Free Market -- Default Mode

Instead of leaves being swept from the Stoa this afternoon, it is candy wrappers. Lots and lots of candy wrappers.

I have said it before and since this is a truth, it deserves to be repeated. Free markets and capitalistic methodologies are the human default mode. At the base of the Stoa last night and into this afternoon, there are neighbor children swapping, trading, and otherwise begging candy from one another. Even candy has a relative value and worth. I discovered that a York Peppermint Patty is worth two Milky Ways and one Three Musketeers is worth two packs of Skittles.

Children need to be taught to share. This is because we have an instinct to gather, hoard, and possess that must be overcome, to some degree, to function in large groups. Socialism must be forced upon a majority of the population. Just ask the Soviet Union and the Khmer of Cambodia. In many cases, those that don't want it must be eliminated lest they talk to those that are wavering in their acceptance.

Stoics have a belief that stress and conflict arise when one is doing something contrary to their nature. Being at peace is to recognize your behavior and attempt to live it. This does not mean pacifism; remember that Marcus Aurelius was a devout Stoic who also rode to war on a horse to conquer German territory and instill fear in those neighboring tribes. He acted according to his nature.

Children and their parents "want". It is that simple. We certainly have "needs", but wanting, needing, and possessing are the rub of the issue. If people are allowed to set the value of objects based on their worth to other individuals, then the maximum number of people will be happy and productive. Wealth will grow and appear from seeming nothingness, as those with lower value work harder to have enough currency to buy items of higher value. In Socialism, all you have to do is sit around and wait for your masters to strip the wealth from one person and give it to you. No work required, just "Hope".

If the Tea Party mystifies you, then just sit down your children after Halloween, grab the neighbor kids for good measure, and then sort out the candy and give everyone a share of all the types of candy, regardless of type or effort expended in its accumulation. If you survive the uprising, tears, and all around unhappiness, then you have successfully Socialized Halloween. At the same time, once you turn around and are not imposing your (government) will upon the group, the horse-trading will immediately start up and the kids will once again get what they want and trade what they do not want.

Now, just swap kids for the American populace and candy for our income and possessions. The Democrats are seeing us throw a fit because they are re-distributing our wealth, our hard work, and our earnings to those who have not worked as hard as us. It is no more difficult to understand then that, though I'm sure they understand just fine.

The Stoa is noisy this afternoon and I must go and begin sweeping up these wrappers lest they interfere with those wishing to sit around the base later in the day.

Live well.

--Zavost

The Tyranny of Law

With bathrobe wrapped and coffee in hand, I come to the Stoa tonight to get a few things off my chest.

While reading the other morning, there was an article about a local walk-up beach stand (small building, actually) that serves corn dogs, hot dogs, and other typical beach food fare. They are quite famous locally, actually, and have started a small local franchise out of it. In the article, it stated that the stand has been shut down for the last two weeks of its year because it violated township ordinances by selling...doughnuts. Yep, doughnuts. Apparently, the owner did not seek the permission of the township zoning board to permit them to sell doughnuts.

Like I usually do when I get interested in something, I look at the original source material. It is amazing how much the media stresses on a few inconsequential things and ignores the real substance of an issue...but I digress. The township states that doughnuts are not on his pre-approved menu. Looking at the actual letter issued to the owner (available online), it clearly states that they may serve, "...snacks, such as pretzels, drinks, and chips, etc." A clear and straight interpretation of that line is quite clear. The statement, "such as" does not itemize the menu, it merely gives examples of what the township states are, "snacks".

The situation unfolded thusly: someone tells the township the shack is selling doughnuts, some official with nothing else to do, reads what they are permitted to sell and decides to check it out for themselves. Noting that they are able to purchase a doughnut on the weekend from them, they send him a letter telling him to desist and gives him a meeting date to come in and discuss it (i.e. ask for permission via a zoning amendment). The owner gets the letter, looks at the wording and thinks to himself that this is a load of something and needs to be buried on the beach. Now, the owners probably should not have done that, it just makes the bureaucrats think they are not being taken seriously. Doughnuts kill if not zoned to the proper neighborhoods, but again, I digress.

So, having missed the zoning amendment meeting, the township drives down the street and shuts them down. Just like that. A zoning violation.

Having looked at the letter, it is silent about several things less clearly described as "snacks". Examples: condiments, buns, sticks, and soda. Can he have mustard and ketchup or can he only offer one or the other? How about onions? I love onions on my hot dog. How about the bun? Can it come pre-split or can he use a fork to hollow it out and stick it inside? Makes you think. Do the sticks have to be recycled or made out of a fast growing, renewable resource? How about the soda, is the township going to force him to serve only Coke or only Pepsi? At least a doughnut is a bona fide snack.

The issues that come to mind are good examples of what I was saying the other day about how a big picture is build up of smaller quanta. Oftentimes, a problem on the national level frequently has the same problem at the local level (like debt, taxes, regulation, etc.). The only difference is scale. The situation needs to be thought out in the same manner. The scale is irrelevant.

Here at the local level, we have a small business that employs a half-dozen school kids, friends, and family during the summer months and into September and October weather permitting. To open this business they had to navigate a swamp of paperwork and a Gordian knot of red tape. They had to comply with everything from how they recycled their cooking oil to obtaining soil and environmental tests relating to the construction of said small building. How much did that cost them? How much time and legal fees? The beach going public has another choice of where and what it wants to eat with the million-plus tourists descend upon the State Park for their summer enjoyment. Local youth wishing to earn some money work long, hot hours while the rest of their friends are on the beach enjoying themselves. The township, county, and State get to pull taxes from this small business in exchange for them making a living.

It is no different then how the Federal government and the IRS treat a corporation like Google or IBM. The government can say they don't control a company, like some lousy Socialist government would, but they write the tax laws and the regulations. In other words, the government writes the rules. So in a way, they do control what the company can do, but through the arms' length of regulation.

So why am I irritated that a greasy hot dog stand that I don't even patronize has been shut down? It is simple; when did a government, be it a local township or a Federal government decide that they had the right to tell a business that they had to seek permission to sell a doughnut? A pretzel is ok, but not a doughnut? Is this what a zoning board does in this township...set menu items for restaurants?

If New York City can mandate lower sodium menus for its metro restaurants then yes, the township now has the logical authority to force a small business owner to seek permission (which they told him after the fact that they would have permitted him had he just asked...real nice and polite-like) to change their menu.

The local township does this via the zoning laws. The City does this via zoning laws and tax breaks (i.e. bribes). The Federal government does this through high-level regulation, tax breaks, and IRS audits (bribes and force). Since when did these elected officials forget that they are there to serve the people who elected them? They serve us, we don't serve them. It is not their job to decide if I can put salt on my food or a doughnut in my mouth (though I could lay off of them...). It is not for them to decide menu items. If they zoned the area appropriate for small, seasonal food outlets then their job is done. End of story. The inspector can come out and spend five minutes determining their compliance. Sun shades and lotion in place, they walk up to the establishment (there are several within a five minute walk) and ask the owner if the business is seasonal. Since the inspector likely lives in the area, they should already know this. The next question should be if they can get a corn dog and a doughnut (since they can see that food item on the menu). If the answer was yes to either of these questions then it is safe to assume that this business is seasonal and that they sell beach-food. Check and check. Now, back to the office to make sure that the huge drainage project that is blocking access to the local school gets completed before the start of the school year (here is a hint...it was not).

When Michelle Obama can threaten the national school systems that they must comply with her menu advice when she is not even an elected official, or an unappointed "czar" then I am going to have questions. Should she have the power to tell a food company how they can market a product (don't we have the FDA)? Should the mayor of New York be able to tell a classically trained chef that they must cut down on the salt and fat content of their food?

Very worrisome that more people are not thinking about that. The Law was designed, as a concept, to take over where the cultural and religious customs broke down. Laws are designed to serve equal justice and protection for and against those who would violate your freedoms. Instead, we now have laws that shackle and bind the citizenry to conform with some University doctorate who thinks they know how "make" a more perfect, orderly and predictable society. Thus, the Tyranny of Law.

I do not remember who first said this so I can not attribute it, but loosely it goes something like this, " a corrupt government must, by necessity, have a lot of laws". I can understand that. Yep.

Good night from the Stoa, friends. It is dark and wet out, so please be careful going home.

--Zavost

War...What is it good for...

From this crisp Fall morning, with wet, yellow leaves upon the Stoa I wish to discuss, briefly, war. While listening to the radio the other night, a song from the Vietnam war came on, and several like it that decried war and all of its destruction. The other week, my daughter found a website that gave statements, sayings, and idioms from famous and or respected people through the ages about peace and its paramount status. Some I had heard before, in the context of their writings, others surprised me in how naive they were. I'll analyze a few here to frame war, peace, society, cultural and biological evolution, the past and the future.

In one of my earlier postings I stated that war was a purifying agent, that burned out impurities and hardened a people and a society. All of that is true. War "resets" the game board with new countries, peoples and political dynamics. It redefines an age. Just look at pre-Napoleonic Europe and post-Napoleonic Europe for a good example. On a large, societal scale, war is as necessary as the forest fires are in the American Western forests to maintain a healthy society. On the individual scale, war can be a tragedy of the most heart-rending kind. Fathers and mothers separated from children for years, sometimes separated by the veil of death. Divorce, suicide, the loss of children. In some cases, though, war is a cathartic. It shows an individual what they are capable of, it redefines the individual. The Iowa farm boy who went off to WWI and WWII would never have seen the world had they not gone off to war. They would not have been the bold, and sometimes fearless politicians, or policemen that they eventually became. They may have stayed on that farm like others had for generations and our culture and society would have been poorer for that. You just never know how you will be affected. Hemingway drank, was moody, and was my generational shadow that called themselves the "lost" generation because of how many of them died in WWI. Another, such as Sergeant York, was that simple farm boy who won the Medal of Honor for killing or capturing an entire company of German soldiers single-handedly. His advice was incorporated into the training manuals for generations to come.

Humanity is at is best and its worst when it is at war. Technology advances at its fasted rate when a nation is at war. Ideas become possibilities when a nations priorities are rearranged by the reality of survival. I make no personal judgments on war other than to make observations. It is neither good nor bad, it simply is. It is a reality of where we came from and who we are. At the biological level, we are predators. Predators that use our mind and tools to dominate rather than fangs, claws and hide. Tribes became stronger because they won more fights than they lost with their neighbors for resources and land. Earlier empires survived because they could hold the barbarians off and raid them when they needed more manpower (i.e. slaves). Our entire climb through the ages is written in blood and conquest. Accept it. The only thing that has really changed is our technological ability to kill off more people, more quickly, and more precisely. More humans lost their lives to war and its secondary effects (disease, starvation, and politically motivated murder) in the 20th century than in any single century prior and yet we were at our most enlightened and "civilized" state at that time. There must then be no logical correlation between cultural sophistication and the presence or absence of war.

Now, on to a few of the sayings I mentioned earlier.

Tacitus wrote, in the early Imperial decades of the new Roman Empire (since the Republic had been cast off): "They make a desert, and call it peace." He was referring to the Roman habit of utterly destroying resistance to their rule of occupied territory. The Romans wanted a stable territory that paid its taxes and contributed to the glory of their Empire. In the Roman Republic, leaders would typically leave a conquered territories leaders, religion, and cultural practices in place, as long as that area paid its taxes and enforced Roman law (like the Federal government perched atop the States' governments). After 500 years of this, they realized that this did not always work. It allowed local tribesmen to gain power and influence that almost always lead to rebellion. Gaul, Judea, and Greece are good examples to look up. By Tacitus' time, the leaders of the Empire realized that if a territory rose up once, then it would rise up again. They had neither the time nor the patience to peacefully integrate a people through shared trade and culture. After the second uprising by the Jews, they were smashed utterly. Their capital city practically wiped off the map and their people scattered to the winds. Carthage got three or four chances to rebel until finally, as the Republic was learning its lessons, it razed the city so completely that modern historians had to search for it again. Its men killed and sold into slavery, its women handed over to the soldiers as war pay. The ruthlessness of the Roman Empire allowed it to survive because it utterly removed the ability of a people to rebel against them. Eventually, internal rebellions, economic and cultural decay pulled the Western portion of the empire down, but never an internal war of cultural independence.

Asimov wrote in one of his Science Fiction collections (one of my favorite), "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent". From a purely philosophical point of view I can understand this. However, reality marks this statement as irrelevant. It is not intellect that will necessarily allow you to avoid violence, but the quality of your weapons and your ability to wage and win wars that will allow you to survive that violence. Good examples of this are the Hittites, the Mycenaeans, and the Egyptians. Around 1,200 b.c., there was a huge migration of peoples out of central Asia and Europe that pressed into the civilized regions of the Eastern Mediterranean, the Near East, and Northern Africa (the Indian sub-continent was ravaged at this time as well). Until that time, you had a thriving Greek culture (pre-Doric) that gave us the myth of the Minotaur, the Trojan War, and the Greek pantheon of gods. The cities of Sparta, Athens, and many others existed at this time, but were vastly different in almost every way than they would be in 500 years. In Anatolia (modern day Turkey), there were the Hittites, the first to successfully forge Iron and its alloys. Modern swords and weapons were being produced by these people. In Egypt we had an incredibly old and sophisticated civilization by this time with a standard of living beyond anything else in the world. This mass migration out of Europe and Asia was nearly the end of it all. The Mycenaean Greeks were unable to reason with the invaders and were nearly blotted from history. The Hittites, despite their superior swords, were swamped by superior numbers, their culture being nearly forgotten. Only the Egyptians managed to hang on and even then just barely. It is this invasion that is mentioned in the Christian bible by the then-captive Jews. The invasion crushed their homeland in Judea anyhow, so being in Egypt was likely a good thing at this time, however, I digress.

It was a time of unimaginable suffering. The old ways of everything had been swept away and the new ways were still being re-written. Athens and Sparta arose again as the polar capitals of the Greek world. Mycenae had to be re-discovered by archeologists. This invasion in Greece would eventually lead to the Golden Age of Hellenic thought and discovery. If not for the bloodshed, Western Civilization might never be (we can talk about Persia and their wars against Greece later). The Hittites were destroyed utterly. The area was unable to organize itself again and fell under Greek, Egyptian, and Eastern influences. The Egyptians were changed by this experience. Their culture and Empire had been decaying for centuries and this invasion gave them a new vitality that kept them going until the time of Alexander the Great and the coming of the Roman Empire.

The political and historical maps had been re-drawn. People found a newer, better peace and way of life. None of that would have been possible if those cultures had been allowed to stagnate. War and Peace, the yin and yang of our predatory evolution.

More modern examples of this abound aplenty, though I will pick a few to describe. The American Civil War was fought more about individual State's rights than it was about Slavery. It was the fact that the Southern states wanted to decide for themselves when to emancipate the slaves and not when a central government, dominated by Northerners told them. Slavery was a byproduct of the larger argument over State's Rights. Southerners call the Civil War, the War for Southern Independence. As you know, it did not work out that way. Had the Constitution been amended to allow for States to break away, then the war could have been avoided. Slavery would have eventually been abolished, of that I am sure, but when and how would have been vastly different. The North would have far fewer citizens of black heritage living in the urban cities today, the South would have more. There would not be the sense of victim-hood that permeates the black culture today. America would be a nation divided, with different political parties, priorities and realities. How would WWI and WWII have turned out without the combined energies of a true United States? It was the Civil War that permitted the United States to turn the tide in both of those wars. In Korea and Vietnam we have good examples of what happens when one side desires peace and the other side desires conquest. In Korea, we had the resolve to at least maintain the status quo. Millions of North and South Koreans died in the conflict, as well as millions of Chinese. Nearly 54,000 Americans perished in the fighting as well. Today, because we chose the "incompetent" route, according to Asimov, South Korea has a flourishing culture and economy. Its people enjoy a first rate standard of living while their Northern counterparts still starve to death because they are not permitted to grow enough food to feed themselves. Their night skies are dark for lack of power to light them while the South can be seen clearly from orbit. In Vietnam, the hippy-Boomers pulled us out of the war without allowing us to win it, or at least force a stalemate (as in Korea). The Boomers wanted peace, love, and happiness...but only for Americans. The result of our withdrawal lead to reprisals, exterminations, and misery for decades. Millions died, were killed, or displaced in the resulting Communist solidification of control. In the name of Peace, the Hippies created Hell. Today, Vietnam is adopting a more market-centered economy, less centrally planned and with a growing world trade. In other words, by 2010, the country has given up nearly everything it fought the Japanese, French, and American occupiers for. Perhaps the right of self-determination can been seen as one freedom they were able win, but at a horrific cost. Think about this. The communists wanted total control over the civilians, the economy, and everything else. Today, the communist rulers (as in China), find themselves forced to allow more freedom of choice in everything. What was the fighting for? Was all that death and deprivation worth it? If Vietnam had permitted the United States to accomplish its mission there, they would have had everything they were fighting for by 1965, not 2010. How much better would they be now if that had happened? Makes you think.

War has given us iron tools, roads, organization, nuclear power, GPS, the Internet (yes, folks, the Internet was invented by the US military), computers, space flight, and microwave ovens. There has always been a price paid in blood along the way, but those that remained had better standards of living and new technological and cultural avenues to explore. War has kept us from stagnating and has swept away those institutions that no longer served a useful purpose. It has allowed us to advance and remain healthy; as a people and a culture. America does not start wars, but we certainly do finish them (except for Vietnam and eventually as in the case of Iraq).

The sun rises higher over the Stoa and it is time to begin a productive day. Think long and hard over what was discussed here. Do not be rash and emotional, but contemplative and honest. With walking stick in hand, I depart.

--Zavost

The Myth, the Man, and the Message

Tonight from the Stoa, I would like to talk about men, messages and movements. Some men are born great, others cultivate it. Some use it for good, most use it for ill, unfortunately.

Throughout history there have been those that can steer ships of state and command the attention, if not the adoration of nations. Pericles of Athens, Dido of Carthage, and Cicero of the Roman Republic are just a few that come to mind from the ancient world. We remember them today because of both their oratory and what they affected with by their rhetoric. Modern incarnations include Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Fidel Castro, to name only a few who have used their skills for less than moral purposes.

One thing that separates those last three I named is that if you spoke out against them, in the arena of ideas, you tended to disappear. No intellectual honesty.

It was their message or no message. However, there were many others that would openly discuss varying viewpoints and openly debate law. Our Founders were such people. Several of them hated each other openly, yet honestly discussed the important topics of the day. Look what a few dozen such individuals were able to accomplish.

The Founders were wise and intelligent beyond their years. Within the Constitution they made it possible for the common man to speak their mind without fear of retribution (for the most part). Only in this society can the message of a charismatic individual such as Obama (personally, I think he has the charisma of a potato that has been hiding out in the back of the refrigerator). However, one must work carefully to surgically remove the man from the message. Never attack the man, only his message. It is what the individual will do with their power that must be opposed. If you attack the individual then all you may make is a martyr; especially if there is already a cult of personality (such as exists with Obama).

When Jesus was preaching in Israel, he was upsetting the current power brokers, namely the ruling Romans and their local enforcers (the Jewish priesthood, in this case). His preachings were seriously undermining the Jewish establishment, but did nothing to cause friction with the Roman garrisons. Jesus went to great lengths to remind everyone that his was a spiritual power, not temporal. By the time that Rome was in control of that region they had much experience with garrisoning conquered lands. They had seen people like Jesus come and go through the centuries and knew that if they just left him alone, that eventually his phenomenon will fade (competition or corruption, sooner or later those people always mess up). Executing him was almost the last thing they wanted. However, the last thing they wanted was a rebellion. His death created a martyr, a movement, and a religion. This religion would eventually take over the Roman Empire and keep the dying embers of learning and culture alive though the Dark Ages. The consequences of that one act ring down through the millennia (since Islam claims it roots through Christianity and the Jewish faith.

With a person like Obama, you can only attack his message. He is so protected by the main stream media, the color of his skin, and unthinking followers that any perceived attack on the man will only harden the resolve of him and his followers. For this Stoic, it is what he has planned for me and my family that is abhorrent and must be resisted. When someone says to me that I only disagree with him because he is black truly makes me pause. I simply can not bring myself to understand this. For starters, he is not black, he is mixed-racial. Secondly, I could care less what color he is, if you are going to take over the national economy and tell me where I can live, what I can do, and what type of light bulb I can put in my lamp, then I am going to disagree with you. I would disagree with him even if he smiled while he lifted my wallet. White, black...heck, the man is a Red. I'm pretty sure I'm going to disagree with most everything he says.

Well, for now this Stoic is going to pad on back to bed. The leaves grow yellow and the nights frosty. Bring a pillow if you wish to sit on the stairs at the Stoa.

--Zavost

Why hate the Jews?

This individual has never understood the rabid hatred expressed around the world, especially in Europe and the Liberals in this country to Jews in general and Israel in particular. They have never been a numerous people, nor have they ever been particularly powerful either culturally or militarily. Their history books list one conquerer after another from the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, other Semites, Romans, and an assortment of Arabs. They have been kicked around and kicked out of countries and professions for over 4,000 years; and yet they continue to persist as a people while so many others have vanished from the history books. Just to name a few ethnic groups that are either gone or fading are: Goths, Avars, Ruthenians, Huns (not to be confused with Magyars), Franks, Gauls, and Lombards, just to name a very few. Yet peoples such as the Hellenes (modern Greeks), Germans (oh, yes, they have been around a while), Slavs (about as long as the Jews), and the Helvetius (modern Swiss) persist strongly into our modern era.

Say what you will, the Jews have staying power. They survived a forced migration into and out of Babylon (while the modern Arabs were still roaming the deep deserts in the Arabian peninsula), a forced migration because of the Egyptians (again, the Arabs were still scattered bands living far from Israel) and then rebuilt their homeland, again. Then the Romans came and the Jews got irritated. Not once, but twice. Most peoples did not survive crossing the Romans more than once. The second uprising in the 70's a.d. was the final straw and the Romans dispersed them again, intending that their legacy be absorbed by those stronger than them. It did not work out that way. They persisted and thrived in communities all over Europe. They endured the long night that was the interval between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance, and they endured being the bogyman for everything.

Why are they hated around the Western culture and the Arab culture so much? What is it that they have ever done or do? When many nations in Europe tried to drive them out by denying them certain professions, they were forced to excel at what they could. Thus was born the Jewish banker and Gem dealer (I wonder if the word Jewelry has any roots here?). Later they got into media and broadcasting because there was more tolerance for them in those areas (yes, once).

I thought we Americans rooted for the Underdog? The Jews are histories ultimate underdogs. More cultures have tried to stamp out those people down through the millennia than I can count, and yet they persist. Since the end of WWII they have been finally allowed to gather in their ancestral homeland. They have been attacked there as well and have mandates against them that allow for the murder of pregnant women and little children. They have been swarmed on all sides and have emerged victorious against their Arab neighbors in war after war. Hitler weeded out the weak and hardened the resolve of those who escaped or survived. The Jewish state today seems beset on all sides with enemies and pseudo-friends (U.S.).

I personally admire the Jews, just as I admire the Greeks and the Slavs. Those people have been around for thousands of years, maintaining distinctive cultures despite who may be attempting to wipe out or assimilate them. I have never understood why so many people actually hate them. I've known many in my time and find them to be people just like any other. Can you even pick a Jew out of a line-up? Hitler could not, which is why he made them put a star on their clothing and place of business. I don't know why the Arabs hate them either. The Jews were in the area of Palestine (a name that pre-dates the word "Arab") for two thousand years before there is any mention of the Arabs in any meaningful way. The Romans knew they were out there, deep in the deserts for a long time. They were useful for trading exotic spices and items, but they were semi-nomadic at best and simply did not have enough worth conquering.

Today when I hear of the "Palestinian" people I flinch at how ignorant those people are. If the word must be used, it is more appropriately used with the Jews. Mohammed founded what I like to think of as a "Frat" religion. If you were to get a bunch of college age boys together and have them create a way of life, then Islam is what you would get. Men who can marry more than one woman, and them dump them when they get irritating. There are other examples, but I'll try to keep it brief. They: still worship the moon, they worship a meteor in Mecca, they preach peace while spilling blood, they treat women worse than cattle while preaching love and understanding... Like I said, I could go on and on.

Islam claims to be an offshoot of the Jewish faith, just as Christianity is an offshoot, yet they profess to hate them so much. To hate the Jews is to hate your own legacy. The first Christians were Jews. Jesus was a JEW. The Arabs needed some wrapping paper to hold their new Frat religion together, so they lifted parts of Jewish and Christian lore and claimed that they were the next iteration of God's will. Yeeeeeaaah....doubt it.

This is a longer missive than intended. Perhaps I'll update it later when I notice another attack on the Jews for....I don't know---being so darned Jewish.

--Zavost

Tea Party for Dummies

Tonight from the Stoa we are going to have a basic discussion on semantics and willful ignorance.

Let me start off by reminding certain folks in the crowd out there that the Tea Party is not a "Party" like the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, etc, it is a movement. The Tea Party is the voice of the silent majority. The vast interior of this country that works hard, pays our share, and takes care of our own. They are the people that have always been too busy to rally for Bergen county rat or the Ottawa county rat (a semantic trick to get an animal on the endangered species list and deny you that pool you wanted in the back yard). They are the people who, by and large do not pay a lot of attention to the goings on in Washington, D.C. Now that so many of the silent majority are out of work, they now have time to vent their irritation at the money-stuffed empty suits that populate the elitist "Political Class" of professional politics.

I was talking to my daughter the other day about this and I reminded her that the Founders did not desire a full-time politician, but had hoped that everyone in the country would see it as their duty to serve at the State or Federal level of the government for at least one term out of a sense of duty. George Washington bemoaned the early versions of political parties and counseled the country to shun them. I told her that the Constitution was not written in "legalese" on purpose. It was written so that the common citizen could easily grasp not just the wording of the document, but the spirit of the document...its over-arcing intent--limited and self-correcting government. The Constitution was written so that the average farmer could "get it". In fact, I can state with certainty that this country would be better off if all of the members of Congress were replaced with family farmers. Then we would see some common sense returned to our country.

I tempted fate this afternoon and turned on NPR for about 30 seconds, which is the usual time the transpires before I hear something daft from them. A caller happened to be prattling on about how the Tea Party, according to this book they were discussing, was exhibiting "mob behavior" and that all you need is for a few people to take charge and the next thing you know cities will be burning because of those bigots in the Tea Party. I shut if off with a quick snap of the wrist, then turned it back on hoping that some context would shed some light on what I had just heard. The woman was still prattling on with her "question" and was leading the panel of people to give her some intellectual support for her insights. They did, of course, completely agree with her (talking about self-intellectual feedback). The Tea Party is risk, a threat, even to public safety. Someone in government needs to do more to shut them down. These people are nominally intelligent, I mean I'm sure they have Ivy League diplomas on the wall. How can they be so obtuse? Willful ignorance. Their world view does not permit them to see the Tea Party for what it is, so they shade it into something they can loath, with or without facts. That to me is a grave sin. We must at all times be true to the truth and to ourselves.

With that, I shut off NPR and did not return. Then I read about Karl Rove dissing the Tea Party as well by saying that, by and large, they are not an educated group of people. Karl, Karl...you are such a smart man but you fail to grasp the fundamentals; so wrapped up in complex political gymnastics that you overshoot what is directly in front of you, in plain sight. I would have figured that living in Texas would help you understand the common man. The Tea Party is everyone who wants limited government. They want a return to a straight reading of the Constitution, a literal interpretation (with the amendments of course). That's it. That is all they want. Much of our heritage will be restored by that simple act, so I can understand why many who benefit from the current power structure feel threatened by this movement, on either side of the political spectrum.

Now, as to being a bunch of uneducated racists that are just primed for revolution...

Anyone who has seen the aftermath of a Tea Party event can testify that the places are always left in better shape then when they got there. There are no arrests, nothing burning in effigy (been to a lefty rally ever?), and not a scrap of paper to be seen. So what if most of the people there are white. Most of the country is white, after all. Since the color blind and understanding Left is anything but that, then lets think about it. Roughly 10% of the population is black. Roughly 11% is Hispanic. That means that a cross section of ten individuals in the crowd should net us at least one black person and one Hispanic person. This also assumes that the parties have equal representation within those races, which they don't. No surprise that the crowd is mostly white. There are plenty of people of color there and I think that they would be quite cross with being told that they are racists.

On to education. The number of middle Americans that have post secondary education is about 50%. Those with an Undergrad degree are about 20%. Graduate or Post grad runs between 8-12%. A cross section of the Tea Party would likely yield the same numbers. How are they illiterate?

Remember, the Tea Party is the love of our country made manifest. It has always been there, nurtured in the mid-west and the South. An honest days pay for an honest days work. I keep what I grow and sell to whom I want for as much as I want; and I'll keep as much of the money as I can. Don't over-think this Karl.

The Stoa is brushed off and ready for the next instructor.

--Zavost

The Peace Paradox

Humanity is such a restless species. We are always on the move, either physically or emotionally. In times of war we desire peace and in times of peace we prepare for war (or should be).

A man grows bored going to work all day and having the weekends off (if they are lucky) and a woman is sick of being a house wife, feeling like she is not accomplishing much with her life; we call that, "being in a rut". I'm assuming that the saying must come from the ruts found on old Roman roads, just the width of a wagon axle. A straight line to no where, or so they feel. When we work like dogs we want a vacation and when we are on a week-long vacation, we can't wait to get back to work. When we are out for the night, enjoying a dinner and a movie, or perhaps drinks with friends, we can not help but want to get back home. When we are home relaxing, we are already planning our next trip out. Restless, we are.

The Chinese have a proverb, "may you live in interesting times". It is not a good-feeling proverb. The peasants of China know well the feeling of being in a "rut". A hundred generations of field work lay in the pasts of many who descended from Han. They tended to accept their place in society and the world (which is why they do not advance like we do...but that is another blog entry). That proverb was a warning that to disrupt the tranquility of your current life is to invite war, disease, and famine upon your family, your clan, and your village.

Americans of the last few generations think nothing of changing employers every few years and careers every few decades. The GI's and the Boomers get exasperated with the X'ers and the Millennials. The X'ers seek advantage in life while the Millennials seek personal fulfillment. The restlessness grows stronger with each generation. That will have to come to a peak at some time and swing back to the traditional GI and Boomer way of thinking, I suppose. Nature abhors instability. We always want the newest clothes, the newest smart phones, the hottest cars and the best homes. Work becomes a means to provide stuff rather than a means to provide food. In the past, you worked hard to provide food and shelter to your family, now we work hard so that we can give them the best "stuff".

That which is freely taken is just as casually thrown away. When children are given everything they fail to understand its value. When society becomes used to a growing economy, they can not image anything else. They take chances their fathers and mothers would never take, and they make reckless decisions that their grandparents would never make because they lived through, and payed for, the consequences. A good example is the Fed playing around with the idea of inflating our way out of debt. Anyone who have even casually, and I do mean casually, looked over their history of the 1930's can see how that worked out for the Germans. They can see how that worked out for the Argentinians in the 70's and 80's, and Zimbabwe of today. Yet those wizards of smart seem to think that this is best for us. Somehow, the laws of economics will bend for us because we are the United States.

We pray for peace but seem to expect war and conflict. We mark our holidays by when wars began or ended. We even celebrate the taming of the American wilderness with Thanksgiving. We always seem to mark the important events in history with what war ended this or began that. Never the long peace, except for the Pax Imperium, but that is an exception and not the rule.

Peace seems to be a paradox to me. We all crave it, but are just as eager to throw it away. When the fires of war burn us, we seek the solace of peace. When we grow bored with peace, we seek the "invigoration" of war. It is this yin and yang of our nature that seems to drive us as a creative and evolving species, both culturally and biologically. We always want something different in our lives, but all to frequently, someone else has what we want, be it another clan or nation, or even a mountains fastness that is denying us the gold that we desire. Somehow, we adapt, innovate and overcome (meaning that we take what we want). It is our nature. We must recognize this duality about us and learn to work with it if we are to bring some happiness to our lives. Apply yourself when you must, but lay back in the rut from time to time and watch the clouds pass by on the beautiful blue sky.

The Stoa is now available as this Stoic desires to do something else until the next urge to climb upon the Stoa overcomes him.

--Zavost

Random Observations

I'm just going to tap my walking stick on the Stoa today and list some points of data to think about. I've been asked before if I understand, "The Big Picture"? Often times I ask them to tell me their version first. I am frequently surprised at how narrow their picture is.

As demonstrated by various artists in the 19th century, cheap color photos in older newspapers, and staring closely at the screen of an old CRT television set, you will notice that all those images are built up from smaller quanta. To me, "The Big Picture" in any world situation is built up from a vast mosaic of smaller issues. Cultural gravity pulls groups of people to look at similarly related points of data to drive the engine of popular culture, and thereby drive the force of history (see my upcoming blog entry on "Psycho-history).

Due to data overload, people tend to focus on strips or stripes of data in this bigger picture. We sometimes call them, "single issue" people. Those driven with passion towards certain causes are good examples. I spend large amounts of time assimilating information in my mind. The sources are frequently the Internet, pulp print, old newspapers, old books; actually, just about any data medium up to and including the park bench. You would be amazed at what you can hear people talk about if you just spend some time and listen.

Glenn Beck is frequently maligned as a doom and gloom harbinger. Sometimes he can even depress me, and that is saying something. However, I do have to say that the man includes a multitude of data points in his observations. Over the last few years, our pictures of the nation, and the world in general have been building up to be very, very similar. You would have to go and research Glenn's excellent documentaries on Progressivism to see the larger picture and I don't have space or time to duplicate that here for everyone. Suffice it to say, here are some points we should all keep in mind, perhaps research them on your own if you are interested in seeing where we are and where we may be going:

• Job losses continue, as in, jobs are still being lost month after month. This is not a recovery, it is a slope.
• The courts have been packed with Liberals and Progressives since before the Carter administration, and it shows.
• In the 1930's, a woman hung herself because she became pregnant out of wedlock, today it is a celebrated, and preferred, family plan by people of many walks of life.
• The GI generation landed humans on the moon. The Boomer generation has killed all manned space flight and currently has a Muslim outreach program in the works.
• The dollar has continued to slide since the late 1960's and has plummeted since the Bush and Obama administrations opened the monetary flood gates (I know, the FED did this, but that is another blog).
• Nations around the world are terribly destabilized economically; mostly through poor management of their budgets (massive public debt), 150 years of Progressivism, and the growing weakness of the dollar; since much of the world trading is done pegged relative to the dollar, they are finding trade to be more expensive relative to their domestic currencies (as the dollar loses value compared to, say, the Yen).
• Birth rates in Europe are dropping faster than Obama's approval rating. The Muslim population is growing at a mirrored, accelerated rate.
• Birth rates in America have declined as well in all ethnic groups EXCEPT the Hispanic and Latino population groups. This will lead to a shift in cultural norms that could destabilize the country at a bad time in history.
• China is laying claim to territories outside of its historical claims. This is due to their rising power in financial and military matters. I still feel that China is a soap bubble waiting to pop, but that is just my opinion. Again, this represents a not so friendly player on the world market who does not share our Western cultural values. Even the Soviet Union was more European than Asian. Think about what this means and read up on the Korean War for their mind-set.
• Billionaires are purchasing actual gold ingots by the ton. Not the ounce, but the raw ton. In other words, they are trading pieces of paper that they see as losing value for objects that are gaining in value. Watch what the rich people do with their money, they got rich for a reason. If they are putting on a steel pot and running for a bunker lined with gold, look out. The economy is collapsing and the economic crash of 2008 is catching up with us.
• The Catholic church in North America has now been infected with the Socialist definition of "Social Justice", just as Central and South America were infected with it in the 1950's. The Catholic church seems to like the growing Hispanic population because it is technically a Catholic demographic, however, the Hispanics coming here to live believe in abortion, pre-marital sex, and corruption as a way of life. Just look at what is happening in Mexico today and tell me the fraying of the religious and cultural fabric is not at the heart of the issue.
• Public schools have become Progressive boot camps.
• Public servants earn 40% more than their civilian counterparts and are seeing an unemployment rate of under 4%.
• The Tea Party is being called a racist organization even while the Democrat part eliminates weak black politicians from their rolls, heck, even good contending ones. The Democrats traditionally supported slavery in the 19th century and fought the Republicans tooth and nail during the civil rights movement. Somehow, that all went down the memory hole.
• Orwell's 1984 and Rands' Atlas Shrugged must be mandatory reading for everyone.
• Think back to what the country was like when you grew up, what were the speed limits, what was the price of gas? Then take it a generation back and ask the same questions about your parents, and their parents.

You will see how things have changed over a single generational cohort. We went off the gold standard. The world essentially went to an inflationary-based economy. We became more and more interlinked economically as a globe. Capitalism and the Free Market have been maligned, yet those are the only two economic theories that have resulted in any form of cultural or technological progress.

Think on all of this as I have for the last several years. It may make you think about taking a dozen steps back and looking at that vast mosaic called humanity. Remember, we shape tomorrow with what we do today. We make history, but for many, history drives today's actions.

I can not leave without another comment on that last sentence. It may sound silly, but it is true. An example: during the Muslim expansion in the 7th century, a mixed crew of nationalities under the Muslim banner stormed out of Africa and into Spain. They continued on into France and were only stopped by a determined ruler (an ancestor of Charlemagne no less) outside the city of Tours. The Europeans did not forget this and did not forget that Christan holdings had been taken over in Spain, North Africa, the Near East, etc. Those holdings had been Christian since the founding of the church in Rome and Constantinople (NOT Istanbul). The Crusades were a multi-faceted event, but one of the main reasons was to drive the Muslims out of Jerusalem. The Muslims of today are still fighting the Crusades in the modern era. We drive history, much as history drives us.

The Stoa is open and ready for the next instructor. Live well.

--Zavost

Obama, true to himself

From the Stoa tonight I want to discuss truth. Not truth to one another but truth to oneself. I'm not discussing just the reality bubble and reality filter that we all have, I'm talking about the naked self. This is the individual that speaks to you at night, when you are alone and looking at your life. A mature individual is able speak the truth to themselves, without sugar-coating reality.

These are people who do not have a hard time making a decision, good or bad. When I hear Sarah Palin answering a tough moral question, she does not hesitate, nor does she hedge her answer to placate another group of people. She is true to herself. If someone challenges her with a moral paradox she is still able to properly place the information within her own image of self to resolve the conflict while staying true to herself.

Obama is a narcissist, with all the baggage that comes with that diagnosis, however, he, too, is true to himself. Where he is found lacking in a comparison with Sarah Palin is that he will say and do whatever is necessary to obtain a goal or a desire. He will lie to the public, the media, his advisors, and possibly even to his wife, however, when he is falling asleep at night, I'm sure that he knows what he wants and knows what he must do. There is a subtleness to this that I'm afraid I can not adequately describe in a short blog item. To be brief, there is an answer that I give people who are up-coming leaders in the business world, specifically those at the beginning who are asking me for advice on how to climb the ladder. My first answer to them is always the same: make sure that you are climbing the right ladder. There are those that, due to obligations, family responsibilities, or simple ego, pursue a goal or dream unto their destruction. In the very least, they find that they fail employers who find an intelligent employee, though far less capable then anticipated. Look up and study the "Peter Principle" for a longer version of this explanation. Obama, I feel, falls into this category. The families of these people suffer because their husband can't keep a job or find satisfaction in their work.

Obama knew that he wanted the power to influence his society, the ability to remake reality to his own satisfaction. The power to impose his moral view of society. With that being the end, he simply looked for those that could deliver the means. He sat at the knee of those that hated this country and its perceived injustices, its ego-centrism and its overwhelming power in terms of cultural and military influence in the world. He surrounded himself with Marxists, criminals, terrorists, and black theology. These people spoke to something within a maturing Barak Obama. He became a willing tool and vessel for those that wished a common agenda and vision to be imposed upon this society.

Throughout his climb to power, he has been whatever he needed to be for the circumstances. Now that he is in power and the mask is off, he is doing exactly what he told everyone he was going to do. The willing media have given him the cover he has needed to execute his goals. He is not Bill Clinton because Clinton knew when he needed to change direction to survive politically. Obama is true to himself and his nature.

Some of those I speak to feel that after the Democrats are blown out in November, that Obama will have to "come to the Center". I can tell you that I believe that Obama will not budge a bit from his Socialist/Marxist agenda. He has already told elements in the government, the DNC and especially the RNC, that there will be no course changing in his agenda. He will not slow the tempo nor the angle of his agenda. He believes in what he believes in and now that he is in power he is going to make his bold move. Expect more of the same. When asked a question without handlers or a prepared speech by a plumber he told him exactly what he felt was good for people. Spreading the wealth and equal results for everyone. When asked about abortion, he said, without too much stuttering, that he would not want his daughter "punished" with a baby. These are things he took flak for, but I don't recall hearing him temper those statements with much more than a shoulder shrug.

So, say what you want about the man, at least he is true to his beliefs. I would even go so far as to say that he is true to himself about his abilities as well, which is why he has surrounded himself with those that do all of the heavy lifting, thinking, and policy development for him. Obama is the ultimate embodiment of an enabled "Peter Principle", that is, an individual that is permitted to climb because of his or her usefulness to others.

It is late on the Stoa and time to turn in. Be true to yourself, people.

--Zavost