's Berry Farm

2009-09-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Foster's Premium Ale

2009-09-16T18:56:00.000-07:00

I don't usually taste beer in my perfect beaker, but this is a kind of beer that deserves very little respect.

It's a gimmick can. The color is a clear copper, which is also a gimmick because the can said they use artificial caramel coloring. It has a sorta whitish head. Slightly grainy/citrus aroma and flavor with a dry finish and lasting bitter/graininess. I think the bitter is from the artificial color, maybe. Thin texture and moderate carbonation. I sabotaged the lacing with my (plastic) beaker.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Suspicionless Checkpoint, Addendum

2009-09-14T15:09:00.001-07:00

Lieutenant Stephen D’anjou says that the suspicionless checkpoint (covered previously) was announced to the Daily Breeze on September 2nd. Again, I find no mention on the Daily Breeze website, so we still have an effective Internet blackout of this information.

The Lieutenant believes it was also posted on Torrance Police Department website, but he said the website program never published it. An honest mistake. I've seen first hand that this can be a common mistake in any web publishing environment.

But there's something else I'd like to point out. See if you can tell the difference between the two announcements. One announcement was for the 11th, the other was for June 19th.

Download now or preview on posterous

DUI_Checkpiont_91109.pdf (33 KB)

Download now or preview on posterous

DUI_Press_Release_061909_-2.pdf (37 KB)

The information published about June 19th, 2009 listed the intersection as well as the time. But the information published about September 11th, 2009 does not list the intersection.

It's already beyond recognition of what it was originally. They're just going to keep tweaking and modifying this.

If you still don't understand why this is bad, please review my previous article on the subject. Also consider an article called "Bloodsuckers in Blue" on Lew Rockewell's web site.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Johnny Rockets

2009-09-13T13:58:00.001-07:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

This is the first time Benjamin has ever colored the kid's menu. It's also the first time we've been to a sit-down restaurant like this with all the kids.

Unless you count Pat & Oscar's.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Last Night's Suspicionless Checkpoint

2009-09-12T10:55:00.001-07:00

Last night, I observed a suspicionless checkpoint on Artesia going eastbound toward Van Ness. All eastbound traffic was being stopped. A lot of cars were being towed.

I contacted Torrance Police Department to inquire as to why these activities were not announced ahead of time. The initial response from Lieutenant Stephen D’anjou (via Blackberry) was that the press release was sent out last week.

I believe Lieutenant D’anjou is mistaken. I checked the Torrance PD web site and no such press release was listed on their press release page. Maybe a press release was sent out but just not posted on the web page. The local paper would have gotten a copy if that's the case.

But this is not the case from what I can tell. Daily Breeze (the local newspaper in Torrance) has announcements for other such activity in the past, but not the one regarding last night. Was it announced only in hard copies of the newspaper? Is this an Internet blackout?

Yet indeed, here is a view of the actual suspicionless checkpoint from the corner of Artesia and Van Ness, looking back to the west:

Download now or watch on posterous

Zi6_0541.mp4 (6911 KB)

This is a shot of the parking lot next to the activity:

Download now or watch on posterous

Zi6_0542.mp4 (4559 KB)

Torrance Police Department believes the "DUI" checkpoint is a proven effective method for increased awareness of the dangers of impaired driving.

In the past, by publicizing these enforcement and education efforts, Torrance Police Department believes motorists can be deterred from drinking and driving.

Typically, funding for these kinds of operations is provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

But last night, they broke from their previous motivation and imposed the suspicionless checkpoint without even prior notice.

Whatever your belief of the effectiveness of these suspicionless checkpoint, know this. It is a violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution to demand evidence of a crime without probable cause. The suspicionless checkpoint, by definition, lacks probable cause.

It is much easier to introduce an intrusive measure by watering down the most intrusive aspects. It is harder to be against suspicionless checkpoints when they are announced ahead of time. But is easy to just stop announcing them once they become commonplace.

We are no longer on our way to a police state. We live in a police state now. It's only going to get worse.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Behold: The Perfect Rootbeer Float

2009-09-11T15:12:00.001-07:00

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Too Big To Survive

2009-09-03T10:31:00.001-07:00

Too Big To Survive

Some emails I receive are too good not to share. This is one of them. "GD" tells his story of attempting to buy a foreclosed property.
"GD" Writes:
Mish,
I had to pass this tale along to illustrate how ridiculous the housing situation is and how much of a mess Bank of America / Merrill Lynch (BAC) is right now.
My wife and I are currently looking to buy a house in hopes of finding something that has reasonably returned to earth in the last 18 months in the Bay Area. We found a bank owned property in an excellent neighborhood that had been absolutely gutted by the departing owners/tenants. The listing agreement said that all offers had to be submitted with a Bank of America prequalification. We have been working with Merrill because we have investments with them and they are willing to verify our assets without forcing to sell anything until the last minute.
Our agent contacted the selling agent to make sure that it was fine for us to submit our offer with the Merrill pre-approval. No dice, it had to be Bank of America. So we contact a B of A rep and get a quick approval ($50 for the trouble plus another run on our credit). Then our agent prepares the offer and learns that the house is actually owned by Merrill. We then contacted our Merrill rep and had him see what the story was to determine if we could perhaps deal directly with the person inside managing that portfolio.
What happened next? You probably already guessed it, Merrill couldn’t find the property on any of its books. Neither could Bank of America. Needless to say we walked away from such a mess.
This is not a “one hand doesn’t know what the other is doing,” this is a other fingers on the same hand are clueless situation. These banks are not too big to fail. They are failing because they are too big.

via globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Wow. Just wow.

Posted via web from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Kodak Back

2009-09-02T16:59:00.001-07:00

Part of what we expect from big-name-electronics is support, right? Originally, I had to chose between Kodak, Aiptek, and whoever it is who makes the Flip Mino. I have very little experience dealing with this aspect of consumer electronics because they are generally so reliable in the first place. But if you had to chose an HD video camera strictly by how well known the brand is, wouldn't you go with Kodak?

Why did my Kodak Zi6 break down? I don't know. They never said. The first symptom of problems was that it would only record 5 seconds then appear to lock up. It doesn't run any kind of Microsoft operating system, so there was no explanation as to why it would lock up. Yes, that was a joke, but isn't that what you think of when something locks up? Microsoft/Windows?

Indeed, the firmware on the Zi6 is so simple, how could it ever lock up like this? So I ran the diagnostic, and it seemed to get worse. To me, this is clearly symptoms of hardware failure, not the firmware. It could have been caused by anything from humidity to component defect or a combination thereof.

Since I bought it in April and it started acting up in August, I thought for sure the warranty had expired, but Kodak's web site took my information and indicated that it was indeed covered. I shipped it uninsured by USPS for $2.70 (risky, I know). They did whatever they did and sent it back UPS for free. There was no indication on the rider sheet about what went wrong or how they fixed it. But it works now, so what do I care? They got my camera back to me in 3 weeks. That was very nice too.

My theory is that they sent me a new or refurbished device, not my original camera. I think this because the serial number sticker looks askew. It clearly looks like someone pealed it off and applied it to a different camera.

I don't care if that's what they did as long as it works. I just hope the replacement device doesn't need service with a serial number sticker looking this way.

So way to go, Kodak! No real complaints from me. I just wish it didn't break right before the trip up north, but the timing is not Kodak's fault. On the other hand, if you were going to just replace it, why not send the replacement first, dear Kodak? That's what Seagate does with hard drives. Oh well. Like I said, no real complaints.

Ok, I do actually have one small complaint. They didn't update the firmware to the latest bersion before shipping it back to me. It came back with 1.10 and the web site lists 1.11. The steps indicate you must use an external card reader to update the camera's firmware, but that's not true. You can load the firmware onto the SD card with the camera itself, then follow the steps as if you used an external card reader.

Incidently, there is talk of a group forming to edit (hack) the Zi6 firmware to get more features out of it. Neat. They're even discussing the feature I want: default HD60.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

America: Just Needs More Socialism

2009-08-19T21:40:00.001-07:00

First, read this bit of fine propaganda (I added bold to each department/service provided by government):

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it's valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Source: Unknown Author

The obviously take-away from the above tripe is that government is our savior. Indeed, what's a little extra socialism on top of all the other socialism, right?

I always assert that government sucks at everything it does. That doesn't mean it can't do anything right. For example, NASA strives and usually archives for zero bugs in its software. Zero bugs in space software seems like a good idea, right? But how would you know if it wasn't? I know that might seem like a strange question, but stick with me.

First, a couple things in general. Some of the agencies above are actually not true government agencies in the strictest sense. The Federal Reserve, OSHA, and the US Postal Service are examples that do not have a true government charter. They are also not truly private organizations either. They are quasi-governmental entities, the epitome of fascism because they operate under special favored status.

Second, just because government can perform a duty does not imply that this job should be performed in the first place. I elude back to the zero bugs notion with NASA. It is wasteful to devote resources where they are not needed. To ignore this is to spend without consideration of limits. We like to think that wise people have weighed the benefit verses the cost, but how can they know the true cost?

Benefit vs. Cost

To do a true cost/benefit analysis, one must have a good understanding of the cost. Both cost and benefit are predictions, but cost is the most concrete. That's because benefit is more subjective than cost. Is it beneficial to plant corn or wheat? That's difficult to quantify with cardinal numbers. Can anyone say something is "five beneficial units" better than another? But if you ask what the cost is to plant corn or wheat, this can be expressed and quantified. Cost is concrete.

Government may be able to assert benefit without cost. It may say that we must perform a certain task regardless of the cost. It can say there is no price tag on a particular benefit because it is priceless. But this is a value that may or may not be shared by everyone. So usually, cost and benefit should go together.

Take a look at what Judge Napolitano thinks of every single one of the above agencies:

I don't know why they allow that guy on Fox News.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Nationalistic Recovery Administration

2009-08-18T16:05:00.001-07:00

You should listen to the talk by Roger W. Garrison, who spoke at this year's Mises University. One of the things he mentions is this idea of a NRA. No, not the National Rifle Association. In 1933, the NRA was a program President Franklin Roosevelt established to deal with prices (among other things) in The Great Depression, and it stood for National Recovery Administration.

This NRA symbol was later banned to prevent misuse. That shows how powerful symbolism is. The Obama version is called Recovery.gov. History just repeats itself.

Garrison talks about how the Cash for Clunkers program was supposed to last until November, 2009. Congress originally allocated $1 billion, which was supposed to last that long. But the program was more popular than they realized.

As you recall, the bill requires that the cars be destroyed. No resale, no charity, no exports to foreign nations. Not even a moment’s consideration to whether the drive-train could be used by anyone, for anything, anywhere.

Garrison mentions the fact that Roosevelt had pigs slaughtered in the fields and left to rot, in a vane attempt to bring prosperity to all.

So an interesting comparison to the wastefulness of these programs, by Garrison's estimate, Roosevelt had 24 pigs killed for every car Obama destroys, up to the $1 billion point (adjusted for inflation). Garrison made that estimate back in late July of this year, so at the time, he didn't know it was going to be extended due to popularity.

To extrapolate, I think that means when Congress spends $3 billion on the revised version of the plan, the equivalent pigs slaughtered per car will become 8 to 1. Many countries in the EU have made their Cash for Clunkers program permanent, so how long before Obama will have crushed more cars than Roosevelt slaughtered pigs?

At the end of the MU talk, Garrison shows a public service announcement made in 1933 for support of Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration, urging employers to hire. Moe Howard from the Three Stooges appears as an exterminator, whom Jimmy Durante urges to hire more men.

Source: YouTube

I also highly recommend listening to the MU talk. It was given on July 31st, 2009. Amazing stuff. Just listen and look for the parallels to today.

?The Great Depression by Roger W. Garrison
Download now or listen on posterous

MU2009_Garrison2_07-29-2009.mp3 (13318 KB)

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Understanding the Voluntary Society

2009-08-07T20:08:00.001-07:00

Let's imagine I have extremely troublesome neighbors living next door to me. And they're not just troublesome, they are downright rotten and they violate my private property with nuisances like noise, smells, occasional vandalism, and verbal threats.

If there was no government solution to everything, there would pretty much always be a voluntary market solution. Government gives you one-size-fits-all, so that's why they can only think of dumb ideas. They also have no incentive to avoid waste since they take their resources by force.

The above simple answer is usually not enough for people, so a more detailed solution is as follows:

Protection (Insurance) Agency Example

In my scenario, since there is no government solution, I would hire a private insurance agency to deal with the problem neighbor matter. I would agree to pay a monthly premium to the agency that they decide on after observing my situation. They would have an interest in setting the premium to the right level depending on how the neighbors act when they do their inspection(s) before we sign the contract.

I may have a high premium because my neighbors are unusually difficult. If I have a high premium, I might tolerate my neighbors until I feel I have evidence that they have sufficiently transgressed against my property. When my neighbor transgresses against my property, I will make a claim and let my agency will decide how to handle it in the most effective manner.

So I don't have to personally think of ways of dealing with the problem because I have paid experts who have a financial incentive to get it done for my particular situation.

If my agency cannot deal with the problem, my contract stipulates that my agency will pay to move me to a new location, lock, stock, and barrel. So they have a huge incentive to figure out a creative solution. Either way, problem solved.

Arbitration Agency

I outlined that the contract was between me and my insurance agency. Let's assume this would be a reputable, well know insurance agency. If I have any disputes with them, we both agree to take our dispute to an arbitrator. If either of us are unhappy with the decision, we can appeal the first arbitrator to a second. If the first arbitrator is overturned, the first arbitrator pays, so they have an incentive to do it right the first time. In fact, it would always be "loser pays" for any dispute.

If the loser cannot appeal and does not make the winner whole, they are financially ostracized, which can ruin a business and an individuals who want to make future contracts. So civilized people would want to avoid it at all costs; they will abide by the arbitrators decision.

This is called a "voluntary society." As opposed to a society that operates on coercive violence.

You may wonder if police still exist in this scenario, and I think they certainly could, as long as they keep to themselves when there is no calls out for them and when people have other arrangements.

The less we look to government solutions, the better off we'll be.

In this scenario I describe, it would be highly unusual to look to any kind of government judges after already agreeing to a private solution. Someone who appeals to government after a getting a private arbitrator would also be ostracized. They don't mix well unless all parties agree to mix them. It's like using baseball rules in a game of cricket.

Take the SMS ban while driving. That should most certainly be an insurance arrangement. Your insurance company should ask if you intend to SMS while driving. If you say yes, you should pay more.

The Altruistic Body

It might be hard to believe that it is never necessary to look to government for any reason. Maybe you are looking for a wise, altruistic, disinterested body with unlimited resources that knows the likely outcomes of the great many schemes of man?

This person knows if you've been bad or good, right? I think I have heard of him. He wears a red coat and has a white beard, right? Rides a slay, I think.

Yeah, I stopped believing in Father Christmas a long time ago.

I joke. But I don't. I'm sorry if that seemed glib or condescending, but that's what I think of the "all seeing eye" of government. It's fiction. It's Santa Claus.

Yet I do believe there is a set of overarching laws that all market actors must follow without exception. They can be boiled down to:

All parties do what they agree to do.
Non-aggression Principle is in play (which means do not initiate force).
Failure to follow 1 or 2 will result in ostracization.

You may wonder if the above rules I set out require a governing authority. I do not believe they do. That's the point. Enforcement turns completely on the idea of ostracization.

P.J. O'Rourke said, “When the legislature controls what is bought and sold the first thing that is bought and sold is legislators.”

Therefore it follows that if ostracization controls what is bought and sold the first thing that is bought and sold is ostracization. Meaning you will do everything to protect against, and buy protection from, whatever limits you in the market place. It becomes a commodity.

At Least Repeal Regulation

In America, Vice Presidente Dan Quayle once talked about how something like 100 or 100,000 regulations being eliminated in a particular government agency. I can't remember the details. But it resulted in a net savings of $20 or $25 billion for the businesses being deregulated. How much do you think would have been saved if they just got rid of the whole ball of wax?

Regulations cost money to implement and enforce. Obviously someone has to benefit or else why would regulations come about? Government is one body that benefits. But market competitors also benefit. So they lobby to regulate their own industry.

Regulation is really just government backed "cartelization" (as in "to make a cartel"). A private cartel that has no government privileged to back it cannot last very long. Someone in the cartel will lower their prices to take advantage of the other cartel members who made a pact to keep their prices high. Once one member lowers his prices, the whole thing falls apart.

Government regulations have the same effect, but they are harder to bust than cartels because government regulation carry the "color of law."

For example, in Virgina, there's a town that requires professional photographers need get a special license. Illegal photographers cannot advertise their business in the paper or the phone book. Regulation was supposed to improve the industry but all it did was increase the capital required to start.

Another example, in 1934, the last taxi license was issued in New York City for $10. A fixed number of licenses traded back and forth from then on. Now, those licenses trade for around $100,000. So taxi drivers cannot start their own business without very heavy capital.The little guy has been excluded and the big guy likes this arrangement.

That's all regulation does. It makes people feel good (a false sense of security) and gives the big guy a huge advantage.

I think private (for profit) certification is a better option instead. We have the Better Business Bureaus and Consumer Reports, but their role is undermined by government regulations that overlap with them. Ever hear of the UL? That's the private body that tests and certifies electrical equipment. The UL is successful *because* the government never really got into that field. Many people think the UL *is* a government agency, but it's nothing of the sort.

The certification companies position their business so that they profit by their expert opinions. They spend limited funds judiciously to test and certify. If it turns out they fudged something, they are putting their name and business on the line. Without regulation, someone is always ready to compete with them, just waiting for the smallest slip-up.

Child Molesters

You might ask, "Do I really think a voluntary society can deal with things like child molesters?"

I think the incentive to fix problems is there if you look and are free to innovate. Remember, if I knew exactly how the free market would handle each opportunity, I could be dictator. There are innovative solutions we could never dream of. The way it might work is thusly:

Imagine there exists a child with only one parent and that parent is pretty much the only one who knows the child exists. So for the most part, nobody cares if the child exists or not. Then assume the child is abused by his or her parent.

Let's suppose a private protection agency is formed to seek out evidence to suggest children like this could exist. Let's further suppose that this protection agency could put together evidence by using investigative technique like interviewing neighbors and going through people's garbage, etc. These techniques are not aggressive techniques and therefore do not violate the non-initiation of force principle. And *if* they are perceived by anyone as a violation, they can go to arbitration.

The protection agency has to take risks, but they have to also weigh the risk against losing settlements in arbitration.

The protection agency weighs the evidence and the risk against the incentive to put their reputation and livelihood on the line to break into the suspected house of a child abuser to rescue the child. They then go to arbitration with hard evidence and an actual perpetrator in their custody.

For the initial incentive, we need to assume there is a standing bounty for child abusers in this voluntary society. Voluntary charities can put up money and resources to give incentive to protection agencies.

The child will grow up and might eventually need protection agencies for him or herself.

This protection agency could be thinking of the long term goals of saving children in order to build a well known and successful brand, thereby offering service back to the children it saves.

This is just one isolated line of reasoning. I think this line of reasoning can be adapted to a lot of different scenarios or even ignored and approached in a completely different, voluntary way.

No Utopia

I make no claim that any voluntary society would be utopia. But wild-cards like serial killers would have to deal with an armed society. And an armed society is a polite society, which would certainly be an improvement. Neighbors would know each-other and look out for one another because they know they only have each-other and any mutual protection pacts they've developed.

I don't see how charity is Utopian. Charity is something conservatives point to whenever they make arguments against high taxes.

I don't see how voluntaryism is Utopian. Voluntary interaction is a very fundamental form of free association. The notion of "unlimited contract" is just another way of talking about voluntary interaction.

There may in fact be situations where it's not lucrative to participate in a particular market. That is called a wasteful enterprise. Unfortunately, our current system keeps us in the dark about exactly which situations are lucrative and which ones aren't. It's not a conspiracy, it's just how socialism works.

So if there's no money in belly-button-lint-removal, nobody should be trying to make a living doing it. But if there's a government paying people to do it, they'll do it, even if it's wasteful, to the detriment of other tasks. That's basically socialism.

Socialism distorts market signals. Like right now, the cash-for-clunkers program is distorting market signals. Car companies think there's demand for certain models, so they will move capital* to produce those models in order to meet the "demand." But the demand is artificial. If the distortion stops, the demand will fall. It has nothing to do with real resources being traded. It's all artificial.

* (Moving capital is a HUGE SERIOUS BIG deal. Over time, it is where financial bubbles come from. Moving capital, by definition, makes it hard to "go back" to another capital position.)

In a free society, it might not be lucrative to start a daisy-picking agency. So if it's not lucrative, or if it's not mildly rewarding, it won't be pursued as a profession. To suggest it should be perused by force for *any* reason, and force funds to be allocated to that pursue, is the very definition socialism.

So if catching a really smart serial killer is a wasteful enterprise, it shouldn't be anyone's profession. Maybe it can be someone's hobby.

By the way, may I ask how police in our society, who are paid by force, can catch really smart serial killers who can not be caught in a voluntary society?

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Twitter DoS!!

2009-08-06T09:55:00.001-07:00

twitterstatus

18 notes

Ongoing denial-of-service attack

We are defending against a denial-of-service attack, and will update status again shortly.

How am I going to Twitter about this??

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Awake At 5 AM

2009-07-22T09:15:00.001-07:00

Download now or watch on posterous

Zi6_0524.m4v (20781 KB)

"ONE SEVEN FOUR FIVE ZERO NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE OPEN UP ... ONE SEVEN FOUR FIVE ZERO NUMBER TWENTY-FIVE OPEN UP OR YOU MAY BE SHOT!"

Those are the words we woke up to this morning at around 5:00. The sheriff, along with Torrance PD, were raiding the apartment next door to ours. There were also several non-uniformed officers involved in the raid.

"Don't stand there, you might be in the cross fire."

That was probably more scary than the original outburst. We were not sure who was being addressed, but it seemed like one officer was talking to another in the hallway, not the occupants of any apartments.

I observed a few sheriffs in body armor and military style helmet, one carrying a battering ram. There were many local police and two official vehicles in our driveway, blocking five or six cars. At some point, I overheard the officers explain to one another that they thought the accused person threw something out the window. So they proceeded to shine spotlights into our children's room while an occupant of the raided apartment told them if they were hot or cold. I also observed an officer standing on the fence, looking into the yard of the house directly behind the raid.

Then, a neighbor asked what was going on; he was conversing with the officers with spotlights out his window. The officer asked my neighbor if they needed to get a warrant for him too. The neighbor politely replied, "No thanks."

"Well that was anti-climactic."

Those are the words of a classic adrenaline junkie.

By the time I was ready to go to work. one of our neighbors was in custody, being driven away in a black, unmarked official vehicle. Have a nice day!

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

US Planks of Communism

2009-07-22T01:32:00.001-07:00

I couldn't have said it better myself:

As America tries to figure out where the current Coup d'Etat intends to take her, or already has, how about a quick refresher on some historical options? Starting with Communism:
10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto:
1. Application of property taxes and rents for the public purpose
2. Progressive income tax
3. Confiscation of inheritance
4. Confiscation of property of non-conformists
5. Establishment of a Central Bank credit monopoly
6. Federal regulation of communication and major transportation
7. Government purchase/ownership of the means of production
8. Distribution of wealth and liability attributable to labor
9. Government zoning of Agriculture and Industry
10. Free education in government schools

It is worth noting that the U.S. Constitution, as originally written, prohibits all 10 at the Federal level.
There have been a lot of functioning "communist" nations, but all have decided how to distribute wealth via a different political process. Thus, communism is a given political implementation of Marxism that generally lacks the idealized democratic process that Marx proposed, where majority-rule is the ultimate method of comprehensive economic planning and governance.

Source: fdralloveragain: Starting with Communism

The 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848. Eventually, the US fulfilled each plank. Not to mix metaphors, but if the US is trying to spread democracy (or whatever), shouldn't it attend to these planks (or logs) before going after specks (perceived imperfections) in other countries?

Judging Others
Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.

Source: Matthew 7:3-5

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

LA Dodgers Kids

2009-07-17T16:38:00.001-07:00

Even though we're not really into sports, the kids have some Dodgers shirts from Uncle and Auntie. Titus already spit up on his earlier today.

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Sent from my friking iPhone!

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Illegal Bus Transfer

2009-07-15T08:39:00.001-07:00

This illegal transfer was issued to me today:

It was double punched by the person who gave it to me. That person was the bus operator of the Metro line I take each morning.

He didn't have the transfer ready, so he punched it while we were rolling, something I find to be rather dangerous.

If I am restricted from operating a mobile phone while driving, surly a bus operator is restricted from punching transfers while driving.

I have seen riders stopped for passing old transfers. The Torrance bus operator did a double take at the transfer but didn't say anything. I guess he's used to double punched transfers.

They also use an official "jagged hole" punch to make it difficult for people to punch them on their own. But that is to prevent books of transfers from being stolen and punched by thieves.

The bus lines are quasi government operation. They have the force of government backing their actions and guidelines as well as huge financial backing (subsidy). The fare is kept artificially low by this backing.

They have no incentive to provide good service. They don't care if they expose "customers" to problems by their mishandling their fare media.

This is not the first time I've seen double punched transfers. One time, I almost didn't get a transfer at all because the operator couldn't find a single transfer to give me. Lucky for me, she found a book of current transfers in her personal bag.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

This Guy Almost Killed Me!!

2009-07-14T16:46:00.001-07:00

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Sent from my friking iPhone!

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

Bush Is Not Off The Hook

2009-07-13T17:23:00.001-07:00

Here's a video about the national debt and one of the reasons why Harry Truman is one of my favorite presidents. Any president that will put us back on the gold standard is on my A+ list:

Bush is why I lost my faith in government. I don't really care what Obama does because none of it is a surprise. I officially have checked out. In fact, whatever Obama's estimates are at this point, be sure you double it.

Now I believe the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and private property. Just admit you don't believe that if you defend Bush's actions with an argument like above video. "Bush didn't spend as much as Obama will!" Oh come on!

Bush took the wheels off of what little there was of a free market, and he did this well before there was any hint of Obama's plan:

If Bush and the Republican Congress worked on reducing the size of government like Truman instead of expanding it for those years they had total control, Obama would not be able to do what he's doing. They handed this situation to Obama; they could have stopped it well before this. It's really that simple.

That doesn't mean I would vote for a Truman now. It should be crystal clear that the system is completely broken if it can take us to this point. The dollar is doomed. America as we know it is already gone. The only solution is to completely ignore them. Have a nice day.

Posted via email from Anthony Martin's Weblog

0xC9

Using The Higgs Boson To Prevent Terrorism

Bob the Builder Lives in a Socialist Society

That Bin Laden Killing

Road Trip, 2011

An Evening of Eschatology The Meaning of the Millennium

You’re listening to An Evening of Eschatology

Toy Story Birthday

Pie Index (final)

Literally

Question Digested!

Anatomy of a Straw Man | The Threshing Floor

Bitcoin Mining Cartels: A Total Non-Threat

Did You Give Up On Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Declines After Rally to Record Prompts Investor Selling

US Judge OKs confession extracted by threatening suspect with rape #09CARACAS442

State Dept. Busted on Support of Coup #09TEGUCIGALPA645

Private Banking and Other Free Market Myths

Reply to The Underground Economist, Why Bitcoin can't be a currency

Bitcoin May Rise on Demand for Alternative Currencies, Survey Shows

Special

New California Driver License

A4 - Span

Apprehension in the "New Wine" of Dispensationalism

The Prime Directive is Immoral

The Good Stuff

Save PDF to iTunes (for iBooks)

Your Token Government

Homeschooling vs. Public Schooling

Hannah's Birthday Party

Without the Gospel

Yunjin Kim with NY Mag

iPhone Forgets Where Audiobooks and Podcasts Left Off

Providing Effective Services

Playing With Buzz

TJ KONG

Refusal or neglect to wear green; false green

Pixar vs. Dreamworks

Pricing Strategies for Consumers of Information Technology

Disneyland 2010

Let's All Say It Like George Takei (aka Sulu)

Are You Left-Handed?

Race to the Checkout Line

From NeXT to iPhone

Vast Dairy Conspiracy

Following All Regulations

My Great-Uncle Alfred

Expecting Unreal Weather

Hannah Plays "Reindeer"

My Fitbit

Latest In Nanotech Lithography

Selective Service System

Richard Dawkins is Misguided

Aquarium of the Pacific

Funny Face

Automatic Earthquake Tweet

Hannah's Doodles

Windows 3.11 on iPhone

Ralph Lauren: The Hits Keep On Coming

Letters From A Nut: Metro Annoyances

Yay Island's

Lies and Propaganda

Big Benjamin & Bob

A Tribute to the Polish People | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Hannah's Candy Store Mystery

Untitled

iPod Vending Machine

No Red Flag

Knott's Berry Farm

Foster's Premium Ale

Suspicionless Checkpoint, Addendum

Johnny Rockets

Last Night's Suspicionless Checkpoint

Behold: The Perfect Rootbeer Float

Too Big To Survive

Too Big To Survive

Kodak Back

America: Just Needs More Socialism

Nationalistic Recovery Administration

Understanding the Voluntary Society