Smarter Than Thou!

YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN...

Books by the author are available on-line at Amazon and LuLu.  Please search on Vincent Lewis.

You may be interested in knowing that, despite popular opinion, neither Oscar Wilde or Mark Twain have stopped writing, simply because they are both dead.

You can read their most recent and posthumous works at:

Oscar Wilde & Mark Twain  This blog is updated almost daily

If you do like being deceived and amused then you may enjoy reading some "new" poems written by Emily Dickinson (she died a long time ago, and this site is a satire!).  You are therefore invited to visit Emily Dickinson Uncensored

"WEAKNESS IS STRENGTH" (BIG BROTHER)

  MY topic is Liberalism.  By this I mean the political movement that is a major force in American culture.  Perhaps “movement” is the wrong word, for I hold that it is more of a feeling.  However, it does “move around” a lot.  I want to offer a brief explanation as to why it is so strong. 

    Liberalism should not be popular among Americans.  Traditional, and official, American values are rooted in individualism, self-reliance, honest and honorable work, ambition, fair play, etc.  The list can go on for some time.  No matter what is correctly on the list, the contents will be if not completely then almost completely opposed to the values of Liberalism.  So why does it capture so much of the culture, most of the Media, a majority of court decisions and a good deal of the governments?  Keep in mind that Liberal polices ALWAYS fail, in that they do not achieve their purported goals. 

    Ironically, one strength is that Liberalism never “fails,” in the sense of being responsible for its failures.  Liberalism currently embraces Keynesian economics.  This school of thought holds that massive infusions of government money will re-start a stalled economy.  It does not.  However, it is never discredited.  Why?  The defenders can ALWAYS argue that the infusing was not enough, or was not applied long enough, or was not soon enough.  Thus, no matter how certain predictions were, failures will be attributed to the policy.  There was nothing wrong with the policy, and this can be proved by trying it again, and again, and again, each time it fails. 

    Conservatives fail to attack Liberalism correctly.  The reason is that, by nature and personality, the Conservative movement seeks compromise and slow small steps in any direction.  Again because of the personalities it attracts, this movement does not usually engage in radical or philosophical debates.  Liberalism preaches sentimentality and assistance to the poor.  The Conservatives see a temporary gain in partial support of this.  In general, they also agree, in part, to Liberal policies, because, for them, politics is truly the art of compromise.  Thus they give the Liberal the perfect excuse for failure, and a perpetual justification for perpetuity.  “If only the Liberal agencies were only given as much as they wanted in the first place, then the recovery, and/or improvements, would have already been realized.”  

   Liberalism moves the target every time the policy fails.  When more money fails to produce educational improvements this only proves that even more money is needed.  The Conservative often does oppose the new target.  But he usually will agree with a “little more.”  In other words, (almost?) every resistance is actually a victory for the Liberal.  The endless failures are actually is greatest strength.

POEM # 61 - DEATH FREES AND ENSLAVES

DEATH FREES AND ENSLAVES.

LOVE DOES THE VERY SAME.

LOVE’S IMMATERIAL GRAVES

GIVE ALL ONE LAST NAME.

IT’S ON THE TOMBSTONE---

AFTER THE FIRST NAME,

AND BEFORE THE DATES.

AT LEAST THIS IS HOW

WE DID IT IN THE 1860’S. 

YOU KNEW THAT, DIDN’T YOU?

Books by the author are available via Amazon and Lulu.com.  Search by name, please:  Vincent P Lewis

 

PLAYING SOFTBALL

   THE following has happened several times, and I assume that it is not unusual.  The family, or a group of friends, have a picnic and decide to play softball.  The grownups play for real.  However, “exceptions” are made for the smaller children.   They are allowed to swing, endlessly, until they hit the ball.  Then their mothers usually lead them to first base.  Then the child is praised, excessively, and led off the field.  The game then goes back to being “real,” even if still only a friendly contest.  The child is placed into a condition where he can not fail.  I get annoyed when this happens, but, if I were still a child, I probably would like it a lot. 

    The following does not happen, ever.  Albert Brooks made a movie, and I forget the name.  A Yuppie couple sells everything deciding to live like nomads on their cash.  They go to Las Vegas where the wife gambles away almost every dollar.  The husband, having been in advertising, then offers the following proposal to the casino manager.  The money can be refunded, and the casino then identified as the “casino with a heart.”  The manager declined this public relation triumph. 

    Games have rules, conditions, preconditions, understandings, etc, otherwise they do not really exist, as when a three year old is at bat.  Investing is a game.  The ONLY difference between it and legal (or illegal) gambling is… well, actually there is no difference, other than the names, i.e. investing versus gambling.  The casino manager kept repeating one thing.  Our business is gambling.  If we gave the money back it would not be gambling.  Both gambling and investing need to have a loss possibility.  Otherwise they become like the child at the family picnic.  The gambler can not be allowed to play, without risking money, an infinite number of times until he “hits.”  Casinos would not stay in business if the patrons were immune from bad betting.

    Recently JP Morgan-Chase, a BIG bank reported a big loss, at least according to the Mass Media.   Let us assume that this is true.  The story also points out that the company, as a whole, made an EVEN bigger overall profit.  But one section gambled, that is invested, and lost.  To be clear and perhaps even silly, no depositor’s funds were involved.  No one was “hurt” except that section of the company.  So, an investment firm took its own money and invested it, and gambled badly, and lost.  So what?  These things happen, right?  It is the way of the world, is it not?

    Apparently not.  The Congress is upset.  Calls for additional regulations and regulators are being made by federal legislators.  In other words, the system must be changed so that the investment houses can not invest, or so that they can only invest in winners.  I do not know how this can work.  Will the regulators pick the investments, and then get a law passed that no loses may be incurred?  Are the firms to be considered like the children at bat?  Are they to “buy” stocks, but never have to pay.  This way their actions do not matter.   But, of course, they are allowed to sell and collect the profits.  Are the trading partners to be “brokers with a heart,” in that they will refund the money when the purchase results in a loss?     

    Capitalism and a Free Market (and these are NOT the same) require that the prudent, the knowledgeable, or the lucky, be rewarded, and rewarded precisely from the funds of the imprudent, ignorant or unlucky.  The gain of one is precisely the loss of another.  Without this nothing involving investments can work.  And without investments progress stops, and the current economy will fall apart.  This is simply another attack on what the USA economic system is, or used to be. 

    When the USA should be “playing hardball,” the game is being transformed into softball.  And it is a game that we all will lose.  

 

A TORTURED ISSUE

   THE “issue” of torture has come up again, recently.  It seems, to use a classical metaphor, to be a type of hydra.  This animal was a multi-headed monster, which had the odd ability to replace a head, when cut off, with two others.  Hercules ultimately defeated it by burning the neck after cutting off a head.  It seems as if torture, no matter how often dealt with, returns.  And the issue is always the same.   Should America use torture to achieve advantages in war?

    Let me first point out a principle.  When an action is allowed its lesser included parts are also allowed.  To put this into a context consider this.  The arming of police officers, and the authorization that they be allowed to shoot people, automatically means that we allow them forms of violence that are less damaging and dangerous than killing.  That is, they can also hit criminals, causing, in effect, the same pain and damage as torture.  Also right reason demands that we demand that the police officer kill, when he does, with the most efficiency.  That is, he should NOT risk his life or, in any way, increase his own danger. 

    Let me put this into a legal context of punishment.  When a judge has a legal right to impose a life sentence upon a criminal he also automatically has the right to impose any sentence less than life.  Certain categories automatically include other categories. 

    Currently the US is using drones to kill terrorists, and others.  A drone is a type of flying bomb.  They are essentially impossible to detect or defeat.  There is no attempt to capture the enemies.  They are simply “eliminated.”  And anyone close by to the target will be killed too.  This is the ultimate penalty.  Killing is in a different category than any other type of punishment.  So if the US decides that it can kill Mister X then it also is claiming the authority to do anything less than X.  And torture is less than killing.     

   Ironically the subject of torture is kept alive.  He has value only so long  as he can speak and confirm information.  Thus he may be maltreated in one way, but he is also going to be taken care of.  Those who object to capital punishment by drones (i.e. many Liberals) should thus favor torture as a way to avoid summary executions.  The illogic is so obvious that the objections of the Liberals become silly.  But then these are the people who see nothing wrong with killing a child five minutes before birth, and yet do see something wrong with killing (most) children five minutes after birth.   

   P.S.  I do admit the existence of those who oppose both the use of drones and torture.  However, assuming that they are not total pacifists, their reasoning is also faulty.  They do not object to “fair fight” captures, where the US military would lose some of its men, in “High Noon” type shootouts.  In other words, because of an objection to a style they want MORE people, including innocent non-terrorists, dead.  Theirs truly is, as Pope John Paul II put it, a culture of death. 

 

JUSTIFYING THE CLAIM

   THE title of this blog is “Smarter than thou” (in case you had not noticed).  It should be obvious that I am claiming to know more than most people.  I do, and I am.  The blog’s title should not be “smarter,” at least not in my view.  Smartness is the ability to achieve desired results.  It is what works in the real world.  I figure that I am of average “smartness.”  Intelligence, however, is, in my opinion, the ability to see things the way they are.  This is my ability.  However, “intelligencer than thou” would not read very well, so I compromised on the title. 

    I brought this up for two reasons.  One is to fill space.  The other is to present some proof.  My view is that most people, at least most Americans, are stupid.  I offer an example.  I can see these things while others do not.  I deal with the issue of global warming.  The mere fact that its advocates now describe their “cause” as “climate change” demonstrates they do not know what is going on.  Neither does any one else.  In other words, they want to be justified in their alarm if the Earth freezes and/or burns.  This is much like a person declaring that a red light means go AND stop.  This way, no matter what he does, he is right… by his own standards.

    I need to repeat my view.  The Earth MAY be warming up.  It MAY be cooling.  There is simply no valid scientific method to measure any global temperature.  That is, no one can know.  This is simply a factual limitation.  So I do not oppose the alarmists because they are wrong.  I oppose them because they simply can not (yet) be certain that they are right.  Now I present their stupid part.

    The “theory” (if it qualifies as one) behind global warming is this.  Particles of “greenhouse gases,” released by activities carried on by Republicans (only) get “stuck” in the atmosphere.  The sunlight that hits the Earth tries to “bounce off” and go on to warm Mars.  However, the light hits the particles and gets reflected back to the Earth, like a trampoline that is dropped off a large building into a swimming pool, while tied to a large balloon.  Actually, forget that, as it is not like that at all. 

    Consider it to be like numerous tiny mirrors.  So the reflected back sunlight (at least some of it) warms the Earth twice, or maybe even more.  Thus the Earth gets more heat and warms up.  This explanation is plausible… at first.  However, it stupidly ignores a most basic fact.  If the particles reflect sunlight then they will also reflect sunlight BEFORE it gets here.  That is, the light goes from the sun towards the Earth, but BEFORE it can reach the Earth it is reflected back into space. It never gets to the Earth. How much of this happens?  No one knows.  No one can know.  No one knows how to find out what they do not know.  But IF the particles really, really do reflect sunlight THEN they may well be cooling the Earth. 

    I told you that I was more intelligent.   Thank you.