Smarter Than Thou!

THE WAR BETWEEN THE DICTATORSHIPS (part 1)

   RECENTLY, as you know, there has arisen (again) the issue of the Confederate flag.  The flag represented those states which formed the Southern side in the “civil” war, also known as the War Between the States.  In my opinion there is no denying that a significant cause of the war was whether racial slavery would continue or not.  It also can not be denied that the issue of states’ rights was at least as important.  I decided to offer a few comments, not on the flag itself, but upon the war, if it were actually a war.    

   I consider the war to be one in which both sides were wrong and unjustified.  The South really did want to keep slavery legal longer.  The fact that it had slavery made its government immoral.  So, in this sense, it had no right to “defend” itself. 

   The North had no right to attack and invade the South.  The war was NOT fought to end slavery.  That is, it was not, if we are to believe official positions.  Lincoln did not make slavery an issue in the war until it had been going on for some time.  Then he “freed the slaves” ONLY in some areas, but not everywhere, in the states in rebellion. 

    I have avoided using any word to designate the South as a separate country.  Was it, really?  Did the states actually succeed in succeeding?  If so then the situation becomes this.  A separate state forms next to the USA.  It tries to be peaceful with regard to the USA, but does seize some property.  Then the USA raises large armies and invades it with the goal of preventing the people in this new nation from determining for themselves what they shall do.  In other words it was fought to ELIMINATE self-determination and freedom, and in violation of official American mythology.   

   I made a mistake.  I apologize.  I described the American Revolution.  The Declaration declared that the power of governments come from the free consent of the governed.  The governed in some states said, “no, thank you.”  And the Federal Government said, “Don’t try that nonsense with me!  We never really meant what the Declaration said.”  And it sent its adherents south with orders to kill, destroy, burn, steal, maim, and coerce these people back into a state of involuntary servitude, all in the name of “freedom.”  Sure it was.   As I affirmed: both sides were wrong.   

    One could argue that Lee, Jackson, etc, were all traitors, as they had taken oaths to the USA.  So had Washington (who actually served in the British armed forces), and pretty much every other Founding Father.  There is an old saying that applies.  “Treason never prospers.  Know you the reason?  If treason prospers, none dare call it treason.”  

   Let me go back to the country theory.  IF the South did form a new nation THEN what was the just cause by which the USA exterminated it, by mass killing?  IF it never formed a new nation, what then was it?  If its members were criminals then the government had an obligation to use the law’s process to punish, and not the army to oppress and to destroy. 

I hope to continue this in the next installment. 

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION?

   I am not necessarily in favor of a democratic form of government.  I am in favor of a government that administers justice and encourages virtues.  The form is not important to me.  However, it seems as if most Americans do care, and do want democracy, here and everywhere.  I emphasize the word “seems.”  I offer two brief comments on democracy.

    As I write this, the invasion of Iraq by ISIS continues, and continues to go badly, at least according to the Mass Media.  I do not see the conflict in such a negative way.  I think that it goes well, at least for America. The reason why others see it as going badly is that the official Iraqi army does not seem to “want” to fight.  It is reported, frequently, as running away.  How ISIS has not yet somehow conquered the entire country, as there is so little resistance, has not yet been explained by the experts.  

   There are numerous reasons why an army may “retreat” for prudent reasons.  The action itself does not automatically imply cowardice or incompetence.  I may comment (in a future installment) on why I judge this to be so.  Let me, for this analysis, assume the worst.  The Iraqis are running like scared women, abandoning their posts, and leaving behind their heavy weapons, etc.  What is wrong with that?

   I mean this question to be taken seriously.  When the Imperial Russian army began to dissolve and abandon the war effort in World War I Lenin declared, properly, that “they are voting with their feet.”  Those in favor of democracy, and democratic choices, can NOT properly object when an army decides, democratically, that the war effort is not worth its blood.  If the Americans who were there were unable to convince, or to transform, the Iraqis from pro-choice democrats into government slaves then their actions are only democracy in action.  Are they not?

    I offer another, pretty much unrelated comment.  Recently, so it seems, the American public has decided that the minimum wage should be raised, and by a good amount.  Of course, they fear that the “evil” corporate forces will be able successfully to resist this goal.  This may happen.  So I offer the following democratic alternative, which bypasses government action, or inaction.  Everyone in favor of paying people more should (from their own money) pay more people more. 

    THIS is called “tipping.”  Instead of paying $4 for a hamburger, pay $5, with this extra dollar---or more!---going to the worker, directly, placed in his hand.  Give more money to the landscaper, the gas station attendant, the cashier at the supermarket, The Wal-Mart greeter, etc.  This will give these workers, in effect, an increase in their wages.  Americans could vote with their dollars. 

    There is no need to thank me.   I am simply fulfilling my obligations. 

 

EX POST FACTO PREDICTABILITY

   I freely admit that I have a repeated tendency to comment on “Climate change.”  I offer two excuses, if any are needed.  The belief that climate change is real is a (almost?) perfect symbol of one of the major errors of our times, namely a supreme and dogmatic irrationality.  Also, writing this as frequently as I do I, on occasion, have some difficulty in finding subjects.  So some quasi repletion is understandable, I hope. 

    I find it interesting how often the word “scientist” is used by those who consider “climate change” to be a proven fact.  They perform the classic local error of begging the question.  That is, they define a real scientist by the fact that he accepts their “facts.”  If he does not then he is not a scientist.  Thus, by a solipsistic definition, rather than by any rationality, uniformity is achieved. Who can argue against “everyone?”     

    Texas recently suffered some record breaking floods.  The climate change crowd, of course, pointed out that this is typical, because climate change will cause more extremes.  Thus, they argue, these exceptional floods are a result of comate change, and we all should give up electricity and cooked meat.  They always say this AFTER floods.  They never predict where and when they will occur.  True science is absolutely predictable.  Chemical reactions occur in exactly the same way as predicted, or they are not part of science.  This is one massive reason why the theory can not be considered as part of science. 

   Also the climate change people decline to explain why the opposite situations still occur.  That is, what about all the times when the climate records record keeping numbers?  While Texas was flooding, how many other places on Earth were getting normal amounts of rainfall?  I assume, because there were ZERO Mass Media reports of flooding anywhere else on Earth, the rest of the world was “routine.”  As large as Texas is, it is not a significant part of the surface of the Earth.  My point is this: if the overwhelming majority of the Earth is normal, how much does one exception count in rating the overall climate of the Earth?

    The answer to the question is essential.  And there is no way to answer it. Until a mathematical formula can be developed, tested, validated, and repeated (literally, hundreds of times!) there is no way, scientifically, to give a “grade” to the world’s climate.  I repeat my position: climate change may well be happening.  The Earth may be getting warmer, or colder.  However, unless things change (which is ironic in itself) there simply is no way to determine if any overall change, or lack of change, exists, or to measure it. 

    I end with a joke stolen from an interesting TV comedy series.  It was called “Dinosaurs.”  On one episode a main character found out that his employers were selling “flame resistant” children pajamas, which were made out of newsprint paper.  He objected.  His boss replied, “We did not say for how long!”  The boss is identical, in approach, to the climate change guys.