Monday, February 28, 2011


Why do concepts, which seem 'self evident' to me, take so long to get across to others? I asked myself that question a few weeks ago and it has taken me this long to come up with an answer. The fact that it took me a few weeks is itself a hint of what the answer is. Layers.

Knowledge and insight comes in layers. Let's say there is a concept that is several layers deep, we'll use 'Non-interventionist Foreign Policy (NIFP)' for an example. In my case, the foreign wars were justified because of the reasons given for their necessity such as
  • we would rather fight them over there
  • they are trying to kill us because we are free
  • they are trying to kill us because of our lack of morals
  • to fight them is patriotic

These layers are pretty shallow and easy to get behind, so when an alternate view comes to light, it may be rejected out-of-hand. After all, I have already come to a logical, reasoned conclusion. But then I hear from this person whom I respect for other policy positions, so I listen to these conflicting theories:

  • we can't afford to police the world
  • we're less safe because our resources are spread out all over the world
  • we have no business involving ourselves in the internal conflicts of other countries
  • they are angry because we are over there
  • our relations would be better with other countries if we would simply trade with them, visit with them, go to their picnics, and keep our nose out of their business
Of course I reject these notions. It's not our fault that they want to kill us. But I do get the one about not being able to afford to police the world, so perhaps I have absorbed one of the layers.

As the border debate heats up, I realize the importance of border security. If millions of Mexicans can cross, then it is not a stretch to think that thousands of terrorists can cross. Securing the border is a duty of the federal government and, politics aside, having our troops deployed overseas means they can't be deployed at the borders. If Al-Qaeda draws our troops over there, large security holes are created over here. Divide and conquer. Now I'm starting to pick up on another layer of the NIFP.

As time goes by, I see freedoms and liberties being yanked out from under me and my government forcing upon me that which it thinks is best. It's a huge snowball, and I saw it coming years before, but it did not look threatening at the time so I went on about my business. Now I don't know how to stop it! Why can't they just perform their enumerated duties and leave this other stuff to the states? If this federal control of my life is upsetting to me, maybe there is something to the idea that people in other countries get upset when we try to interfere in their affairs. Now I'm starting to understand another layer of the NIFP.

So how can these people be angry at us for being over there? We're just there to help! I suppose that an Afghani mother could have misguided anger toward the US if a drone strike inadvertently hits her house and kills her family. She might be angry along with her friends and extended family. The fact that her family was not the target will have no effect on her anger. On a broader scale, we have troops in foreign countries to keep the peace, or perhaps it is a benign presence except for the implicit 'I dare you'. Then we send money to support governments such as Israel, but we also send money to their enemies. We're playing both sides! Perhaps the people of foreign countries think that they are smart enough to determine their own destiny without the help of the US; just like some of us in the US think that we can determine our own destiny without the help of the federal government. I'm starting to understand the motivation of rebels in other countries.

I look at our prior foreign manipulations and conflicts with the benefit of hindsight. We have worked to overthrow Iranian governments (careful what you wish for). We have also armed the Iranians because they were fighting Iraq, and at other times supported Iraq because they were fighting Iran. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. We have been allies with Saddam, then we tried to kill him, allies with Bin-Laden, now we're trying to kill him, for 30 years we have propped up Mubarik, now it appears that our efforts were not appreciated by the Egyptian people. So why not mind our own affairs and leave others to mind theirs? Recent events prove that they are willing and able. I'm starting to grasp another layer of the NIFP.

My turning point was when I watched a video and the question was asked, "What would your reaction be if Chinese tanks were roaming through your city telling you when you could and could not come out, and Chinese troops were busting in to your house at will? Do you think you would retaliate"? That was the light-bulb moment for me.

The theory of layers explains why it can take months and years of repetition before a person's opinions change. Concepts with few or shallow layers can be picked up more quickly which is why sound bites are so effective, they are one layer deep. I've reflected on my own political progression and I have watched the slow, incremental absorption of layers by people around me. I have watched people mature (politically) in areas such as foreign policy, gun rights, and economics and that reflection has led me to this article.

If my Theory of Layers is correct, it proves that my theory is at best incomplete, and at worst inaccurate. Oh my, a recursive theory. I'm so confused!

-- Jim

Thursday, February 24, 2011


The Obama administration has determined the DOMA is unconstitutional.  I agree, where in the constitution is there anything about ANY government being involved with marriage?

I too believe marriage is between one man and one woman.  it  is not a role of government to regulate the personal life of others, tho they do regulate most of what we do. (what kind of toilet can you have)

So now that a precedent has been set, does that mean we can expect the non enforcement of other unconstitutional laws (no more incandescent bulbs) and dismantling of unconstitutional departments?(Dept of ED)

just a thought

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

John Lott's Website: 7-year-old faces criminal charges after bringing a nerf gun to school

ENOUGH.AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



NO TOLERANCE.............OF TOYS!?!?!?!?!?

John Lott's Website: 7-year-old faces criminal charges after bringing a nerf gun to school

Ron Paul's 2002 Predictions Come True

Today it's time to go back and see who saw it coming.

Can somebody find me a similar prediction video by other potential candidates such as Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum...? Radio clips would also work. I know Herman Cain has a radio show (in Atlanta I think).

It's time the American people reconsider what a president should be like.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Government 101 (for computer geeks)

We build a system for virtualization. We build it in Windows so we have pretty windows and a comfortable GUI to work in. In our system then, we must share our limited resources between the machines. We must operate a complete and bloated OS in order to get to our other OS's. Our base OS is running 40 processes such as the ATI graphics interface, the wireless keyboard and mouse program, it has Adobe Reader and Office primed for quick launch, Windows Update, Print monitor, LogMeIn, Blockbuster, Avast!, Weatherbug, and of course our Virtual Machine Manager. "Gladys! Bring me some more RAM; QUICK! So we're running a fully functional OS (or more than one) inside a fully functional, buggy, unstable OS. This can't end well...

The answer to this ticking time-bomb is a hypervisor. A hypervisor is a stable, tiny OS whose only job is to manage virtual machines and protect their right to communicate with the physical hardware. We can't watch movies on the hypervisor, or check stocks or the weather, we have to start one of the VMs to do that. The hypervisor is small and stable; unlikely to ever crash. If a VM crashes... restart it.

Oh, you thought that just because this is a political blog, I would turn this into an analogy, like:
Small entities with limited scope are most efficient for everyone involved. If the Federal government were a hypervisor as was the case in 1787, us VMs would thrive and prosper to an extent not seen since 1913. More of our limited resources would be available to us VMs since the government would only need to consume a tiny fraction. As it stands now, our Federal government is bloated, unstable, and sometimes does things that don't make any logical sense. Things like buying $400 hammers, supporting Mubarik and groups trying to oust him, and [indirectly] paying the Taliban so they will keep fighting our troops in Afghanistan.
Well, I simply won't do it. Sometimes we need a break from politics.


"The Plain Truth" on the "PATRIOT" Act

"The Plain Truth" on the "PATRIOT" Act

Monday, February 14, 2011

Oh, Lord have Mercy; We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment!!!

This is what many of the new lawmakers and many of the old lawmakers are saying as they try to capitalize on the fervor. The BBA is a different debate for a different time, especially since there is no danger in it passing in the foreseeable future.

If lawmakers were serious about a balanced budget, all they would have to do is stop raising the debt ceiling. KISS! Budget balanced.

If lawmakers were serious about lowering the debt, which a balanced budget DOES NOT DO, they could simply vote to lower the debt ceiling. KISS!

Perhaps this should be a separate post, but the prior debates are irrelevant in our current system where all our currency is borrowed from the FED. This debt can never be paid back!

Check this out:
  • Say we open a little country and start from scratch. We decide to have a central bank to furnish and manipulate our currency. To run this new country, we need to start with $100, so we create a bond worth $100 and pay 5% interest on the capital.
  • We issue no more bonds and thus receive no new currency from the central bank.
  • Now let's say after one year we change our mind and want a different currency. How do we pay the central bank back? Including interest, we now owe the central bank $105 but there is only $100 in circulation in the entire country! Our little government does not have the money to pay its debt once the first penny of interest has accrued!

    This is a grossly oversimplified description of our current system, but it shows that the system was set up to take the power from the government and put it in the hands of a few unelected decision makers, and it was set up in a way that will make it very difficult to overturn.

    By simple arithmetic we have shown that payment of the national debt is not possible under the current system. Any attempt to pay down the debt will cause a contraction of the money supply, which is not a bad thing but it will cause economic corrections and it will look like a bad thing.
    The only way to deal with the national debt is to first eliminate the current central banking system.

  • Friday, February 4, 2011


    Cutting money in half without damaging the paper.

    Thursday, February 3, 2011

    How did the Iraq war start?

    Once it becomes acceptable to equate truth with treason, we can no longer call ourselves a free society.
    --Ron Paul