Taking on some Intellectual Bullies

-->

            No sooner had I written a post extolling the virtues of capitalism and I find an article written by Paul B. Farrell. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/capitalism-is-killing-our-morals-our-future-2013-04-27?pagenumber=1
            First of all who is this guy?  He does have an impressive list of credentials, too long to list here.  So I’m sure he expects that working class idiots like myself are unable come up with any valid argument against anything he pontificates.  In other words, I bet he’s one of those intellectual bullies I have written about.  Well, I’m gonna take him on.
            In his piece, he quotes Micheal Sandel, a Harvard philosopher (those last two words are meant to make you stop in your tracks and never question anything that he says) and accuses capitalism of being the source of all our present financial woes.  Here’s a little bit of it:

Over the years, “market values were coming to play a greater and greater role in social life. Economics was becoming an imperial domain. Today, the logic of buying and selling no longer applies to material goods alone. It increasingly governs the whole of life.”
Examples: New free-market capitalism trapped in American brains
Yes, it’s everywhere: “Markets to allocate health, education, public safety, national security, criminal justice, environmental protection, recreation, procreation, and other social goods unheard-of 30 years ago. Today, we take them largely for granted.”
Examples ... for-profit schools, hospitals, prisons ... outsourcing war to private contractors ... police forces by private guards “almost twice the number of public police officers” ... drug “companies aggressive marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers, a practice ... prohibited in most other countries.”
More: Ads in “public schools ... buses ... corridors ... cafeterias ... naming rights to parks and civic spaces ... blurred boundaries, within journalism, between news and advertising ... marketing of ‘designer’ eggs and sperm for assisted reproduction ... buying and selling ... the right to pollute ... campaign finance in the U.S. that comes close to permitting the buying and selling of elections.

            What these guys fail to tell us is that markets always exist – for everything.  Simply having the government “not allow” something does not make it go away.  We have a market for illegal drugs, don’t we?  Yes, we do, and it causes more problems than any of the legal markets for the things he listed above.  That’s why they’re called BLACK (as in bad, like black magic) MARKETS.  Outlawing economic activity only hides it under a cloak of illegality, seldom helps anyone, and worse inflates the value for the items bought and sold.
            Now no one expects that inner city gangs would be dealing the products and services he mentioned if free markets for such things didn’t exist, but those items would have to be supplied and paid for in some fashion.  Now if the exchange of these items is not going to be regulated by a free market, who is going to be in charge of administering it?  Governments?  We all know what a wonderfully efficient job they do at such things.  Gimme a break!
            Capitalism is for the most part self-regulating.  If someone is overcharging for something, someone else will come in and sell it for less.  The problems with capitalism usually result from governments infringing on a free market’s (and free people’s) ability to do this.  Farrell mentions that 1 billion people in the world live on less than $2.00 per day.  Since the population of the U.S. is only about 350 million, it’s safe to say that they don’t live here in this great bastion of evil capitalism, and don’t give me any crap that the deplorable conditions in some shithole third world country are the fault of the United States.  Those blame for the conditions in those countries rest squarely upon their own governments that more often than not do not afford their citizens the freedom for capitalism to work effectively. 
Lastly, let’s address the campaign finance thing and the “buying and selling of elections”.  Corporations are made up of large groups of people including employees, officers, and stockholders.  They’re just a group of people with a common interest.  How is that any different than any other groups that have a political agenda?  It’s not.  If you are against corporate money in politics than you better be against any groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the ACLU, and People for the American Way, etc. entering the political fray too.  Trying to eliminate money from politics has similar results to trying to eliminate free markets.  Things just become more covert and less fair.
With all the examples we have seen over all these years of the ineptitude of governments, Farrell and Sandel still expect the rest of us to believe that they can deliver goods and services more efficiently and fairly than a free market.  As time goes on I become less and less confident of guys like this and the universities that produce them.  If there’s anything wrong with the free market, it’s the fact that these guys are making big bucks and I’m doing this for free.



Freedom, Capitalism, and Wealth

-->

            Way back in the mid-70’s when I was in confirmation class, our minister told us that only God could create something.  What he meant was that the words “create” and “make” did not have identical meanings, at least in the sense of the Christian religion.  To create means to bring something into existence out of nothing, like when God created the universe.  Humans can make things.  To make means to produce something from raw materials, like when a craftsman makes a chair out of wood.
            For you atheists out there, just replace God with the “Big Bang” and the above will ring true for you too.  The point is that humans cannot make physical objects out of nothing.  There are only two areas that I can think of where humans even come close to actually creating. 
The first is thoughts or ideas.  Any original thought or idea came into existence without the need for any type of raw material, but ideas are intangible. They can be valuable (which is why we have copyright and patent laws), but they cannot be touched, held, or directly measured.
            The second is wealth, which is kind of ironic since wealth and the pursuit of it is so often demonized, but think about it.  If I offer to sell you something, the only way that if you are going to buy it is if you believe that what I’m selling is worth more to you than what I am asking.  Obviously, the amount of money that I am asking for is worth more to me than whatever it is that I am selling or my asking price would be higher.  These are the conditions almost every time a sale is made.  Both the buyer and the seller are enriched because they both traded for something that was of greater value to them.  This is how wealth is created.  It’s a win-win situation.  It’s almost magic.  Since wealth can be measured and represented by a material thing (cash), capitalistic transactions are the closest humans will ever come to creating anything tangible.  I challenge you to come up with anything else that even comes close.
            If what I just said in the above paragraph is true, then why are there so many negative thoughts expressed about wealth and the pursuit of it?  Much of it is rooted in envy and resentment.  Many people that have failed, resent those who have succeeded.  Another source negative thoughts about wealth come from pure ignorance.  Some people believe that the only way someone can get rich is by cheating others.  If you agree with what I have written above, you know that nothing could be further from the truth.
Some people have gotten rich by preying on others, but don’t confuse getting rich with producing wealth, they’re not necessarily the same thing.  Enriching oneself through crime is illegal and does not create wealth.  It merely transfers wealth.  Does that term sound familiar?  Transferring wealth is at best a necessary evil and at worst a crime because there is no net gain for society.  Someone is enriched at the expense of someone else and no matter what anyone says, it hurts the poor and lower classes more than anyone else. 
The poorest areas where citizens receive the most wealth transfers from the government also have the most crime.  Do you think that is just a coincidence?   Creating dependency destroys pride, which increases both the likelihood of people turning to, and becoming the victims of crime.
The only legal way one can make money is by enriching the lives of others.  Capitalism is by its very nature is charitable.  Millions of times more good is done for more people simply by the wealth created by capitalistic transactions than by all charities combined.  Don’t believe me?  Where do you think all the money for all charities in this and other free countries comes from?  It comes from people donating money and from the government.  The source of that money was the wealth created by a capitalist economy.  A capitalist economy is not only the source of money for charity, but also provides the wealth for everyone else so they can be donors to, rather than the recipients of charity.
One of the problems many people have with an economic system like ours is the issue of fairness.  They say that it is not fair that some can become so rich while so many remain so poor, and they are at least partially right.  They are wrong however to focus only on fairness and not on net good for society.  If you look at communist societies that concentrated on fairness for everyone, you will notice that they have never done as well as the United States.  They did accomplish their goal of fairness (everyone was equally miserable), but they did not achieve a higher standard of living for everyone.  Why?
There are a few reasons.  The first we have already discussed.  They did not have a capitalistic economic system that produces wealth.  Secondly, their leaders used fairness for all as a selling point for coming into power, and once in control they had to deliver.  First they confiscated all the private citizen’s arms, and then they confiscated all private property and eliminated the upper classes, but poor were no better off.  By the time the people realized that most of them were worse off than before, they had lost any power to do anything about it, which brings us to the third reason why the communist countries seldom do well – lack of freedom.
Freedom and fairness have always and will always be at odds with each other.  Cavemen were entirely free.  If you were too lazy to kill your own mammoth, you were free to just kill someone who did and took theirs, but of course this was anything but fair.  As soon as anything resembling a society evolved, people came up laws to ensure the survival of society and fairness was more often than not at least one of the reasons for such laws.  Societies have been walking the line between freedom and fairness ever since.
People love games, but games are anything but fair.  Games involve luck and luck is the antithesis of fairness.  If the lottery were fair, you would buy a ticket for a dollar and every time, you would win one dollar minus the expenses of administering the game.  No one would play.  In games and in life, the fairness and the size of payoffs are inversely related.  People love the idea of getting rich, whether it is by luck or by hard work.  I’m not a big fan of gambling, because transfers rather than produces wealth but I also think that people should be free to do it.  I just don’t think it should be used as a source of government revenue and I don’t think that one ethnic group should be allowed to profit from it when others cannot.
Since what is and what is not fair is often a matter of opinion, we should not focus on fairness as much as we should focus on “what works”.  People may say that they want fairness for everyone, but they really don’t.  What they really want is fairness for everyone as long as it does not affect them negatively in any way.  Look at any rich liberal celebrities.  Did they forgo the opportunity to become rich and famous because it is not fair that others are not?  Of course not, and you can bet they aren’t going to give away anything to the point where it hurts either.  The chance to get rich or at least be better off is what drives all of us and we are all better off because of it.  Most inventions that make our lives better are the result of someone trying to make their lives better by the money they would make on them.
I subscribe to a magazine called “Farm Show”, which is mostly about farmer-made inventions.  Back in the ‘80’s, I read an article about a man who visited the former Soviet Union.  He was amazed that farmers there did not come up with inventions to save labor, money, or increase production like American farmers did, but why should have they?  They had no incentive to do so because being innovative did not improve their lives.  They didn’t own the farms that they worked on like American farmers so they did not have that source of pride, and they didn’t receive any rewards for ingenuity.  They also lacked the freedom to even try to be innovative.
Freedom is just as important as capitalism for a nation’s people to have the standard of living we have here in the United States.  If you look at modern history, you will notice that the most ruthless countries tend to be led by tyrants.  Why?  Because both their governments and their economic systems are not conducive to the production of wealth so they are forced to steal from their neighbors in order to survive. Tyrannical governments cannot allow their citizens to have freedom because free people would not tolerate them, but people cannot even come close to reaching their potential unless they are free.  This is why countries that have tyrannical governments will never do as well as countries where the people are free.  Freedom and capitalism go hand in hand and capitalism has produced more wealth than any other economic system.





University of Wisconsin System has $1 Billion Slush Fund


            It turns out that the University of Wisconsin System has an extra billion dollars that “it didn’t know that it had”.  Yeah, right.  That comes out to be about $175.00 for every man, woman, and child in the state.  The amount per taxpayer is much higher.  I suppose that it is better than being in debt.  I suppose it is possible that the people in charge of the UW system could be so incompetent that they didn’t know that they had it, but I doubt that even they are that stupid.  My suspicion is that they were hoping that no one would notice and eventually they would find some way to use it to enrich themselves.  Well, they’re not going to get away with it this time, but imagine all they stole back when Doyle was governor.
            I’ve been saying for thirty years that these people are a bunch of crooks.  My first semester’s tuition at UW Madison was less than $600 in 1980, now it is about $5000.  Inflation alone would make that number about $1600.  Where is all that extra money going?
            I’ve been checking this story on-line and it is amazing how many people are coming to the defense of the UW and criticizing governor Walker at the same time.  You can bet your bottom dollar that these are the same people who advocate using taxpayer money to subsidize tuition and you can also bet that a good portion of them are benefiting somehow from the status quo.  
            I got an idea.  How about instead of asking the taxpayers to foot the bill for college students, we just make going to college less expensive.

Where Have all the Nuclear Weapons Protesters Gone?



            If you’re old enough to remember the cold war, you will remember the nuclear weapons protesters.  They were same type of lazy, dirty, unemployed, liberal morons that made up the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  They and the mainstream media force-fed us the fear of imminent nuclear war.
            The Soviet Union is gone but that doesn’t mean that there is no longer any nuclear threat. North Korea has openly stated that is has no qualms about using nuclear weapons and the number of countries that have nukes keeps growing.  Iran says it will nuke Israel as soon as they have the capability.  The nuclear threat is now greater than ever, so where have all the nuclear weapons protesters gone?  Shouldn’t they be out there warning us, along with Kim Jong-un and Mahoud Ahmadinejad about the dangers of nuclear war?
            The answer is; they haven’t gone anywhere.  They just morphed into any of the other types of liberal protesters out there such as animal rights activists, global warming activists, gun control nuts, Occupy Wall Street types, etc.  I have said before that the liberal leaders do not care about the causes they claim to support, they just use them as smokescreens to hide their true motives.  I hope that what I am about to say here will convince at least some of you who may not already agree with me, that this is true.
            The late ‘70’s and early 80’s were the heydays for the nuclear weapons protesters.  They were constantly protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and demanding that the United States should agree to some form of nuclear disarmament.  The television networks always made sure to give them plenty of coverage and Hollywood produced a never-ending stream of post-nuclear Armageddon movies.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, the anti-nuke movement kind of died down.  Liberals nowadays seem to consider the wealthy and gun owners to be the greatest threats, and Hollywood seems to be more concerned with zombies and vampires.
If there were ever a time to protest the proliferation of nuclear weapons, isn’t now the time to do it, and shouldn’t the protesters focus on the countries that are threatening to use them?  Why isn’t it happening?
The reason is because the type of people that like to protest don’t care, not anymore than anyone else anyway, and they didn’t care any more that anyone else did in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s either.  Everyone was concerned about the possibility of nuclear war back then, but most people had jobs and other pressing matters in their lives that they had do deal with.  Then and now, protesting is a luxury for those with too much time on their hands like students and professors.  
The United States dealt with the Soviet Nuclear threat for over forty years. Sometimes, like with the Cuban missile crisis, things got pretty scary, but the mere fact that we’re still here proves that the people in charge of the U.S. and Soviet nukes were at least, somewhat levelheaded.  Does anyone think that Kim Jong-un or Mahoud Ahmadinejad are more mentally stable than the U.S. or Soviet leaders were?  These two guys sound like they can hardly wait to have an excuse to use a nuclear weapon.
The fact that the liberal protesters recently have been focusing gun ownership, hydraulic fracking, Wall Street, etc. and not nuclear weapons proliferation, proves that they are not concerned about it today.  The fact that they were asking for nuclear disarmament treaties back in the ‘70’s and ‘80’s proved that it was not their main concern back then either.  No one believed that the Soviet Union would have dealt in good faith, not even the protesters, so why would anyone support such a measure unless their intentions were to make the United States appear weak and vulnerable?
The liberal leaders are more than happy to stand by and let other countries that are not friendly to the U.S. develop their own nuclear arsenals because that weakens our position as a global power.  We are no longer in an arms race with the Soviets so the liberals have lost their incentive to protest nuclear weapons proliferation.  They have turned their attention to weakening the U.S. by attacking the people that create wealth and the freedoms that allow them to create and protect it. 

 

A Prayer for All the People in Boston and Their Loved Ones

Dear Lord,

     Please be with all the people in Boston that were affected by this tragedy.  Be with the souls of those who perished.  Help the injured to quickly recover. Give comfort to the victim's families and loved ones and please make sure whoever is responsible quickly faces justice.

                                                                                                                             Amen

Bang, Bang! , You're Dead - Bad KaBoom! , You're Dead - Good

-->
Bang, Bang! , You’re Dead – Bad
KaBoom! , You’re Dead – Good

            OK, in my most recent post we have a pair of twins (Charlotte and Harriet Childress) that are all bitter because realized that they could never get an audition for a Doublemint Gum commercial, so they devoted their lives to spreading their resentful garbage.  I must commend these sisters though for being honest about their motives and intentions.  Unlike most lefties they don’t try to hide behind a smokescreen.  They blame mass shootings and most of our society’s other woes on white men.  They are perfect examples of Resentful People and Destroyers, both of which I described in an earlier post: “Monsters and Logic and Guns”. http://goldengeesenews.blogspot.com/2013/03/monsters-and-logic-and-guns.html
            Since these two beautiful ladies are good enough to be honest about what they are, perhaps their thoughts are worthy of further examination.  First of all they claim that white males disproportionally commit mass shootings.  To be fair to them it is easy to see how one could come up with that claim, (All you have to do is ignore the facts and use the mainstream media as your only source of information.) but the idea is absolutely ludicrous.  The Beltway Snipers, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Fort Hood shooter and the majority of inner city gang members who have been convicted of multiple homicides were not white, so why would anyone make such an outrageous claim?
            The reason is obvious.  They are destroyers and are not interested in ending gun violence.  Their desire is to destroy the traditional power structure of this country and take away freedom loving people’s means of defending themselves against the lawless and a tyrannical government.
Some of you might think what I just said was pretty outrageous and would like to know what I have to back it up.  Don’t worry, I’ve got plenty.  First of all, gun control laws do nothing to solve the problems that gun control advocates claim that they are trying to solve.  We all know that since mass shooters don’t let the fact that murder is illegal stop them, they are not let any gun control laws get in their way either.  The people pushing gun control know this too.  Passing laws can only affect the behavior of the law-abiding.  The lawless, by definition, are immune from attempts to control their behavior through legislation.  It’s a waste of time and effort to pass new laws and then hope that criminals will obey them.  The one effective method for controlling criminal behavior is to increase the punishment for breaking existing laws, but this is something that liberals are unwilling to do.  Even with the topic of gun violence being on the front burner now days, do you ever hear any of the gun control people talk about harsher sentences for convicted criminals?
Let’s compare gun control to how we try to deal with other problems in our society like drunk driving.  Like gun violence, drunk driving wasn’t as big an issue many years ago, (Watch the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” sometime.  George Bailey gets drunk, run’s his car into a tree, and it’s not even an issue, not even for the cop.) but the problems associated with it increased as time went on to the point where our society felt that it was time to bring it under control.  What did we do?  Just as one would expect, we went after the drunk driving offenders.  This of course made sense. We didn’t put restrictions on the type and amount of automobiles or alcoholic beverages a citizen could possess, we increased the penalty for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.  How many drunk-driving deaths would have been prevented if we chose to address the problem by limiting the horsepower of any car any citizen could own or limiting the alcohol content of liquor?  The answer is few or none but isn’t this the way the anti-gun advocates want to address the problem of gun violence?
What about background checks and gun registration?  Aren’t these good ideas?  That depends on what your motives are.  They are not all that effective in reducing gun related crimes. (They’re much less effective in reducing gun related crime than voter ID is in reducing voter fraud but the gun control crowd is made up largely by the same people who oppose voter ID.) If your intention is to reduce gun related crime you have to first understand a few things about criminals.  Criminals can be divided into two types, those who don’t want to get caught and those who don’t care if they’re caught.  The former is much more common than the latter (which I’ll discuss later) but neither of them are affected much by background checks or gun registration.  Why?
Imagine you are planning on committing a crime with a gun and do not want to get caught.  Where are you going to get your gun?  There are several ways you’d might obtain the gun that you plan to use, but you certainly would not go purchase one by normal legal means or use a registered gun that you already own because you would not want that gun traced back to you.  This leaves you with either stealing a gun or purchasing one on the black market.  Neither of these methods is subject to gun registration or background checks.
Gun registration and background checks are just foot-in-the-door techniques to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.  Once background checks are required for all guns, the government need only incrementally tighten the restrictions on gun purchases in order to effectively eliminate gun ownership rights.  First they don’t allow convicted felons, and those diagnosed with certain mental illnesses to purchase guns, and then it will be illegal for people who have committed misdemeanors and people on medication to purchase firearms.  The government will continue to increase these restrictions so that eventually, no one will be able to purchase guns or ammo except of course, criminals.
Gun registration is the government’s way of finding out who has guns now, so they can confiscate them in the future.  In the near future the government may decide to classify guns and ammo as hazardous commodities and will impose extensive burdens on ownership in the form of licenses, fees, regulations, training, and reporting to the point where legal ownership becomes impractical.   Companies that deal with hazardous materials must report the quantity they buy, have in inventory, ship, sell, and even dispose of.  They can’t just say that they “lost” any hazardous material. It all must be accounted for or they will face legal consequences.  When the day comes that the government uses the gun registry to come and take away your firearms, forget about telling them that they have been lost, sold, or stolen.  They will accuse you of not reporting activity on a hazardous commodity and haul you off to jail.  There are a lot of ways to make law-abiding citizens give up their guns without actually making guns illegal.  Criminals need not worry.  The only way any of this will affect them is to increase the price of black market guns.  They’ll just have to rob more people in order to get enough money to buy their next gun.
All right, I think I have effectively driven a stake through the heart of any argument in favor of gun control.  All I need you to do is spread the word.  Now, let’s take another look at this “white male thing”.  What have these two overweight, (I just couldn’t help myself any longer) under-informed chicks done?  They have accused a particular ethnic group of being the cause of a problem even though it is obvious that they didn’t do any serious research to support their accusation.  Isn’t that a big no-no in leftie circles?  Oh yeah, white males can only be guilty of racism, sexism, or any other type of “isms”; they can never be the victims of them.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Childress sisters (opinions) carry a lot of weight and we need to reexamine white male’s role in our society.  If we are to look at the negative aspects of white males in society, it’s only fair that we also look at their positive attributes, like they invented almost everything that has allowed us to move beyond the Bronze Age.  Most other societies either used or copied the technologies developed by western societies and the ones that haven’t are still in the Stone Age.  Sure other cultures have come up with lots of innovations, but if you are going to accuse white males in general of evil, I feel justified in coming to their defense
Remember the bombings in this country in the late ‘60’s?  Weren’t they all done by liberals?  Now you got the Oklahoma City bombing in the 1990’s that was done by a right wing extremist and the abortion clinic bombers, but I think its safe to say that there’s a pattern of liberal bombers that’s at least as strong as any pattern of white male mass shooters.  Therefore shouldn’t liberals be subject to the same reevaluation that the Childress sisters are recommending for white males?  All of the shooters and bombers are the bottom of the barrel in our society regardless of their political slant, so what’s the difference?  There’s a big difference, and I’ll tell you what it is.
Although both white male mass shooters and liberal bombers both deserve nothing but the harshest punishment available, at least the white male shooters were willing to accept the consequences their actions.  They were criminals that didn’t care if they were caught, so obviously no gun control laws would ever have deterred them.  Every time one of these mass shootings occurs, I hear some journalists describe the shooter as a coward and I have no reason to disagree with them, but the shooters were right there in the middle of their atrocities knowing that they had reached their end.  What happened for them next was either suicide, being shot by the police, or life imprisonment.
The 1960’s bombers (who are mostly white males also, but they are liberals so they escape much of the criticism that the shooters receive) are often referred to, as heroes by the left; only they were nowhere near the bombs that they planted when they went off.  They kept a safe distance to avoid being hurt and to avoid being caught and therefore I consider them much bigger cowards than the shooters.
All of the white male mass shooters have either been killed or are in jail.  Liberal bombers of the 1960’s are now friends of our President and employed by our universities.  I guess it doesn’t matter to the left that you kill, but rather how and why you kill.







 

Think I Just Making Stuff Up? - Meet Some Would-be Destroyers



     The true nature and intentions of the left are so repulsive to most people that most lefties try to never have them revealed.  They attempt to hide what they really are by posing as advocates of public safety, social justice, and racial equality.  Occasionally, you run across some leftie wing nuts that are so full of resentment (and so full of themselves) that they forget to conceal what they really are.
     Meet the Childress sisters.  They think they've got the problem our country has with mass shootings all figured out.  It's all because of white men.  Check out their op-ed piece in the Washington Post.


                                  Charlotte and Harriet Childress (Photo credit: Facebook)

    It has been said that there are no stupid questions.  That may or may not be true, but the stupidity of people is often displayed by them asking questions.  In their op-ed piece they have several questions for white, male gun-rights advocates.  They're actually pretty easy questions and I'm surprised that they weren't smart enough to come up with the answers on their own.  It makes one wonder, "What else don't they know?"  Anyhow, being a white, male gun-rights advocate, I feel more than qualified to answer them, so lets have at it!

Q)What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?

A)First of all this question contains the presupposition that there are facets of white male culture that produce mass shootings.  Since they have no evidence that there are, the question is invalid, but being the cooperative, open-minded guy that I am, I'll play along.  The answer is there are no facets of white male culture that produce mass shootings.  The only thing that produces mass shootings is an individual that has no respect for himself or his fellowman whatever his race is.

Q)Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?

A)The reason the video games and the like are produced is to make money for the company that produced them.  The reason that white men and boys are entertaining themselves with them is because they are entertaining.  Men of all cultures throughout history have played war games and
boys have always played soldiers.  That's just the way it's always been.  If you looking for a reason as to why that is, it's that war has always been the ultimate power struggle.  When playing fantasy games, it is inevitable that people will gravitate to the ultimate in anything.  Foreign aggression has always been the ultimate threat to any society and threat has always been met with a society's ultimate defense.  That threat has always come in the form of men bearing arms, and the ultimate resistance has always been the same thing.  Sorry girls, if it bums you out that no society has ever considered you the ultimate in aggression or defense, but once again, that's just the way it is.

Q)Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races?

A)You want to know why someone does something for profit?  Boy you are dumb, aren't you?  The reason people attend gun shows is the same reason that people attend other types of shows - because they are interested in whatever is at the show!  This isn't rocket science, you should be able to figure this out on your own.  The reason that white men demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other races is because they are smart enough to know that a well armed citizenry is our best defense against lawless aggression and a tyrannical government. Restrictions are just foot in the door tactics to try and achieve the ultimate goal of a total gun ban.  This is not to say that people of other races are not as smart.  The reason you see fewer of other races supporting gun-rights is because they tend to be Democrats and we all know what their stance on gun rights is.

Q)Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?

A)See last part of answer above.

     In attempt to sum everything up, the two sisters added:  "If Americans ask the right questions on gun issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage white men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other white men and boys become healthier and less violent."

     Well girls, I just gave the right answers, and I feel healthier and less violent already.  I hope to God that you two feel smarter.

You Gotta Love This


School Zone
The Journal Sentinel education reporters offer news and notes from their beat

Wax On, Wax Off


Wax On, Wax Off

            If you have ever watched the movie the Karate Kid, you will remember that Mr. Miyagi had Daniel work on the fundamentals of karate for quite some time before having him doing any training that resembled fighting.  Like in karate, you need a good grasp of the fundamentals when having any political discussion.  Obviously, you need to be informed on the issue you are discussing, but it is just as important to know exactly what your core beliefs are, and even more important to know why you hold those beliefs.  If you don’t know why you believe something, your belief is probably not very strong and could very well be in conflict with other beliefs you may have.  This type of situation makes one vulnerable to losing debates. 
Although I wasn’t quite sure where I wanted to go with this when I first started, I think I have found the right niche for this blog.  Up until now, most of the posts here on the Golden Geese have been general topics.  Not too much time sensitive material.  There are some good reasons for that.  First of all there are already plenty of sites that are much more established with far greater resources covering current events.  Trying to compete with them would be pointless.  The last thing we need is another blogger trying to be some half-assed version of the Drudge Report.
The target audience of the Golden Geese includes two main groups of people.  First there are the people who are just beginning to become interested in politics and conservative thought.  In addition we have people that have been conservatives for years but are just now realizing it is not enough to just have a conservative philosophy, we must spread the word and increase our ranks in order to save our country.
Since it’s beginning, the Golden Geese has focused on fundamentals and generalities, because I wanted you to know why I think like I do.  You don’t have to agree with me, but at least you will know where I am coming from.  The important thing is that you know what your core beliefs and values are.  That way, it will be easier for you to analyze things yourself and form consistent opinions. I’m going to assume that most people reading this at least agree with me in general, so I encourage you read all my post from the beginning if you haven’t done so already.  There’s only about thirty-five or so, and this will get you fully up to speed.  Use the things you agree with, ignore the things you don’t, and add your own beliefs.  Then you will be armed with your core principles and ready for battle.  Wax on, wax off.
We are going to turn a corner now and start applying these fundamentals to real world news stories.  The purpose here will be to prove these fundamentals correct by exposing various liberals as the uninformed phonies that they are.  It’s going to be a lot of fun. 
One other thing.  Be looking for some big changes coming to the Golden Geese.  This has already taken longer than I wanted, but I promise that it will be worth the wait and you will know when it happens.



             
























Just In Case You Haven't Been Paying Attention


Just In Case You Haven’t Been Paying Attention

            Several countries in Europe are in serious fiscal trouble, particularly the ones referred to collectively as PIIGS. (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain)  Until recently, they have received the most attention, but now the spotlight is shining on the small island nation of Cyprus.  While it is a rather small and insignificant country, many feel what is happening there foreshadows what is to come elsewhere.  The government of Cyprus has decided to just confiscate the wealth of its citizens by taking up to 60 % of peoples bank accounts.
            Why is this important to us here in the United States?  Aside from the fact that this has a negative effect on global markets we should be concerned because we have conditions here that are similar to the ones that are causing the problems in Europe. (See earlier post “Superstorm Obama and Global Warning”) http://goldengeesenews.blogspot.com/2013/02/superstorm-obama-and-global-warning.html
            Not only are our problems similar, but also our “solutions” are also similar.  For some time now, we have been witnessing a cycle that goes like this: there’s a crisis in some country in Europe, the government is forced to cut spending, any people that are negatively affected protest and riot, the European Union comes up with some band-aid solution, and a few months later, everything happens all over again.  It can’t go on forever though and what’s happening in Cyprus right now is pretty much the end of the line.  I can’t imagine the people putting up with much more without rebelling against the government in some way.  The problem for them is that it is too late.  The government has squandered away so much wealth and taken on so much debt that virtually no one there will ever be able to fully recover.
Now look at the PIIGS.  Will they be able to avoid what has happened in Cyprus?  Are they even seriously taking steps to avoid it?  Are we?  We’re experiencing the same type of things here.  We are over $16 trillion in debt, but look at all the fuss people were raising during the debt ceiling negotiations and more recently, all the terrible things that were predicted to happen due to sequestration.  So far, nothing of any significance has been done to solve our debt crisis, (and no, cancelling White House tours is not going to balance our budget).
            Problems suck.  I’d rather not have them.  Usually the worst things about a problem are: 1) The exact problem has not been clearly defined, 2) The correct solution is not known, and 3) There has been no similar problem in the recent past where one could gain insight from observation.  We do not have to deal with any of these issues when it comes to our national debt.  Everyone knows spending too much is the cause and spending less is the solution.  We can observe the countries of Europe, who are a few years ahead of us in this downward spiral.  With this being the case, one might think that it would be relatively easy to solve our debt crisis, so why haven’t we?
            Solving a problem is like pulling on a load with a rope.  The more people you have, the easier it is – as long as everyone is pulling in the same direction.  There are many people in this country that either don’t want the problem solved,  (I call these people “Destroyers”, See earlier post: http://goldengeesenews.blogspot.com/2013/03/destroyers-true-nature-of-left.html?view=flipcard) or they are so selfish that they would rather see our country be financially crippled than see any reduction in their government assistance.
            Keep an eye on what is happening in PIIGS.  If they cannot stem the avalanche in their countries, it’s time to hit the panic button.