Archive for June, 2012

Are Mormons Misogynist?

June 29, 2012

Watching the left come unglued and resort to the original tactic of the Democratic Party, demagoguery, the same tactic used to attempt to preserve the institution of slavery, I am left to address something that people may feel is somewhat true.

The claim is that Mormons are misogynist, meaning, they hate or disrespect women.

As a Mormon who has sat through countless sermons and priesthood quorum lessons, and read the canon of the church as found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, I am honestly mystified as to why anyone would believe a Mormon could be misogynist. In fact, I’d dare say that Mormons have the most love towards women of any mode of thinking in the world.

Let me share with you a few recent anecdotes.

(1) In priesthood quorum, among a meeting of men, we had a lesson on revelation. Someone raised their hand to add their two cents. “Brethren, we need to listen to our wives. They are, for whatever reason, closer to the Lord than we’ll ever be.” Everyone nodded in agreement.

(2) In a similar environment, someone shared an anecdote of a temple sealer, someone who has been given the power to seal families together forever. He was giving a short sermon to the group of husbands and wives assembled in the temple in preparation of doing the sealing ceremony for their ancestors. He was an old sealer, ordained as a sealer by President Kimball, so his words have special meaning to us, because he has spent so much of his life in the temple contemplating this sacred ordinance. He spoke to the women, “Sisters, thank you for being here and bringing the Spirit with you.” Then he turned to the brethren, “Brethren, this is a sacred ordinance. You need to prepare yourselves spiritually. Follow the example of your wives.

These are some of the most private moments of the sharing of pure doctrine I have experienced.

Let me teach to you Mormon Doctrine considering women. I do this not to argue about doctrine, but to explain what every young mormon has inculcated in their minds as absolute doctrine.

First, Heavenly Father is male, the father of all the spirits. However, he is not alone. At his side is Heavenly Mother. This is rarely spoken of, because we do not wish to see the world misuse her or her name, and we do not take this doctrine glibly. However, it is doctrine, doctrine which no one can deny is ours.

Second, all women are created in God’s image, just like Adam was. They have a different role in God’s plan than the men, destined to be mothers in this life and in the eternities. We often refer to mother as the highest and most holy calling of all callings in the universe.

Third, we teach that Eve ate the fruit, then persuaded Adam to so partake. Our doctrine is very different than the typical Christian’s, however, since we celebrate Eve’s wisdom in partaking of the fruit. Had she not done it, we would never have been born, nor would we have fallen into mortality, and been provided with the opportunity to grow and become like our Heavenly Father. Eve is credited with being the first mortal being to comprehend the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to explain why it is necessary that man must fall first.

Fourth, although the father in the family is the head, or as we might say, the president, he is under strict command not to exercise his authority except with pure love, patience, tolerance, and so on and so forth. The moment he tries to compel anyone, including his wife, that’s the moment all authority leaves him. Also, he is to counsel with his wife, meaning, pay attention and do what she thinks is best. Not every Mormon family is ideal, but divergence from this divine structure is a gross sin of the worst sort among Mormons. Not only are you injuring your wife, but you are injuring your children. If we do not live up the high standards, we are under greater condemnation as husbands and fathers than our wives ever will be.

On this point, I cannot stress enough what we really mean by president or head. I think the best example is how George Washington behaved during the Constitutional Convention so long ago. There really aren’t many parables in life outside the church that would help people understand.

Fifth, people see the priesthood as only available to men, but this is not true. Women are ordained to offices within the church the same as men by the same authority. It is true that women will never be apostles or presidents of our church. I do not understand completely why men are only eligible for these callings. I will say this, however. (1) We do not consider a position of leadership as a promotion, but a demotion. The greatest among us will be our servants. (2) There are no perks of office. In fact, the higher you go, the less time you have to yourself, and the higher standards you must live from day to day. (3) When we call men to high positions in the church, we have their wives right beside them. Without her consent and support, leadership in the church would be impossible. (4) Women do hold positions of authority, and are entitled to just as much revelation as men are in their respective callings. On the ward leadership counsel, there are, at minimum, 3 women, the leaders of the Primary (children’s organization), Relief Society (women’s organization), and Young Women’s (teenage women’s organization.) They are not superior or inferior on that counsel to any other member of the counsel.

In a technical sense, and this is something that is not well-taught or understood by most including myself, but women are entitled to all blessings of the priesthood, and have the same authority as their husbands through the sealing covenant. I cannot explain further what this means since I myself am ignorant. I will say that women in our temples enjoy all of the temple ceremonies except one: the ordaining to the priesthood. This suggests to me that the priesthood is more of a family affair than an individual affair, IE, the father received the priesthood, blesses his family with it, and his family are entitled to all of its privileges because of the father.

Sixth, and most importantly, we teach that salvation in the highest degrees of glory is impossible without our wives, and that our wives will share with us all the benefits of exaltation. In fact, it is frequently alluded to that many more women will be worthy of this salvation than men, which is why, logically speaking, there will be polygamy in the afterlife.

I cannot imagine a mode of thinking that would elevate women any higher. Women are a critical part of the plan of salvation, women play a huge role in the afterlife, and God himself couldn’t be God without his wife beside him.

After understanding these doctrines, how can anyone say that Mormons are misogynist? I cannot understand it. Sure, some of our members fall well short of our high ideals, or some do not understand correct doctrine, and so we might find instances where women are treated poorly by specific men, but this is the exception, it is contrary to what we teach, and when we discover it, we do whatever it takes to remedy the situation. We would even go so far as to excommunicate a man from our church if he fails to treat his wife properly.

Separation of Church and State? Not when it comes to Christian Charity!

June 28, 2012

Those who would like the government to stay out of church affairs, beware invoking Christ’s teachings to justify government charity. If it is good enough to use the Bible to dictate that we should care for the poor and sick, then a similar line of reasoning can be used to do far more disagreeable things. Beware!

My stance is that charity is a church, a religious, affair. It is up to the individual to contribute, out of the goodness of their heart, to help their neighbors, whether that be to a church or to some organization. The government exists merely to use force to protect our rights to live, to serve one another, not to make life fair or to undo the injustices caused by Satan’s influence on the world. When we replace our churches with government institutions, and give our government leaders the job that we used to give our church leaders, we are setting ourselves up for the same pitfall that plagued Europe during the Dark Ages.

How to Fundamentally Transform Government

June 28, 2012

Some people think that the Supreme Court will one day step in and make a ruling that will bring the constitution back to its text, and preserve the rights and freedoms of the people in the process. This will never happen.

Some people think that a new constitutional amendment will be passed, either by the states or the congress, and that magically, the constitution will protect the rights and freedoms of the people. This will never happen, either.

Some people think that one day, we’ll elect a congress and a president, and legislatures across the country, which will begin the slow and arduous process of moving the country towards liberty by  whittling away at socialist programs, by creating a free enterprise sector of the economy where everyone is free to get rich, and by weaning people off of government. This could happen, but not how you would think.

There is not going to be a magical election when, all of a sudden, Americans choose a different government substantially different from the last. That will never happen.

Americans will oscillate between two kinds of governments, governments that represent pluralities in our country. The Founding Fathers intended this. They wanted the House of Representatives to oscillate between extremes. By choosing representatives by majority or plurality votes, all it takes is a tiny shift in public opinion, and a new party sweeps congress. They could’ve done some proportional allocation scheme, where power doesn’t transfer as rapidly, but they did not.

The change that needs to occur, the only change that will change our government, is in the hearts and minds of the people. One by one, as people’s ideas change, their votes change, and the governments change. It is up to us to convince the majority of our fellow countrymen that our ideas are correct and our ideological opponents are wrong. It is no different than the effort required to convince people to change their religion, or to change their lifestyle, or to adopt new technologies. It can be done, but it is not easy.

Our fight is not in the Supreme Court, or in the presidency, or in Congress, or in the ballot box, even. These are all effects, not causes. Our fight is ultimately in the minds of every one of the people in this country. Our job is to educate and motivate.

Ultimately, a piece of paper, the constitution, cannot secure your freedom. To expect such a thing is laughable. I can’t imagine that the Mongol Hordes were stopped by people waving contracts and laws in their face. It was stopped by people, thousands and thousands of individuals who stood up, faced their fears, stood shoulder-to-shoulder, and  fought rather than ran.

And so it is in our country. The Congress, the President, the Supreme Court, care nothing about you. They don’t even know who you are. They don’t want to know. To expect them to care about you because of a piece of paper is laughable. What makes them care is the fact that so many other people in our country care about you. What gives the constitution power is that so many other people care about it as well.

If the majority who vote at the polls care about individual liberty and the constitution, then the government will care, deeply, about what they think. The government will do everything in their power to ensure that they get re-elected in the next election. As long as the voters care, the government will care.

If you want to fundamentally transform America, don’t throw your hopes in a candidate or a supreme court case. What a false God that is! Instead, work to convince your neighbors and your friends to change how they vote. Change will not happen overnight, but it will happen. One day, we’ll have a majority in congress who actually cut the budget, who lower taxes, who pass constitutional amendments to further limit the power of government, who install justices who only care about the text of the constitution.

We’ll simply have the government we deserve.

See, God created man in his own image. He gave us dominion over ourselves and the earth we live on. He stepped away, with his ultimate rule being, “It’s up to you now.” We are the ones in charge, not a handful of people. We are the ones who determine our fate and who choose how to live our lives each day.  We can choose to look to false gods, pieces of paper, arbitrary groups, or the ballot box, or we can choose to look to the true God, and trust that the power to rule ultimately rests with the thing he said it rests in: the hands and minds and voices of every living person on this planet.

Empower yourself. Look at the world as the master and commander of your own fate. So what if our government is unjust and inequal? Do you think mankind did perfectly fine under tyranny in the past? Didn’t people live and breath and work and worship while their rulers violated their rights? Stand up, count yourself as free despite the things around you, empower those around you. Teach them the true doctrine of the true God, that we are free and man is lord over all the earth by divine birthright through Adam, that we are not animals or slaves or anything less than mirrors of the God of the universe. Teach them about natural law, God’s laws, laws that apply equally and eternally to all, and the justice of the laws, and the injustice of man’s laws. Teach them to crave a government where men’s rights are the aim and goal of every action, not because of the benevolence of its actors but because the power ultimately rests in the hands of the people. See what effect this will have.

That is our fight. Yes, campaign, and vote, and get your friends to vote, but don’t put your hopes in the arm of flesh.

Roberts the Justice

June 28, 2012

As you no doubt heard, Obamacare has been ruled constitution by Chief Justice Roberts, which offset Justice Kennedy’s unconstitutional vote and made it law.

His reasoning is not simple or terse. Lawyers at Power Line Blog are analyzing it as we speak. Some of the initial analysis is already enlightening.

Chief Justice Roberts did exactly what I would like all justices to do. The Supreme Court is not where we settle our society’s problems. It is to be used, exclusively, to sort cases out and apply the law fairly to all.

I am one of those who still believe that Marbury vs. Madison was wrongly decided. Meaning, the power to decide what is or is not constitutional is in each of the components of the federal government, the people, and the states. They are to use their powers to enforce their view over all the others, which powers have been carefully allocated to ensure one cannot exceed the bounds to the detriment of the other.

This case is Chief Justice Roberts doing exactly that. He said, “There is an argument that makes the law constitutional, and people who would disobey the law won’t be able to hide behind the constitution because of it.” Then he described how one could navigate constitutional law. The navigable route is simply that Obama passed a massive tax increase with a loophole for those who buy health insurance that makes the IRS happy. This will surely be a scarlet letter during the upcoming election, but that is not why I like this decision. I like it because it makes sense. Yes, it is a tax, I admitted it, many others did, despite the fact Obama and all the other constitutional lawyers on the left denied it.

I believe that the president, the congress, the states, and the people should use the constitutional argument to shut each other down. If congress believes something is unconstitutional, they should not expect some other part of government to overturn it. They should realize they are the first and last bulwark of what is constitutional or not, and what becomes law in our country or not.

As such, it is up to us, the people, to choose representatives, senators, governors, and presidents who agree with us about our interpretation of the constitution, and are willing to fight (with their constitutional power) to defend it.

If the Supreme Court had acted with such prudence before the Civil War when they heard the case of Dredd Scott, I don’t think we would’ve had a Civil War. Recall that it was the Supreme Court that imposed slavery on the Northern states. Before the Dred Scott decision, a Southerner dare not take their slaves into free states, because the free states did not recognize slavery according to law. Although this was annoying to Southerners, and although it meant that slaves were slipping out of the Southern states into the North, it was hardly a reason to go to war. Many countries exist side-by-side with rules that harm the other without war. Besides, the importation of slaves was already banned, meaning that what slaves were bought or sold were either already slaves or born into it in the South.

There was an amicable resolution to the slavery question, one which a particular candidate for president advocated before he was murdered. It was simply this: ban slavery everywhere, by buying the slaves from the South with federal monies and freeing them. With no slaves imported and no existing slaves, the institution would end without a single tear shed.

The question of abortion is another instance where the Supreme Court went to far. The reasoning behind it was a new invented right that the constitutional subtext supposes to exist. Since people are private in their papers, then that means we can’t search inside women’s wombs to see if they are with child or not, and so we can’t have laws anywhere in the country that forbid the slaughter of unborn children, regardless of when a child is consider to be a living person under the law. How the one is connected to the other has never been explained, since it cannot be explained. As a child, I did not understand it. As an adult, it is the kind of logic that wants to make me scream.

If you are one of those sort who despise Roberts for ruling against freedom and liberty and for government largess, I beg you to reconsider. His job is not to create government in the way he sees fit. Any justice that believes that is their job should be impeached immediately. His job is simply to read the law and the constitution and do his best to reconcile them in specific cases. What more could we want in a justice? To give them anything more is to create an absolute oligarchy, a rule by justices.On the other hand, if you have become a newfound fan of Roberts because he has sided with your cause, I beg you to reconsider. Today’s friend will be tomorrow’s foe, because it is not allegiance to one side or the other that caused him to write his opinion in that way.

I would like to crawl inside the mind of Scalia and Thomas. Unfortunately, Justice Kennedy wrote that decision. I am left to imagine what they were thinking. Their argument hinges on the fact that it was not a tax. I would like to know why they say it is not, because to me, it was and is a tax.

Gratefully, the “other” four justices wrote their decision separately from Roberts, arguing that the commerce clause empowers the federal government to do whatever it wishes, damn the people. To them, the government could mandate we all worship golden calves, or make slaves one of another, because the commerce clause empowers the government to do so. They have never implied there is a limit, and their decision today reflects this. I am grateful because they are honestly telling the American people what they stand for. Now, the American people can tell their senators they want more like Roberts, and less like Sotomayor or Ginsburg.

So at least there is good news today. 5 to 4, the Supreme Court ruled that there are limits on government despite the commerce clause. One of those limits is mandating the purchase of something. This is something that hasn’t happened, ever, as far as I can see. We are now entering in new territory, territory where the Supreme Court will not go along with anything congress says simply because they utter the magic phrase “commerce clause”. This is truly a turning point.

Mitt Romney the Untouchable

June 26, 2012

Watching from a distance, it’s curious to see how the leftists are working their side of the campaign. It has been some time since anyone has attacked anything to do with Mitt Romney besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can understand why.

When people on the other side of the political spectrum have attacked Romney, they tried to go for his credibility, his compassion, or his capability. These are legitimate attack vectors. If his credibility, compassion, or capability were in doubt, I’d question whether he was qualified to be president as well.

On the credibility side, the only thing that seems to work is saying, “Romney is a liar.” Of course, when you dig down deep into what specific lies they claim he has said, it turns out that the liars are the ones who have tried to frame Romney as a liar. If you don’t trust me, try to find  the specific things people claimed Romney has lied about. Then locate the full context of where he was speaking, and see if there was truly a lie, or simply the quote taken out of context. You don’t have to work very hard to show that Romney is hardly a liar. That’s why claims of Romney’s dishonesty are hardly ever accompanied by something to substantiate that claim.

On the compassion issue, stories are already coming out about how Romney was a community leader in the truest sense of the word. Despite being worth well over a million dollars, he would still take his time and energy and spend it helping people around him, people that are close and people that are not. He could’ve easily saved himself the trouble by hiring people far more qualified to help with his millions, but he chose, instead, to personally interact with the people he cares about. At the end of the day, if this becomes the deciding factor for Romney, Romney will cruise to victory.

For his capability, we don’t have to look very far. He took control of Massachusetts when it was spiraling out of control. Things were so bad, they elected a republican, of all things, to lead the state. Despite the fact that he faced a legislature wholly opposed to everything Romney stood for, he was still able to move the state in a positive direction, and keep it from falling off the cliff. I cannot think of any other living political figure that has done anything comparable. We expected Obama to do this, but he, of course, has failed miserably. We need someone who can lead an organization in a dangerous position plagued by internal strife, which is the state of affairs in these so-called United States today.

The only attack vector left is guilt by association. Using Bain Capital is fruitless. It is run largely by Obama supporters. All the bad things it has done have been done after Romney left, anyway. Romney’s close friends are of similar unimpeachable character. His donors tend to be vastly superior in morality and ethics than Obama’s. So that leaves the church. It should make an easy target, seeing as how it has been under constant assault since before its founding in 1830.

Unfortunately, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has anticipated this and is well-prepared. The church has experience in publicity campaigns almost since its founding. All forms of attacks have been used, and all have failed. Despite the ink and spittle that has been sprayed in hopes of stopping the work, it has carried on, successfully, exponentially, and will carry on in the future. As our scriptures say, “How long can rolling waters remain impure? What power shall stay the heavens? As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course, or to turn it up stream, as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 121:33)

Those of you who think the Mormon church is anything but what it claims to be are ignorant. When you take the time to see for yourself, you will come to understand why I say this confidently. I don’t think it’s possible for an honest person to seriously assess the veracity of the church’s claims and remain a passive bystander. That’s why there aren’t many who are. You pretty much fall into one of two camps, becoming an advocate and likely member of the church, or joining the increasingly marginalized and frantic opposition that has been with us since before day 1 of the church’s history. They will be with us for quite some time, but their story is increasingly losing any popular support.

If Mitt Romney’s opponents, if the opponents of freedom and liberty and individual responsibility, want to make the church the primary issue of this campaign, I, for one, will gladly celebrate it. If that’s what you want America talking about, whether Joseph Smith was a fraud or the most important prophet since the beginning of time, I’d love to discuss it. I believe we are the religion that all people are looking for, especially those who have grown weary of religion or have grown to hate religion as they see it. I would love to have an opportunity to explain to people more about what we truly practice and believe, and why I believe our beliefs and practices are superior in every way.

However, in sake of honesty and fairness, I must warn people who would take this foolish step. If you’re going to try and win 2012 by attacking the LDS church, you’re going to be hurting yourself more than if you had simply given up. You’re going to be helping the LDS church more than if you had ignored it. In other words, you will achieve exactly the opposite result, in every conceivable way. I do this because I do sincerely care about you, like good Christians should.

An Election Story: What the Original Electoral College Would Look Like Today

June 21, 2012

Let’s suppose that the democratic component of our presidential elections is eliminated. All the state legislatures have to choose every four years who they will send to the electoral college, which meets on the same day in each state and votes for president. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then the House of Representatives chooses the next president for them.

Let’s suppose that things are otherwise mostly the way they are today. How would this political season be different?

First off, the president would not be a position for which hardly anyone would have a say in. It doesn’t matter what you or I think, as long as we are not sitting in a legislature. So the entire debate about who the next president would be would occur out of the public arena. Is this a bad thing? I think when we choose who the next president is, it is a very good thing. We can maintain the dignity of the office, and still have a hearty discussion about who best to lead our country without being humiliated internationally.

Second, I imagine that the republican and democratic parties would take careful stock of which legislatures are in their pocket and which are not. As it stands today, republicans have an overwhelming advantage in state legislatures across the country. By my math, splitting the electoral votes evenly when the upper and lower chambers are not united in party, the republicans have 332 vs. 203 for the democrats.

Because of this second fact, a great deal more attention will be spent on the state legislatures. If you want to influence presidential selection, you need to get your people in the state legislatures. I can see the state elections becoming more important than the federal ones under this system. Is this not a good thing?

Third, when one or the other party realizes it has the upper hand, it must then choose a candidate that is agreeable to all of its states, or at least enough to carry the day. The party will be busy finding and selling a variety of candidates for president, until they find one that the state legislatures find palatable enough.

What are the qualifications state legislators would care to see in the president?

  1. For starters, they must not be so repugnant to the people that they would be in danger of being held accountable for how they vote on election day. Even though, at best, congress can put 2 years between the selection of the president and the election of the state legislatures, people will remember when the legislature makes a bad choice, and it will make re-election that much harder.
  2. The president should represent what they would like in the office of the presidency. For many and most people, this will simply be what everyone expects a president to be: smart, courageous, and able to lead fairly. For a few, this will be a test of ideological purity. Compared to what the people care about, this is worlds better than what we have today.
  3. Most importantly, state legislators will not choose a president who would interfere in their political realm. They would want a president who respected boundaries and didn’t try to usurp the power of the states to do what they wish.

In the end, I imagine that either party would have a long list of potential candidates. A committee appointed to represent interested parties would whittle this down to a few, and finally, choose one to be the candidate for the party. I can’t imagine a party forcing a candidate on a state legislature. It just doesn’t work that way. The legislatures would be more than free to tell the National GOP where they can put their candidates if they refuse to choose someone who represents their ideas.

And where would money pay a role? Perhaps you could bribe some state legislators to vote a certain way. I doubt you could bribe all of them, even if you had very deep pockets. Maybe you could promise a state that if they choose so-and-so to be president, then they would give the state money or some advantage. But if that advantage comes at the cost of the other states, I can’t see the other states jumping on that bandwagon.

We have a similar system for choosing federal judges today. Even if the senate were united in the president’s party, they would still insist on thoroughly vetting potential judges. Note that judges don’t even think of raising a dime to help their chances to get appointed, nor do they go about campaigning to be a judge. Judges are chosen.

Assuming that a party has the upper hand, the process of selecting electors will be relatively quiet and obscure. Once the candidate has been named, it is just a matter of time with boring details in between. The legislatures choose the electors, the electors meet, the candidate is chosen, and he becomes president.

In the rare case that neither party has an upper hand, then both parties will put forward a compromise candidate. This candidate would be able to convince both republicans and democrats that they would be a good president for them. In this way, it becomes a race to capture the middle. We would end up with a president who really represented all of us. What a concept that would be! The curious effect of having a divided legislature decide on something is what compels this. Since the House of Representatives would choose someone anyway, it is in every state legislature’s interest to make a choice.

The best part is that almost all of the above process would be out of the public eye. Our representatives would be doing all the hard work at coming to a resolution quickly. We can enjoy watching our TV shows and ads without being bombarded by presidential ads designed to divide us against each other. Nobody on the air would think of furthering their political agenda by hurting our president, since the people’s opinion of the president isn’t very relevant.

A curious thing also occurs. The amount of money spent campaigning for president would be almost zero. How much does a CEO spend trying to find a job? No, it would rather be the other way around. No one would ever say, “Choose me for president.” Instead, they would get chosen to be president. Gone is all the ego in getting elected.

In office, the president wouldn’t think much about re-election. As long as the makeup of the state legislatures doesn’t change much, and as long as they don’t do anything retarded, they should be safe for re-election. This gives them a similar power to CEOs, the ability to do their jobs and focus on what’s important for the country. Since the president never campaigned for the position in the first place, but instead was chosen, the country would look at him differently as well. Why would it make sense to beat up on our president, when he faces no re-election by the people? If you wanted him out of office, you’d have to either convince the House to impeach him or the state legislatures to change their affiliation or respect for the man in office.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, and the above story illustrates why. What purpose does it serve to whip up emotions, to divide the country into “us” vs. “them”, and to set people ablaze with passion? How can doing so possibly help us achieve a sane government that represents and protects the rights of the people? It boggles my mind why people think democracy is a good idea, or why forcing us to beat each other up each year makes us strong.

In conclusion, we simply wouldn’t have a political system like we have today if we eliminated the democratic part of our presidential selection process.

Living With the Rich

June 21, 2012

People often get upset at the income difference between rich and poor in America. They say it is some sort of injustice that there are people in America who make billions of dollars each year while there are others who can only make a few thousand dollars.

I say I’d rather make a few thousand dollars in a country with billionaires than a country with only millionaires.

I think I have a logically sound explanation of why that is. The simple explanation is opportunity.

Suppose I make no money at all and have no financial assets at all, and have no credit whatsoever. I am literally penniless, and I have no way of getting any money at all except for selling my time. Suppose I am relatively unskilled compared to the people I live with in my country. This would represent a poor kid from the “hood” (sorry to use 90’s terminology) who finds himself thrust into reality.

If I lived in a country with very many very rich people, I’d be much better off than if I lived in a country where people were more similar to my status.

The reasoning is rather simple. In a classic economic logical exercise, we can prove that even if you are not as good as others at doing something, you will still get paid for doing it. The thought experiment works like this. Suppose there are two islands, A and B, and two products that people on those islands can produce, C and D, each unit of equal value on the world market. Now, the people on island A are educated and have technology and training available, and each person can produce about 1000 C’s and 500 D’s. On island B, the people are backward. They use stone tools and cannot even read or write or do basic arithmetic. Each one can only produce 10 C’s or 10 D’s. Now, suppose the two islands entered into trade. What sort of arrangement would benefit everyone the most? Should the people on both island produce some C’s and some D’s, or should everyone on A produce C’s and everyone on B produce D’s, or vice-versa? The answer is to have everyone produce what they are comparatively good at. On island A, people produce twice as many C’s as D’s. so they should focus on that. On island B, they can produce C’s or D’s with equal ease, so they should choose between one or the other. Since island A is making all the C’s, they should focus on making D’s. No other combination will yield as much value for the people of islands A and B.

So, given the fact that in terms of the national economy, I am at the very bottom rung, there is something I do comparatively better than the people around me. It may take a while for me to figure out what that is, it may require someone with more experience and education to tell me what to do, but in the end, there is something I can do. If I focus on doing that, it will be in the rich people’s interests to pay me to do that task so they can focus on what they are comparatively good at. Say I’m comparatively good at cleaning toilets, while the rich people are comparatively good at running factories or buying and selling stock on the stock market, or programming computers, or inventing new apps for mobile devices. If I just focus on cleaning toilets, then it won’t be long before a rich person comes a long and says, “You know, if you clean my toilet, I can spend a few more hours a month focusing on what I am good at, and I’d make more money as a result. Here’s a part of the money I make because you’re cleaning my toilet.”

Ta-da, I have a job, and it probably pays pretty well, because the rich people I work for are making millions of dollars for every hour they don’t have to clean their toilets.

In a poor country, I still have the same opportunity. However, the time it takes to clean the toilets is not nearly as valuable to the rich of that country. So when they go to negotiate my pay, there is a much, much lower limit to it. Beyond a certain point, and it doesn’t make any economic sense for them to hire me.

The above is logically sound. I can’t see an issue with it. If you are poor, you are much better off living with enormously rich people. There are vast opportunities available to you that would not be available if you were living in a country with more “fair” income distributions.

So, when communists and socialists and leftists and progressives and nazis alike quote to you the income disparity, and you find yourself near the bottom of the scale, just keep in mind that you have vast opportunities that would not exist in countries where the rich and poor are much more similar in income to each other.


June 7, 2012

On Tuesday night, Governor Scott Walker, Republican of Wisconsin, obliterated the unions of his state. The once-proud home of socialism and unions in America is now at the forefront of their abolition.

I can’t emphasize enough what happened in Wisconsin. The liberals were utterly crushed. They have no more hope in that state.

On the same day, two public-sector unions were handed the bitter taste of defeat in two deeply blue cities in California.

If Scott Walker can win in Wisconsin, then anti-union Republicans can win in Washington State. We need not fear them anymore.

More importantly, I’m watching the coalition of interests that make up the Democratic Party fall to pieces.

One leg of the stool was the union vote. Unions are being handed defeats across the country. There are fewer people in unions today than there have been for many decades. Unions are nowhere nearly as popular as they were just five years ago.

The other leg of the stool is the environmental movement. Conservatives are quickly taking over that movement, replacing the fantasy of Global Warming with common-sense stewardship of the land. The EPA is also on the chopping block of the Republican Party.

Another leg was the black vote. When Obama announced he would support homosexual marriage, a whole lot of black pastors said they could no longer support him. Blacks have always voted, heavily, against homosexual marriage, and it looks like many of them will vote against Barack Obama. Mitt Romney may earn more of the black vote than any republican has since reparations.

Another leg of the stool was crony capitalism. Companies like Solyndra were one of thousands that leech on the federal budget. Their earnings ends up in democratic campaign budgets. Where did Solyndra’s money go? It’s not coming home to the democrats.

I can’t point to any particular group that Obama is doing well with except the homosexual vote. Even then, I believe this is the last year people will think it is an actual possibility to have homosexual marriage across the country. Even Washington State is likely to overturn the law.

Here’s my predictions, which I may get wrong. (1) Mitt Romney wins big. He is crowned Reagan v 2.0. (2) The liberals suffer astonishing defeats in every corner of the country. (3) Homosexual marriage goes down in defeat.

I wonder whose idea it was to make Barack Obama president. Maybe it seemed like a good idea even 2 years ago. Perhaps he really was a Manchurian Candidate. Regardless, it’s apparent that what killed him and his allies or supporters was his own incompetence.

I hope Mitt Romney gets to use the line, “I’ve fired people more competent than you.” I would love to hear that.

After 2012, the liberals really have to wonder what they are going to do. They cannot win, anywhere. The TEA Party has completely stymied every effort they have made or will make. Glenn Beck continues to expose them. I really can’t see them continuing as a viable political option.

1980 was the year liberals saw they could lose elections to strong conservatives.

1994 was the year liberals realized that they were no longer popular.

2006 was the year republicans realized they could not longer be liberal.

2010 is the year conservatives said, “Screw it” to the parties, and decided to do things their own way.

2012 is the year that the political debate is going to be between TEA Party and the Republican Party. After, of course, they completely obliterate the Democratic Party and the liberal movement.

From here on out, the question is how quickly do we balance the budget, and how quickly do we lower taxes to almost nothing.