On Russian Interference in US Politics

Conservatives have long complained about Russian interference in US Politics and culture. There is substantial proof that the Soviets infiltrated parts of the US government and that many people in Hollywood were working as Soviet agents.

Whenever Conservatives tries to talk about this history, progressives jump out of the woodwork and screech the label "McCarthyism."

In this light it is amusing watching Obama lecturing conservatives about the dangers that might ensue from Russian interference in US politics.

It appears that Obama is trying to delegitimize an election which did not go his way.

Anyway, I believe that there has been a long history of nefarious groups trying to influence US politics. David Horowitz does some great work tracing the various networks currently in play.

McCarthy was a loudmouth drunk. There were people in his era, like Whitaker Chambers, who provided interesting information on cold war spying by the soviets in the Cold War.

As for Wikileaks, the reports I've heard indicate the leaks came from a disgruntle Democrat.

I dislike that the Trump campaign leaned so heavily on Wikileaks.
 
I dislike that the release of the Access Hollywood Tapes was timed to help Hillary. Had those tapes been released during the GOP primary, it is likely that Trump would have lost the primary.

Yep, there are many things I dislike, but this game where Obama only complains about outside influence when it hurts his partisan cause comes off as pathetic.

Small Business Saturday Post

Small Business Saturday is a marketing gimmick dreamt up by American Express.

The primary purpose of Small Business Saturday is to get the American Express Brand in front of consumers and to encourage small shops to accept American Express Cards, despite the fact that the premium is higher than other payment methods.

The focal point of Small Business Saturday is the Shop Small advertising program by American Express which includes Small Shop Guides for America's largest cities.

The site for the event says: "Only qualifying American Express Card accepting small merchants will be featured on the map. Please." This excludes most small business.

Big media loves to push Small Business Saturdays. The name just resonates in the brain. Tweeting about small busness saturday makes a media outlet feel all comfy and progressive.

I like Small Business Saturday because the idea is so full of contradictions that it borders on the humorous.

First of all, anyone who regularly works with small businesses know that a huge number of small business owners prefer to do business during the weekdays and not on the weekends.

If you actually want to do business directly with the owner of a small business; your best bet is to march into the small business on some nondescript Tuesday. Most family owned business owners prefer spending holiday weekends with family.

The event is, from the ground up, a gimmick dreamt up by marketers from big business and follows big business type thinking. The multimedia campaign around the gimmick is big marketing to the core.

My Contribution to Small Business

A decade ago, I realized that small business was getting the shaft in the digital age. My small contribution to small business was to make small directories for small towns. The goal of the effort was to raise community awareness and promote locally focussed web development.

My small effort has sent tens of millions of hits to small businesses, blogs, community organizations, churches, artists and charities.

The Community Color sites have small directories for select towns in the Mountain West (Utah, Colorado, etc.). There were more directories in Idaho, Oregon and Montana. I gave those sites away; So, I only have a few left.

I get a couple million pages views each month.

The original idea of the directories was that I would link to all of the web sites I could find in a given town for free. The directory would also include affiliate links for big businesses with a local presences. The big affiliate programs would pay for local services. My affiliate income completely dried up a few years back.

Currently I get about $25 for every 100,000 page views on the site. That is a CPC rate of 25¢ per thousand impressions. My earnings per clicks (EPC) is about 1 penny per click.

I've been experimenting with the idea of selling ads directly to local small businesses for $25 for 100,000 page impressions. I haven't received any orders yet.

Anyway, I was thinking about making a big push on Small Business Saturday to sell the advertising, but a voice inside my brain is yelling: "Are you nuts? The people who would make the purchasing decision like this aren't working on Saturday.

Here is the announcement that I am selling ads at a rate of $25.00 per 100,000 page views. You can order the ads on my Park City Site. This is the only site on my new server. The ads will go live on all the sites as I port them to the new server.

The Cautionary Tale of George Walker Bush

George Walker Bush was a center right candidate pushing an ideology called "compassionate conservatism."

After his election Bush began moving left toward the center. GW Bush moved so far left that he past the center.

The result of Bush's leftward swing was that American ended up with a Republican administration that dramatically expanded the Federal role in health care and education. Bush engaged in unprecedented deficit spending and got America mired in two foreign wars.

During the Bush Administration, the Democratic Party turned radically left. Bush's left of center administration opened up an opportunity for the radical left to take over.

The Tea Party of 2009 wasn't just unhappy with Obama. It was unhappy with GW Bush who's left of center administration turned our country into a mess.

Donald Trump is a center-right populist who is moving left to maintain his popularity.

The left wing reaction to Trump is even more shrill than the reaction to Bush. What we are likely to see happen is that Trump will continue to move left to maintain his popularity. His center-right candidacy will become a center-left administration.

The really bad news is that Trump will, most likely, be replaced by another far left administration.

This stupidity that we see is due largely to a partisan ideology called "conservatism." Unless the GOP address the inherent flaws of conservatism, our nation is doomed forever to follow the letward progression seen in the Bush/Obama years. We can't handle much more of it.

The Cautionary Tale of George Walker Bush

George Walker Bush was a center right candidate pushing an ideology called "compassionate conservatism."

After his election Bush began moving left toward the center. GW Bush moved so far left that he past the center.

The result of Bush's leftward swing is that American ended up with a Republican administration that dramatically expanded the Federal role in health care and education. Bush engaged in unprecedented deficit spending and got America mired into two foreign wars.

During the Bush Administration, the Democratic Party turned radically left. Bush's left of center administration opened up an opportunity for leftwing radicals to dramatically shift our nation to the left.

The Tea Party of 2009 wasn't just unhappy with Obama. It was unhappy with Bush who's left of center administration turned our country into a mess.

Donald Trump is a center-right populist who is moving left to maintain his popularity.

The left wing reaction to Trump is even more shril than the reaction to Bush. What we are likely to see happen is the Trump administration will keep moving left until it is a center-left administration.

The bad news is that Trump will, most likely, be replaced by another far left administration.

This stupidity that we see is due largely to a partisan ideology called "conservatism." Unless the GOP address the inherent flaws of conservatism, our nation is doomed forever to follow the letward progression seen in the Bush and Obama administrations.

On The Future of Conservatism

Some blogs have posed an interesting question: What will happen to Conservatism under Donald Trump?

American Conservatism is based on a coalition formed by Sir Winston Churchill between the English Conservative Party and Liberals in the fight against Hitler.

The Conservative coalition encourages its members to use free market rhetoric when the party is in the minority. But it never actually does anything to advance the cause of liberty when it is in the majority.

Trump appears to me to be a right of center populist who likes to make deals and has very little interest in advancing the ideals of liberty.

My guess is that, over the next couple of years, we will see the people who voice the ideals of liberty marginalized. The country will move leftward and Trump seeks to make deals.

As for Conservatism, I suspect that "conservatism" will return closer to its historic roots.

The problem with this scenario is that the roots of conservatism do not lay in the American Revolution, but lay with the English reaction to the revolution.

I am sorry, but I have to repeat the history of Conservatism.

Roots of Conservatism

Conservatism is a strange beast. It is a partisan ideology that was created back in the 1830s with the creation of the Conservative Party under King William IV.

Prior to the 1830s, the King selected the Prime Minister. Many of the electoral districts in England (boroughs) had sparse population and were control by powerful Tory families.

Electoral reforms included redistricting and a radical idea that the Parliament would choose the Prime Minister.

Electoral reforms meant that the ruling coalition of the Tories would fail.

King William IV appointed Sir Robert Peel as Prime Minister and charged Peel with creating a ruling coalition around the dwindling remains of the Tories.

This ruling coalition called itself the "Conservative Party." The party drew its name from efforts to restore the French Monarchy after the Napoleonic Wars. Members of the Conservative Party still affectionately call themselves "Tories."

The Tories as you may recall from American History were the people who fought against the US Founders.

BTW, when you climb on a fence and proudly declare yourself a "conservative," you are part of a great intellectual tradition that reaches back to the people who fought against the US Founders.

The hated opposition of the Conservatives was a liberal group called Whigs. The Whigs included people like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc..

King William blamed the Whigs for the loss of the colonies and the break up of the empire.

A fundamental aspect of Conservatism from its inception is that liberals are dangerous thinkers whose naive belief in liberty lead to the break up of nations.

Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel was stuck with the difficult task of creating a party that would appeal to the people while "conserving" the social structure of the monarchy.

So, he created an ideology designed to conserve the social order and the supremacy of the Anglican Church (the state run church of Great Britain). Robert Peel emphasized law and order. Robert Peel created the "bobbies." His coalition used free market rhetoric but supported centralized financial institutions and passed regulations that gave the insiders an advantage.

The prime example of "Conservatism in Action" is a set of regulations and taxes called "The Corn Laws."

The Corn Laws were designed to give rich English Lords a monopoly on growing traditional cash crops. The Irish Peasants were forced to subsist on an imported exotic called "The Potato."

The potato crop failed. Despite the fact that Ireland had bumper harvests of traditional crops, the failure of the potato crop created a famine that took one million lives.

I need to emphasize. Potatoes came from the new world. They were not the primary Irish Crop. Conservatives past laws that prevented the Irish from growing traditional crops.

The Conservative Party saw the mass famine as an opportunity. Conservatives passed relief laws. To get relief, however, the Irish peasants were forced to give up their remaining land and homes.

The very first Conservative Party led to the death of 1 million British Citizens and the displacement of 1 million more.

Even some Conservatives were ashamed at the role of their party in the Potato Famine. Led by Sir William Gladstone, these people stomped out of the Conservative Party and created a thing called "The Liberal Party."

The Liberal Party supported free markets and the emancipation of Catholics in Ireland under the guise of religious liberty.

It quickly became clear that, if the Irish were given the vote, they would vote for home rule and would expel their rich English Lords.

The Liberal Party quickly fell apart. Conservatives derided the dangerous talk of liberty as the dangerous idealism that breaks apart nations. The Conservatives created a new coalition that emphasized national unity. This new party created a model for new right wing parties throughout Europe.

Ironically, in the same decade that the Liberal Party was formed from the Whigs in Britain, a group of people who were upset that the Whig Party of the United States approved the Kansas/Nebraska act that threatened to expand slavery in the Western US.

A group of American Whigs that included John Fremont and Abraham Lincoln created a new party opposed to the expansion of slavery.

The Liberal Party was formed in England seeking the emancipation of Catholics at the same time that the GOP was formed with its long term goal of the emancipation of slaves.

The Republican Party and the Liberal Party had the same roots (the Whigs). Both the GOP and Liberal Party had the goal of freeing the disenfranchised.

Don't you get it? The Republican Party was the liberal party!!!!! The Democrats were populists who wanted big government and slavery. The GOP wanted small government and small business.

In the late 19th and 20th century things got weird.

The Liberal Party fell apart over the issue of home rule. A new party aroused called "The Labour Party" which promoted a new ideology called socialism.

In Parliament, the members of the opposition form an opposition coalition. Conservatives began calling socialism "liberal." Socialists and progressives loved being called "liberal" as well. By assuming the label "liberal," socialists were able to frame big government and limited opportunity as liberating.

In the twentieth century, a Liberal politician named Winston Churchill had it up to the eyeballs with the idiocies of the social progressives. Churchill encouraged liberals to join the Conservative Coalition.

The Conservative coalition led by Neville Chamberlain ended up being problematic. Conservatives saw the young Adolph Hitler in Germany and the dashing Franco in Spain and the inspiring Mussolini in Italy as people they could work with.

The Conservatives pursued a policy called "appeasement."

Churchill saw appeasement as nuts. The once Liberal Churchill took charge of the Conservative coalition and led Britain in the fight against fascism.

The strange beast called "American Conservatism" was based largely on the coalition created by Churchill.

Conservatism took hold in the GOP as people reacted to the Civil Rights Movement.

Conservatives in the Republican Party simply surrendered the Republican history as the Liberal Party that fought to free the slaves to attract the Dixiecrats in the GOP (The term Dixiecrat applies to people who left the Democratic Party when the Democrats switched their support of the Jim Crow Laws.)

The Conservative movement encourages people to use free market rhetoric when the party is in the minority. Conservatives slam the door and kick down dangerous talk of liberty as liberal claptrap when the GOP gains a majority.

With the election of Trump, the GOP is now in the majority.

The people who threw themselves on the line to defend the ideals of liberty during the Tea Party are sitting on the margins. I suspect that the Trump Administration will do much to advance liberty.

Trump will promote law and order. He will reduce those regulations that annoy his powerful friends, but is unlikely to create a climate conducive to small business.

I suspect that the Trump Administration will create a Conservatism that is more like the stodgy Conservatism of King William IV and Sir Robert Peel and that we will move further from the robust ideals of Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.

I fear that this stage of history can simply be summed up with the phrase:

The Republican Party threw the American ideals of liberty on the altar of Conservatism and our nation lost its way.

On Trump's Seeking Guidance from Romney

Local news, here in Utah, reports that Donald Trump is on a pilgrimage today to seek counsel from Mitt Romney, as if Mitt Romney were some sort of Jedi Master because of his religion.

It will be a fun meeting.

During the election, Mormons, including Romney, heaped derision on Trump then stomped off to vote from some Mormon guy who had worked for the CIA and Goldman Sachs (two entities that are even scarier than the LDS Church).

After the election, Mormons appear to have become even more insufferable and less tolerant.

I made a few post election attempts to suggest people should talk about free market health care reform.

Attempts to talk about issues are being put down even more abruptly than before the election.

Anyway, as I write, Trump is making a pilgrimage to a golf course Trump owns in New Jersey to seek wisdom from Mitt Romney. The scuttlebutt is that any less than than an offering of the position of Secretary of State to Romney will be taken as an affront.

Personally, I see the fact that Trump is meeting with a person who attacked his character during the election shows indicates that Trump just might have more character than the caricatures that Mormons built in the mind about the president elect.

If you want to see character assassination, you should read: Neal Silvester's piece on Trump in Silvester compares Trump to a fictional King Noah of the Book of Mormon.

As I consider Free Market Health Care Reform to be a primary concern, I hope the LDS influence on the national stage diminishes in the upcoming year.

Mormons played a prominent role in the current health care fiasco. Senator Harry Reid was the primary architect of Obamacare in the Senate. Obamacare was based on a plan developed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. Governor Huntsman and Governor Herbert are ardent supporters of the basic structure of the plan. Former Governor Mike Leavitt is the head of companies that implement the plan.

The LDS Church holds that Health Care Policy was revealed to Joseph Smith in a form initially called "The Book of Commandments" but renamed to "The Doctrine and Covenants."

Belows is the text concerning health care drawn from The Institution for Religious Research.

25 Thou knowest my laws, they are given in my scriptures, he that sinneth and repenth not, shall be cast out.

26 If thou lovest me, thou shat serve me and keep all of my commandments; and behold, thou shalt consecrate all thy properties, that which thou hast unto me, with a covenant and deed which cannot be broken; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church, and two of the elders, such as he shall appoint and set apart for that purpose.

27 And it shall come to pass, that the bishop of my church, after that he has received the properties of my church, that it can not be taken from the church, he shall appoint every man a steward over his own property, or that which he has received, in as much as is sufficient for himself and family:

28 And the residue shall be kept to administer to him who has not, that every man may receive according as he stands in need:

29 And the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer the poor and needy, as shall be appointed to the elders of the church and the bishop; and for the purpose of purchasing lands, and the building up of the New Jerusalem, which is hereafter to be revealed; that my covenant people may be gathered in one, in the day that I shall come to my temple.

This commandment (which is theoretically on par with the Ten Commandments) states that people who are not in keeping with The Covenant are to be cast out.

In other words: One should not even talk to people outside the LDS Church.

God commands that people surrender their property to the LDS Church which will take from each according their ability and distribute to each according to their need.

This principle is called The United Order and Covenant.

In unrelated news. The Doctrine and Covenant also revealed that powerful men in the LDS Church should have multiple wives. Joseph Smith sealed himself to 49 women including some 14 year old girls.

One should note that both principles are practiced by LDS Fundamentalists. LDS Fundamentalists often live in communally owned compounds with the powerful men having multiple wives.

Back to Health Care:

The LDS Church holds that God commanded that central authorities should take from each according to their abilities and give to each according their needs.

It really is not surprising that the two most powerful LDS politician of our day (Senator Harry Reid and Mitt Romney) played key roles in the creation of the disaster known as Obamacare. Senator Harry Reid drove a bill based on Romney's Massachusetts plan through Congress without any serious debate.

I need to highlight the LDS prohibition against debating health care reform.

This phenomenally intolerant holds that people who are not in the fold must be cast out.

As I watch the Romney/Trump meeting. I am hoping that the president elect politely rebuffs Romney's solicitation for a cabinet level position.

Post Election Post

I believe that the people matter more than the president.

I did not support Trump because I am scared of the way that the left will react to a Trump presidency.

Trump is a billionaire with a boisterous voice.

Since modern education is based on images and themes instead of logic or insight, the left can use the flamboyent image of Trump to project all of the evils of the world on the GOP.

Trump is a billionaire who likes to build things. The fear I have is that the left will build a reaction to Trump so deep that it ushers in a radical left wing government.

I had been reconsiled to a Clinton victory with a hope that Democrats might finally realize that their party and ideology is the primary source of much of the corruption we se in this world.

A Trump presidency will create huge challenges for defenders of liberty.

Trump is a populist who likes to build things and is not into protecting liberty per se.

As I said at the beginning of this post. I believe that the people matter more than the president.

People who want to defend liberty need walk a razor's edge these next years. The goal should be to force discussions of liberty while distancing the cause of liberty from excesses that might be done by a populist president.

It is a difficult challenge, but not impossible.

The Mormon Candidate Takes Utah

I can't believe it. Mormons did vote for the Mormon Guy. This table from Google shows the Utah Vote with 75% of the votes counted. The Mormon Guy got 21% of the vote. 21% is phenomenal for a candidate who had no possible chance of winning the election.

Utah Vote
Candidate	Party	Pct	Vote
Donald Trump	Republican	46%	360,634
Hillary Clinton	Democratic	28%	217,820
Evan McMullin	Mormon	21%	160,801
Gary Johnson	Libertarian	3%	25,096
Jill Stein	Green	0.7%	5,295

Yesterday I linked to an article by Neal Silvester on why Mormons voted against Trump and for a political operative from Goldman Sach whose only qualification is that he is a member of the LDS Church. The article is a great example of Mormon-think in action.

Silvester starts with a with a standard sales pitch for Mormonism. The pitch includes a claim that Mormons are somehow victims of great persecution.

Silvester whines that non-Mormons project false images on Mormons.

He then spends twenty pages projecting images from the Book of Mormon onto Donald Trump. Silvester's thesis is: "men like Donald Trump are everywhere in the Book of Mormon;" therefore I can take any negative image from the Book of Mormon and project the image onto Trump. (Mormons pull this type of crap routinely.).

Silvester says idiotic things like Trump seeks to persecute Muslims because Trump is worried about the current wave of immigrants from Syria who many suspect of being infiltrated by ISIS. Silvester accuses Trump of adultery and accuses him of promoting whoredoms among priests because Trump once owned the Miss Universe Pageant. (This from a state that brought the world "princess pageants").

Silvester complains that Trump builds tall buildings. This is supposed to be sinful because some fictional Nephite King built a tall building on temple grounds. (Mormons built a tall building on Temple Grounds).

Silvester's post has page after page where he throws invective from the Book of Mormon at Trump.

The article had me rolling on the floor with laughter.

Before reading the article, I want to point out: The Book of Mormon was written in the 1800s. It is based on a speculative idea that Native Americans descended from the lost tribes of Israel.

Joseph Smith claimed that a group of Israelites called "The Nephites" came to the new world on a submarine.

The Nephites were a "white and delightsome" people. The Nephites kept doing sinful things. After each episode, God would curse the people he didn't like and turn them brown.

The idea is similar to the "The Mark of Cain." The "Mark of Cane" idea states that God turned the descendents of Cain black and doomed African Americans to be the slaves of the white people. Realizing that everyone was supposed to have died in the Great Flood, Brigham Young said blacks were descendent of someother person who did great evil.

Anyway, the Book of Mormon conflict ends with an extermination war where the "white and delightsome" Nephites are slaughtered by the dark and loathsome Lamanites.

The "proof" for of the Book of Mormon is the observation that Native Americans have darker skin than European settlers.

I've heard Mormons called Barack Obama "the antichrist" based on the observation that Obama has dark skin.

Anyway, Silvester's page on why Mormons voted against Trump is quite amusing. It provides insight into a strange think called "Mormon think."

PS: Apparently the Mormon candidate Evan McMullin has called for Mormons to leave the Republican Party (Washington Post). I would love to see that happen as such a departure would improve the GOP.

Silvester on Trump

I admit. The thing that most interests me this election is whether or not the Mormons will vote for Evan McMullin.

McMullin is a candidate who worked for Goldman Sachs and the CIA. His only real qualification for the presidency is that he is Mormon.

While you are watching the election returns, you might enjoy reading a piece by Neal Silvester on why Mormons are voting for McMullin.

The article is a perfect example of projection. Silvestre starts by pulling the victim card and claims that Mormons are persecuted and the subject of deep prejudice by people who don't know their history.

He then spends twenty pages projecting the nastiest images possible on Trump and Trump's followers based on his reading of the Book of Mormon.

I found the article hilarious because I've encountered numerous Mormons who use the exact same form of arguments. They lead in with false claims that Mormons are deeply misunderstood and persecuted people. They then start projecting stories from the Book of Mormon on the people around them.

The Political Class Fears Independents

The political class presents the presidential election as if it were a binary choice. One must vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate.

But the choice is not binary. Every year there's a dozen or so people listed as candidate for president. Yes, most of the third party candidates are just people looking for some publicity and none have a chance to be president.

However, voting for these candidates is seen by the political machine as the rebuke of the partisan process used to select candidates.

In recent decades, the presidential election tends to be close. If enough people vote third party and independent then they can deny the winning candidate a majority of the popular vote.

People who vote third party in a swing state could create a situation where neither of the primary candidates get over 50% of the vote.

The primary candidate with the most votes will take the state. But a huge vote for third party and independent candidates is seen as a clear rejection of the partisan system which creates divisive and corrupt campaigns like the thing we witnessed this last year.

I listen to both Republican and Democratic speaches. Both sides are equally afraid of independent votes this year.

I would encourage anyone who is staring at a ballot and considering to vote between the lesser of two evils to make a clear statement by voting for a third party or independent candidate.

The political class and political historians analysize presidential votes in minute detail.

Voting against both candidates is a clear and decisive statement that our nation is fed up with the manifactured divisions created by the political class.

The political class on both sides of the aisle fear people voting independent. Both Trump and Hillary have issued admonishions against voting independent.

I say that, if this is what the political class fears, then it is what the people should do.

In this election both candidates are problematic. People (left, right and center) are livid with the candidates.

As independent voters will take from both parties, neither party could decisively say that the independents cost them the election. However, both parties will see that the political class has lost the faith of the people.

The best vote on November 8th is to vote for an independent or third party candidate.

Deny the Mandate

The smart money says Hillary will win the general election.

Actions taken by the Clintons during the primary and general elections have people questioning the integrity of our election system and the direction of our nation.

I suspect that many people are so frustrated with the election that they are thinking of staying home and not voting.

In some cases, not voting is the best course of action.

In this election, however, I believe that the best course of action for the frustrated, disenfranchised voter is to vote for a third party candidate.

I am voting for Gary Johnson as I would love to see the GOP discuss free market policies in the next election.

Polls in Utah say that a huge number of people are voting for Evan McMullin because he is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Voting for McMullin will show the world the size and depth of the Mormon voting block.

Some polls say McMullin will take Utah. I think that would be a hoot.

Some avid Bernie Sanders voters claim to be supporting Jill Stein, hoping to move the Democratic Party leftward.

In Utah, I suspect that Bernie Sanders vote will go to Hillary. Democrats here believe that if McMullin and Johnson split the GOP vote; then Hillary might win the day turning the state blue for the day.

Utah has too few electoral votes to matter, but, if the third party vote is large enough to deny the major candidates a clear plural vote then the major parties will notice and candidates might actually start discussing issues.

IMHO the best possible outcome for this election would be one in which the third party candidates actually denied the primary candidates a clear majority.

Such a vote would deny the next president a mandate and force a discussion of ideas.

So, as we head into the final days of the election, my position is simple. It doesn't matter who you vote for so long as it is neither Trump nor Hillary. The best hope for America is for the disgruntle Americans who are thinking of staying home this election to vote for a third party candidate to show our growing displeasure with the parties.

A Dictator Dictates

I hate the idea of a second Clinton term. Hillary Clinton stands for all of the corruption and weakness that has been systematically bringing our nation to its knees.

If I were running against Hillary, I would drive the point that her husband Bill Clinton signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. This is the crazy piece of legislation that created that derivatives that brought down our economy in 2008.

The dirivative market was created by progressive economists in Ivy League universities. This market, created by the Clintons, was supposed to be like a huge insurance policy for Wall Street. If the market were to start collapsing, the derivatives would kick in and salvage profits for Wall Street and allow to market to correct itself.

What happened is that bankers printed trillions of dollars in dirivatives stacked upon dirivative and when the market collapses the dirivatives proved to be a house of cards. Instead of creating a shield against market bubbles, the Clinton's dirivative market created bubbles within bubble.

Even worse, the Clinton's dirivative market transferred trillions of dollars of wealth from America's middle and working class into the pockets of the Wall Street elite.

Did I mention? The signature on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was that of William Jefferson Clinton and that the legislation that created the bubbles within bubbles that crashed the economy is also the reason that Wall Street lavishes the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Campaign with millions of dollars.

I am not a fan of the derivatives market. Dirivatives do not create wealth. They are pieces of paper that transfer wealth from the people to the ruling elite.

Considering the deep, deep corruption of the Clintons, one would think that 2016 would be a shoo-in for the GOP.

Somehow, the GOP nominated the one candidate that Hillary Clinton is best positioned to beat: Donald Trump.

Now, I care more about ideas than politics. I have not been able to get behind Trump because Trump has failed to communicate any sound policies and he has failed to engage in the deliberation of ideas.

Trump likes to issue provocative statements. Trump's policy statements often come out as a shopping lists of sound bytes.

Trump comes across as a type of person who likes to control people by issuing dictates. This was a popular style last century. The world took to calling people who rule by issuing dictates a "dictator."

There is merit behind some of Trump's broad statements. Our nation needs to do something about its broken immigration platform.

Since Trump never goes much deeper than issuing broad statements, Hillary Clinton is able to frame efforts to support immigration law as a police state with SS Troops rounding up children.

The GOP is such and incredibly stupid and pathetic party. If the GOP discussed ideas they would win.

The illegal immigrants either crossed the border illegally or failed to follow the contract of their visa.  Enforcing immigration law is largely a matter of making sure that people follow the contract of their Visa and deporting people who fail to follow a written contract.

Simply saying that "I will deport people" comes off as a dictate from a dictator. Talking about the visa laws shows a person engaged in the act of deliberation.

We deport people who violate the terms of their visa or who fail to get visas because we love visitors and want a working visa system. That is not hatred. It is the act of a nation engaged in creating laws that allow extensive world travel.

I look at the 2016 presidential race and at a GOP that simply refuses to discuss ideas and issues dictates where there should be debate concede that, while Hillary Clinton numbers among the worst candidates in US history, the GOP deserves to lose.

While it is true that the Democratic Party and the Clinton Machine are corrupt to the core. History shows that one cannot solve such problems through dictates. We are stuck with a bad choice of continuing corruption or electing in a person who will try to solve the corruption by issuing dictates.

Unfortunately, continuing the corruption for another four years is better than electing a person who will fail to solve any of our problems.

Violence at Trump Rallies

Project Veritas offers videos showing left-wing operators set on infiltrating and inciting violence at Trump rallies.

Like mindless drones they are, the media and the professoriat parrot use the manufactured events to push the false narrative that Republicans are violent Nazi-like creatures.

The technique is not new. The left tried to pull this garbage during the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party was about ideas. To the fury of the left, Tea Party patriots politely confronted the provocateurs with ideas and efforts to label the Tea Party as violent failed.

Unlike Tea Party Patriots, Trump is bellicose in his rhetoric. Trump made attacking "politically correct" speech a fundamental principle of his campaign.

Trump's rhetoric appeals to a hard working middle class that wants to stand up against an increasingly corrupt political elite.

The Trump campaign is not a violent movement. The sad truth is that Trump's rhetorical style makes it easier for the left to frame his campaign as such.

The left does not deal in truth. The heart of the Alynskian/Marxian style of discourse is that intellectuals can create a new reality by framing stories and through the creation of false narratives (aka lying).

The left uses this technique because it works.

A case in point is the great success the left has had in convincing students that America's police force is a racist entity that kills black people for sport.

The long sordid history of Socialism is an uninterrupted string of such propaganda techniques.

Socialist groups (like the Nazis) would target a group for a nationwide people's struggle and rise to power on the discontent they manufactured. It creates unrest that can only be appeased by expanding the state.

Wait a second, you didn't know that the National Socialist Party of Germany (The Nazis) were socialists?!

Well, you must have gone to a progressives school. Progressives skip little tidbits like this as they manufacture history with false narratives.

Another juicy tidbit that few people today know is that the KKK was a left-wing group associated with the Democratic Party. Quite frankly, I see very little difference between the Ku Klux Klan and Black Lives Matter ... other than the color of the skin ... which is superficial.

One can find another great example of propaganda in the rise of Vladimir Putin.

There was a series of apartment bombings in Moscow in 1999. The bombers used high grade explosives that were available only to the Russian military. There is widespread suspicion that the FSB (the revamped KGB) were behind the acts.

Putin used these bombings to crack down on the Chechen people and to consolidate his regime.

It appears that the leader of the Communist world incited violence then successfully used that violence to rise to power.

I applaud Project Veritas for uncovering blatant attempts by the left to infiltrate and cause violence at Trump rallies.

The problem our nation faces with Trump is that Trump has inadvertently created a style where this type of propaganda can work.

If Trump wins, the left will amp up its anti-American rhetoric. Trump will attempt to counter by putting down the left.

Trump's top-down approach to economic reform is unlikely to lead to improvement in the lives of the working and lower class. This will create an opening for a much more radical leftwing movement in 2020.

If Hillary wins the following will happen:

• The left will try to put a muzzle on its attack dogs.
• Hillary is likely to move her positions to the right to position herself for a win in 2020.
• The Clinton have been involved in a huge number of scandals. These include Whitewater, mysterious deaths, Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury.
• Wikileaks shows that the Democratic Party was complicit in undermining Bernie Sander's campaign and for manipulating the GOP primary and the general election.

The scandals of the Clintons are so blatant that the press will be forced to address the scandals.

The Nation will move right under Hillary.

Here is a video by Project Veritas:

We have a corrupt ruling class. Unfortunately, the style of corruption demonstrated by the Democrats this campaign season can be effective. Much as I hate the fact that Democrats and Hillary use such corrupt techniques to gain power. I believe that history shows that the best approach for us at this time to content ourselves with exposing the corruption of the left for this election cycle and for the GOP to find a nominee for 2020 who does not fall as easily into the socialist narrative for 2020.

Will Trump Destroy the GOP?

The Trump candidacy has been educational. For example, it inspired me to look up the difference between bellicose and belligerent.

Apparently, bellicose refers to people who are displaying aggressive behavior and belligerent refers to people actually engaged in aggression. Trump engages in bellicose rhetoric. If he acts on his rhetoric, he will become belligerent.

Trump appears to be having a tiff with leaders of the GOP.

Trump comes off as the type of person who likes to punish his enemies.

If he does this, we might see a complete fracturing and dissolution of the Republican Party.

This actually happened once before. Thomas Jefferson, who preferred local governance and small business to big business had created a Party which he called "The Republican Party."

Andrew Jackson was a pro-slavery populist. Jackson's organization captured Jefferson's party and renamed it the Democratic Party. The Jeffersonian contingent created a new party called The Whigs as many of the US Founders were members of the Whig Party of Great Britain.

The Whigs compromised with the Democrats on the Kansas Nebraska Act. This compromise would have would expanded the institution of slavery in the Western US. A group including John Fremont and Abraham Lincoln created a new party which they called "The Republican Party" after Jefferson's Republican Party.

Anyway, one likely outcome of a Trump presidency is the presidency would disenfranchise the current GOP leadership leading to a complete break up of the Republican Party.

This happened once before. Jefferson's Republican Party favored limited government. Andrew Jackson was a populist who took control Jefferson's Republican Party. The former leaders of the GOP left and created a new party.

The problem with this scenario is that the populist Trump will create an re-invigorated left and that by destroying the GOP, there will be no effective force to counter the Democrats for the foreseeable future.

It's the People

The people matter more than the president.

It is true that when a nation has a popular president,  the people will follow the presidency.

However, when a nation has an unpopular president, the nation will move in the opposite direction of the president.

Obama is a popular president who was weened on the ideals of the socialist Saul Ailinsky. Obama's presidency moved our nation leftward. Obama's politics stifled our economy and made the world a more dangerous place.

Clinton is a corrupt technocrat who is emblematic of the entrenched bureaucracy created by the socialist mindset. The Clinton platform is simply that we should take a failing government and make it bigger.

The Clintons have been involved in a long series of scandals including Whitewater, an Impeachment for perjury, a truly failed foreign policy in Iraq and Syria along with overt Pay-to-play schemes in the Secretary of State Office and with scandals involving corruption in the selection of the Democratic nominee for president.

The scandal sheet is so egregious that the press cannot ignore it.

Donald Trump is a populist candidate whose primary campaign theme is protectionism and desire to renegotiate deals. Trump has a history of throwing aside the ideals of liberty to get his deals through.

I fear that Trump will not only be an unpopular presidency. I fear that Trump will be so desperate to prove his merits by building things that he will throw our remaining liberties under the bus to make deal.

The likely outcome of a Trump presidency is that the left will up its anti-American rhetoric. Trump, desperate to make deals, will sell out the ideals of the Republican Party and moving our nation leftward.

In four years, we will see a invigorated left, a fractured GOP and a weakening of American ideals.

Realizing that the people will move in the opposite direction of an unpopular president, I feel that a Clinton presidency might be better for this nation than a Trump presidency.

"When They Go Low You Go High"

I find it a bit unnerving to hear people cheering when Hillary Clinton announcing the strategy: "When they go low you go high."

This phrase is not a commitment to truth or integrity. It is simply a reactionary strategy.

The term "reactionary" means that one's actions are determined by the opposition. Clinton is saying: "We are taking this approach, at this moment, because our opposition took that approach."

In a campaign where both candidates have huge negatives, this approach is simply disingenuous.

In some ways the strategy of exchanging barbs for barbs is more honest as it openly puts the weaknesses of the candidates on display.

Hillary Clinton has had decades of experience deflecting criticisms in the wake scandals. The scandals include Whitewater, Bill Clinton's impeachment for perjury, accusations of intimidation, mysterious deaths and an apparent pay for play scheme at the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State.

I know many people who admire Hillary for her ability to sit through hearings without flinching, but the weight of the scandals might someday come crashing in on the Clintons.

The strategy of "going high" when people are investigating a scandal is also called "deflection." Parents should know that a child's putting on a good face after stealing a cookie doesn't mean a cookie wasn't stolen.

Expensive Educations and No Jobs

The talking point of the day is that many Millennials have had the following experience: They were encouraged by the education establishment to take out huge loans. (enriching the left leaning professoriat). The students entered a weak job market where they found themselves underemployed and saddled with debilitating debt.

The approach that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders take to the lack of jobs is to raise taxes and create a new Federal give-away programs that would make college free.

Bernie Sanders adds that he would like to see students raise up in revolution.

I want to point out of the foolishness of this approach. If there is a mismatch between our education and jobs, then taxing employers to pay for more of the same would only increase the disparity.

Personally, I look at the failure of the education system to deliver desired returns and conclude that we need to engage in a fundamental restructuring of education to align education with our needs.

I would start by challenging the education system itself. I would start by asking if a massive socialized education system is the best way to education the people in a free society?

The answer to education is huge and multifaceted. So I will leave this question hanging in the air for now.

Form Action

According to this page on W3C, the action attribute is no long required for self-referencing forms in HTML 5. The page says that it prefers to see the attributed removed to being left with an empty. It does not like action="".

The old style tag might be

The shortened string is simply

I tested this change on four different browsers. They all submitted the form correctly. The vast majority of forms I write are self-referencing. I am always happy when I come across a change that makes things cleaner.

So Long to Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Apparently some people were surprised to learn, during this last round of Wiki Leak emails, that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a political operative and that the DNC does things to favor insiders.

Bernie Sander supporters booed Wasserman Shultz off the stage and forced her to resign because she did things to favor long standing Democrats their candidate.

The whole point of a party system is to regulate political discourse.

When Democrats scream at the top of their lungs that they want more regulation, this is what they are screaming for. The term "regulation" means a small group of insiders controlling a system.

When Democrats scream for more regulation, they are screaming for more power for the insiders and less opportunity for people on the outside.

Anyway, I think Wasserman Schultz's forced resignation is humorous. The protest against Wasserman Schultz is basically a bunch people who are upset for getting what they wanted.

Trump's Nomination Speech

This web site transfer is  taking up all of my free time, but I did take out time to watch Trump's nomination speech at the Republican National Convention.

I wondered why the RNC played "Send in the Clowns" before the speech. But, maybe the Republican Party really has devolved into clowns and cartoon characters.

Trump made a great point that something is dreadfully wrong with the trade agreements of the last few decades.

Being a defender of free trade, I tend to shy away from discussing trade agreements fearing the discussion would promote isolationism or nationalism.

But, I have to admit, the trade agreements we've seen in the last few decades appear to written by politicians for the benefit of the ruling class. I am not quite sure how someone can approach these bad trade agreements without appearing as an isolationist.

The first step is to recognize that what we are seeing is an attempt of unelected international groups to regulate, control and monopolize markets. What we are seeing is not free trade, what we are seeing is the creation of a corrupt international regulation regime.

As for this post. I noticed that Conservatives began cheering the loudest when Trump declared that he will be "The Law and Order President."

Conservatives are against regulation, but favor law and order.

Well, guess what? Regulation and Order are synonyms. 

A regulatory regime is top heavy system of government where the ruling elite create an ordered society through the law. A Law and Order Regime is a top heavy government where the ruling elite regulate (put people in order) through the law.

Progressive scream at the top of the lungs that they want more regulations. Conservatives managed to scream even louder that they want Law and Order.

Conservatives and Progressives are spouting the same thing. Conservatives and Progressives are screaming loudly for centralization and less freedom. The result of both conservatism and progressivism is a empowered elite and disenfranchised people.

Anyway, I like Judy Collins' song "Send in the Clowns."

America has two cartoon characters running for president. I think we should play Send In the Clowns or the introduction to Looney Tunes at all political events.

Parties and Power

Judging from the life work of the US Founders, I contend that, to a large extent, they were seeking ways to decentralized powers.

Yes, they created a centralized federal government to handle a small set of issues that they felt needed to be handled by a central government. Yet, for the most part they appeared to have wanted to empower individuals.

The Constitution made no mention of political parties and the Federalist Papers spoke with disdain of the factions that held power in Europe.

The system of national political parties rose after the founders. The political parties are built around a hierarchical structure and seem to work as a force that centralizes power.

Some of the speakers at the convention have compelling rhetoric about liberty.

Yet, to truly judge the effect of the GOP, one needs to look beyond the rhetoric to the structure of the party for the structure of a political system is often more telling about what a group does than the words spoken while building the structure.

The structure of the GOP is one that concentrates power. The people drawn to participate in the convention are people who are drawn to centralized. The expected effect of the GOP is greater centralization.

So, while the convention looks like it is a great deal of fun. The convention itself makes me fear for the future of this nation.

On Tempering Rhetoric

Yesterday, after an ambush shooting of police officers in Baton Rouge, President Obama gave a wonderful speech about how Americans need to tone down rhetoric and seek unity.

Shortly after Obama's speech, the press released the fact that the perpetrator was a black activist.

The question in my mind is: Would Obama have given the same speech if the perpetrator was a white right-wing militia member?

I am certain that Obama knew the race of the perpetrator before his speech.

It is certain that the police knew the race of perp either during or shortly after the shooting.

Obama spoke to the police department and it is inconceivable that the police would not have mentioned the race of the shooter to Obama.

In my post yesterday, I lamented the fact that we've been trained to use sensational events like this ambush shooting of police officers in our rhetoric.

As everyone waited for the press  to release the name of the perpetrator, I imagined how the event would play out in different narratives.

The second the name was release, people rushed to read his twitter feed and blog. Apparently Gavin Long was a former Marine who joined the Nation of Islam. He called himself a "sovereign citizen." It appears that he was radicalized by the rhetoric associated with Black Lives Matter.

This case fits the narratives of the people opposed to Obama and not the narratives that Obama has been pushing.

Although I personally agree with the call to moderate rhetoric. Obama's call to moderate rhetoric when facts don't fit his narrative comes off as partisan and falls flat.

Divisive rhetoric is not simply about the tone of the voice or the words used. Division is often created by the timing of one's argument. We see a paradoxical situation here where Obama's call for moderate rhetoric itself comes off as divisive.

Narratives and Political Discord

There was another shooting; I decided to go to twitter to see if they had identified the shooter. Was it political? Was it crime related or was it a deranged individual?

There was already a huge number of people spinning the event.

The only information I've gleaned from reports is that the suspect was on the street with body armor and a gun. The suspect shot officers sent to investigate.

As in Dallas, the police immediately went on a search for accomplices, which is what they should do in a mass shooting. This led to thousands of claims of possible conspiracy and political motives. Police should look for accomplices in all such events.

News outlets were clearly rushing to get incomplete articles online; so that they could get the top spot on twitter and google for the story.

But, I am left wondering, why are other people spinning the story when there is insufficient information?

The only real fact on the table is that police officers were shot. I concede that statements supporting the police are clearly in order. I would also concede to those who complain that the police have been made a target by our civil discord.

My guess is that a large number of posts happened because a large number of people are working on political narratives and that we want to take sensational current events and make them part of our narrative.

Quite frankly, this game of creating political narratives is a technique that I was taught in school.

As we all pursue the creation of our political narratives, we are creating false narratives.

I suspect that we will soon know the name of the suspect. This new information will lead to a frenzy of people speculating on motives. People will rush to look up the shooter's twitter account and blog to see what the shooter had to say and spin some more.

But, think about it? of all the people in Baton, this shooter is the one person who I care about least.

So, while we wait for the press release about the shooter's identity, I wish people would stop and look at the way that we've been trained to engage in discourse. For it is the way that we engage in discourse that has led us to such great division and discord.

Box Sizing

I just discovered that CSS3 has a box-sizing directive that determines the way the browser handles the padding attribute. This directive appears to be supported by most major browsers.

Adding the following code at the top of a CSS sheet will cause the padding attribute to behave intuitively:

* {
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

I spent hundreds of compensated hours dealing with problems created by the box-sizing model used in Firefox, Opera and Chrome; So, I am really excited to start using this new feature of CSS.

But, I also admit, this new directive makes me angry. There should never have been a market with two different box-sizing models. The reason for the confusing box-models is political.

What happened is: Thugs at W3C wanted to punish Microsoft (which was acting like a monopoly). They encouraged Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera to adopt an unintuitive box model that increases the size of a box when one adds padding.

The term "intuitive" refers to the way we expect things to happen in the real world. If you had a 10" box and lined it by 1" padding; you will reduce the interior of the box by an inch on each side. The interior of the box will be 8".

WC3 says adding padding to a box will increase the size of the box ... which doesn't happen.

Netscape, the first popular web browser, used the intuitive box-sizing model. Microsoft adopted this de facto standard for Internet Explorer.

Opera, Firefox and Chrome adopted the unintuitive box model. This means that boxes would be different sizes on different browsers. The two boxes below have width=200px. a 5px border and 10px padding. The box shows up as different sizes on Chrome and IE.

This is how the box would appear on Firefox and Opera.

This is how the box would appear on Netscape and Internet Explorer.

The following line is 200px.

---

Because the WC3 encouraged use unintuitive box-sizing, the boxes would be rendered differently on different browsers.

I am not the only person who had problems with this. Web Designers around the world spent millions of man hours trying to create web designs that would render well under both box-sizing styles.

Politicos at W3C wanted everyone to blame Microsoft. But it was the politicos at W3C who caused the confusion in the market.

I added an article on box-sizing to my primary web page. The article recommends that web designers use the intuitive border-box model.

I recommend that web-designers use the intuitive box model. But in doing so, I believe it important that people remember that the reason that box-sizing is such a challenge on the Web is because the technorati at W3C were playing political games. They wanted to punish Microsoft to reward their friends.

Utah's High Teen Suicide Rate

Folks in the LGBT community are on a campaign to frame the high suicide rate among Utah's teens as an LGBT issue.

While framing the suicides as an LGBT issue might advance the LGBT cause, it does nothing to help the kids who committed suicide or help use prevent suicide.

A group called The New Civil Rights Movement claims that 32 LGBT kids (most in Utah) committed suicide because of a political policy by the LDS Church.

I find the claim bogus because suicide is a lot more complicated than that. For one thing, we don't even really know if these particular kids were gay.

I need to point out that, after a suicide, parents are likely to look for a cause. If a group is out providing a cause to explain the event, the parents are likely to latch on to the cause even if it wasn't the cause.

I've known several Mormons who've committed suicide. In every case, their story was complex. Trying to boil the event down to a simple cause doesn't do any good. Imagine the conversation at the ward house:

Parent: "My son committed suicide because he was gay."
Bishop: "We are so sorry to hear your son was gay."
Parent: "My son's sexual identity was such a hardship on the family, alas, alas."

The conversation shows the issue being used as a scapegoat to avoid having to ask the real questions behind the suicide.

IBIS by the Utah Health Department reports that there's been an average of 557 suicides in Utah by year (that's 20.8 per 100,000 people). There are 3181 visits to the emergency room for self inflicted wounds.

Utah has a higher than average suicide rate. There is reason to believe that religions is involved. The Doctrine and Covenant of the LDS Church states:

28 Thou knowest my laws concerning these things are given in my scriptures; he that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out.

Mormons are taught to ostracize the people who are not in good graces with their faith. My experience is that this culture of ostracism leads to all sorts of problems and not just problems for the LGBT community.

The Utah suicide problem is not a simple issue that some people identify as LGBT and that LGBT people need special treatment and special privileges. The suicide problem is due to social climate in which a powerful group, the LDS Church, is trying to maintain control by "casting people out" as is described in the D&C.

Brexit and the Market Plunge

International stock markets took a huge plunge after the Brexit Vote.

Pundits frame this plunge as proof that the Brexit vote was a bad decision.

I look at the plunge and see further proof that the top heavy financial system created by centralized banks is inherently unstable.

The Brexit plunge was not the first wild market swing in the history of financial markets. Economic history shows that these wild market drops are common and seem to be increasing as the forces of economic centralization take hold.

Each time there is a huge plunge, pundits try to identify an event that caused the crash, as if presenting the event could have prevented the crash.

What we should do is look at the way that the markets are structured. The markets crashed after the Brexit vote because the centralized markets in the EU and US are structured in a way that make them prone to crashing.

Our bureaucrats respond to crashes by piling financial regulations on top financial regulations. These financial regulations tend to enrich the centralized bankers that write the regulations, but they have never achieved their stated goal of providing financial stability.

The Brexit market crash has, so far, been relatively minor. I fear that people in the West, at large, have been facing harsh economic times. The crash of the centralized markets may get worse.

The fact that the Brexit vote won shows that people are starting to question policies that favor economic centralization and wealth concentration to those policies that favor economic distribution.

(PS, the EU was actually being built on the ideals of international socialism. Socialism concentrates economic power in the central authorities. Socialism is not the answer to economic centralization. Socialism makes economic centralization absolute.)

Free Trade v. One Market

A few years back I began a series of articles on economics.

One of the themes I wanted to explore was the difference between two closely related ideas: free trade and the concept of one world market.

Free trade simply means that countries place few restrictions on trade and people can freely trade with people beyond the local market.

The one market concept involves a group of countries attempting to develop their economy as a single market.

Free trade tends to enhance the well being of the people at large because free trade expands opportunity and brings more goods to local market.

The one market concept, however, can have devastating effects on the people. This is especially true when that one market is developed as a centrally controlled market.

What happens in a single market is that a few huge companies can come to dominate the one market pushing the people at large into a subservient position.

The EU was developed as one market. The Bureaucrats in Brussels were creating regulations that favored politically powerful interests at great cost to the people at large. The predictable effects of the EU was a great concentration of wealth at a cost to the people at large.

The concepts of Free Trade and One Market are not opposites of each other. The difference between "Free Trade" and "One Market" is a matter of perspective.

In free trade one has a huge number of small autonomous entities seeking to maximize the return of their interest.

The One Market concept has a small number of billionaires seeking to create a dominate position in the one market.

The European Economic Union was originally sold as though it would create a huge free trade zone.

What happened instead was that ruling class and bureaucrats in Brussels began developing the EU as if it were one market.

While the ruling elite prospered under the EU, the people at large felt disenfranchised and saw their economic condition diminish under the new ruling regime.

Now, I am stuck here in Utah with no resources. But it would be fun to create an actual academic study that fully developed the distinction between "free markets" and unified markets.

The Joke on the Tumblr's Ads

Tumblr started putting on their dashboard. Yahoo's strategy for monetizing tumblr's is to show ads to the people who are providing free content to the site.

If it works. More power to them.

As most of the bloggers on tumblr are left leaning sheep, the site added this snippy phrase to their about the ads section:

"A post-consumerist society built on an economy of surplus instead of scarcity would enable Yahoo and Tumblr to procure both labor and materials at zero marginal cost."

The hint here is that if we had a Marxist economy, then Tumblr would be free.

The truth is that if we had a Marxist society, most of us would be hungry and most of the free spirits who use tumblr would be spending their days in Gulags and not on Google.

The original business model of Tumblr was the model of the Dotbust economy. The company would build an ad free site. Concentrate on building a user base then sell out to a mainstream company that would then have to figure out how to monetize the site.

When one looks at Tumblr from a broad perspective, what David Karp did was actually quite evil.

Tumblr has people spending millions of uncompensated man hours "reblogging" content from other sites, with only a few people at the very top of the pyramid receiving any rewards. I suspect that much of the content found on tumblr was taken without permission of the copyright holder.

To build its user base, Tumblr actively encouraged people to upload and pirate pornography. Tumblr feeds porn addictions, and I fear that many people have been abused in the last few years as tumblr addicts abused friends and acquaintances to create tumblr porn.

From an economic perspective. Tumblr is one of the many constructs on the Internet that takes wealth from the people at large and concentrates it in a few greedy hands. The corporate executives who created Tumblr being among the greediest.

The mindless drones railing with hatred against the one percent are doing so on a site created by and for the one percent.

Personally, I don't fault Tumblr for Greed. I do fault them for duplicity for spouting out Marxist nonsense along side their ad.

Tumblr's business strategy is to make money by displaying ads to the people who are creating free content for their site.

The people who provide free content might receive some kudos from their peers, but receive little in the way of financial compensation for their effort. Tumblr takes from the many and gives to the few.

I realize that Tumblr has to apologize to its users for the ad.

Personally, I hate this thing were people have to apology for showing ads on a web site as if trying to make money off one's actions is a sin against Gaia.

If we really wanted a better society, then we should engage in a dialog about how we could structure the internet so that people throughout our society could benefit financially through the Internet.

Personally, I like the blogspot model better than Tumblr.  Blogspot encourages bloggers to put a Google Ad on their site. Both the blogger and Google can make a little money from the ad. I also love the affiliate model where web sites can many money by selling products online.

This game where people are supposed to apologize for trying to make money is absurd. It hurts the hard working honest people who are upfront about their actions while piling riches on power on the manipulators of our society.

NOTE: I joined Tumblr in 2013 (shortly before its acquisition by Yahoo!) I decided to create a selection of tumblr blogs with images from the Mountain West. You can see a list of the Community Color tumblr sites here. My sites have reblogged about 7000 images. I think my sites are quite pretty. Here are pictures of the Grand Canyon, Here are pictures of Arches National Park and here are pictures from Rocky Mountain National Park.

Updating Narratives

News reports suggest that the Orlando Shooter had frequented the Pulse night club and may have been gay. The politicos are spinning and trying to change their narratives. The hate crime angle doesn't have as much traction when the perpetrator is a member of the targeted group.

I would still consider the crime both a terrorist act and hate crime. Quite frankly, I think many of the biggest homophobes are people who have anxiety about their own sexual thoughts.

It appears that the politically correct thing to do is to switch to a gun control narrative.

Like everyone else, I've been trained to face the news by developing narratives, but all of our narratives eventually break down for a narrative itself it not a true pursuit of truth.

On Hate and Terror

This seems to be something new. The Orlando Attack is recognized as both a hate crime and an act of terrorism.

But. Wait a Second! Aren't all terrorist acts motivated by terror and aren't hate crimes committed with the intent of wreaking terror among the targeted population.

I wanted to write a post condemning the despicable act that took place in Orlando. Instead I found myself distracted by a strange confluence of terms and writing about the political reaction to the attack instead.

The difference between the terms "terrorism" and "hate crime" is the political narrative about an action.

Looking at the media, I see that the terms people use to describe this attack is determined by the narrative the speaker wishes to follow. People wishing to advance the cause of the LGBT community use "hate crime."

Trump, who wants to develop an "I told you so" narrative uses the term "terrorist" along with conservatives who wish to focus on the ongoing conflict between the Christian and Islamic Worlds.

Traditionally, Obama has been slow to call mass killings committed by people of Islamic origin "terrorists" as he has be trying to distance himself from that narrative. Obama was very quick to use the term "hate crime" as the term fits a narrative that he likes to pursue.

This game where the political class tries to control the people by controlling the narrative is a propaganda technique taught in our progressive schools.

Perhaps the fact that the horrific attack that occurred in Orlando is described as both a "hate crime" and "terrorist action" might encourage people wake up and notice the shallowness of the political arguments that rage around terrorism.

Our political leaders gain power by carefully developing narratives. The competing narratives destroy our ability to communicate and can have the affect of amplifying hostilities.

The Orlando Attack is not some strange convergence of hate and terror. This terrible event just happened to occur during a political campaign in a way that highlights the differences between two political narratives.

It is unlikely that this convergence of narratives will unify the nation. The most likely result of the attack is that it will cause more division as politicos struggle to control the narrative. Politics based on narratives, instead of a search for truth, is a dangerous game.

Utah's Cracking Down on Free Speech

I've been in a major funk. I am interested in the mathematics of funding health care.

This is a very important issue that people simply must discuss. I spent seven years and over ten grand trying to find people willing to discuss the subject.

I live in the Fascist State of Utah. The LDS Church, which controls this state, routinely puts down all debate. Being unable to find a single person in Utah willing to discuss free market health care reform shows that there is something seriously wrong with this state.

Conservative Mormons are closed minded people who are both incapable and unwilling to discuss issues.

So, what do Conservative Mormons do when they get power? They engage in culture war. Sheriffs have been marching out to the few hotsprings that Mormons have not destroyed yet to arrest nude bathers. They arrested a Hispanic kid for having four nude images of his white classmates on his phone. The legislature actually passed a resolution declaring a war on nudity.

I have a collection of sites titled Utah Color where I reblog sites from Utah. I try to be inclusive, but avoid porn sites.  I reblog images on my tumblr sites, eg tumblr.ArizonaColor.us has images  from the Grand Canyon state and tumblr.iMoab.com has images from Utah's canyonlands.

I've reblogged some five thousand images and keep up with photographers on Tumblr.

Tumblr used the acronym NSFW (Not Safe For Work) to describe web sites containing nudity.

I've noticed a crack down on NSFW web sites on tumblr. The crack down is fine by me.  Tumblr.com is tumblr's site. They should have control of it.

Tumblr is a photo sharing site.  The photos that are reblogged and liked float to the surface.

Tumblr has one huge problem. Most of the people reblogging NSFW images are looking for porn. I've reblogged 5000 posts, but no NSFW images.

So, two issues are swimming in my mind. The first is that if only people looking for porn reblog NSFW images that side of tumblr, then the NSFW side of tumblr becomes excessively raunchy.

The bigger issue is that, while using classical liberal rhetoric to gain power, Conservatives have a dismal record of advancing individual liberty. What conservatives do in power is to launch culture wars.

So, I decided to make NSFW tumblr blog to express the opinion that, while graphic representation of the human body is problematic, the human body itself is not evil.

WARNING: The links in this post after this paragraph  go to the NSFW site. The links are intended for people who are of age and who are not in a public place. In most places that means you must be over 21, and that you are not in a library.

Links Restricted to Those Over Eighteen

The sections Nude Utah, Nude Arizona and Nude Colorado shows images of nudes from Utah, Arizona and Colorado, respectively.

The Diamond Fork Report talks about raid at Diamond Fork. Kenneth Beck is a silly person who tied bells to his particulars and danced around the Diamond Fork Hot Springs to shock people. Culture wars beget culture warriors.

This is the text of Utah's war on culture war on nudity.

Police in Utah County arrested a Hispanic kid for having four nude images of his white classmates.

I would rather talk about free market health care reform, mathematics, logic or a myriad of other issues. But Utahans prefer culture war to actual culture. I populated the site with 80 images and added another 90 images to a queue. There will be one image a day. I might put up some more thoughts on the culture war, but seriously, this is not a primary interest. I am not interested in user submissions to the site. I might reblog a post if you tell me about it.

Dropping C-Notes

The Federal Reserve creates money through lending, not through printing. Paper currency is printed in response to demand for the currency. The Feds claim that 90% of printed bills are to replace old bills that have worn thin.

The Currency Order Report is still quite interesting.

The Fed positions the twenty dollar bill as the primary bill for day to day transactions. My local ATM spits out $20s. The currency report, however, shows that the Feds are printing up almost as many hundred dollar bills as twenties. In 2013, they printed more hundred dollar bills than twenties!

The 2016 report shows the feds requested 2,425,600,000 ones, 1,939,200,000 twenties and 1,516,800,000 hundreds.

I contend that, since 1s and 20s are used in common person-to-person transactions, they wear out faster; so the number of new 100s is greater than the number of new 20s.

Hundreds tend to be used in bank to bank transactions or are sent abroad.

An inflationary note. A hundred dollar bill in 2016 has the same buying power as a dollar bill had a hundred years ago; So, I decided to start using hundreds. I've discovered that merchants (especially small independent shops) like to get hundreds are they are easier to count than twenties.

One night in a midrange hotel in Salt Lake costs about $100. A hundred dollar bill provides about one day's expense if an emergency occurred.

On the down note, In recent decades, the police have increased the practice of civil forfeiture (see policing for profits). Police consider people carrying c-notes to automatically be guilty crimes. For example, if you sold a car for cash and the police stop you, they will confiscate your money until you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt; that the money came from selling a car. (Apparently, proving that you are going to buy a car is difficult.)

The term "criminalization of cash" refers to laws and government policies designed to discourage cash transactions. For example, governments have stopped printing large denomination bills. They confiscate currency and restrict cash transactions over a given limit.

Anyway, as the c-spot is the new dollar, I figured that people should start using c-notes more often. I figure that using c-notes in regular transactions might help discourage this trend.

Regardless of what you chose to do, the annual currency reports from the Federal Reserve provide insight into the ways that people respond to inflation. Most of the new hundred dollar bills are traveling abroad, but, as inflation continues, I suspect that we will see people in the states start using more hundreds than twenties in the near future.

The Down and Dirty on Pulling Weeds

Counter-culturalists have declared the first Saturday in May is Naked Gardening Day; So, I decided to celebrate the event by pulling a weed before getting dressed this morning.

The "weed" I selected was this little tree that was growing along the foundation of a small shed. It needs pulling as it would do damage to a cinder block shed.

I probably did it wrong. WNGD is a counter-culture event. The founders are less interested in gardening, and probably want participants in WNGD to prance around nekkid in front of others ... especially those are disturbed by such actions.

The promoters of social nudity have compelling literature on "body freedom" and they love to insult people who are uncomfortable with public nudity.

People engaged in the counter-culture seem to be more compelled by a desire to shock others than a need to be nude. So, I have to reject the idea that nudity is some sort of fundamental freedom. Freedom is about what people do for themselves. I do not have freedoms to do things to others.

Personally, I have no problem with skinny dipping or public showers, but I do have a problem with people behaving crudely towards others. While the nudist movement might start with high sounding ideals, the movement is ultimately undermined by people being shocking and crude.

It would be fun to do a nude trail clean up or spurge purge. But the white sap of the spurge is toxic. I would want to wear gloves ... defeating the whole purpose of WNGD. So, I participated in the event by pulling a plant and posting its picture online. Now, I am off to do more productive things.

Cattle Chutes and Temple Ceilings

My family moved into Salt Lake in 1975. During that time, I've attended two LDS Wedding Receptions. The LDS Church claims that over half the people are LDS. I've polled people I know. Many have never been invited to LDS wedding receptions at all.

The first ceremony involved the boss's daughter. The boss was a political appointee who was unqualified for his position. He nearly ran the enterprise into the ground. The boss had had important connections in the Church which, in the long run, means a lot more for a Utah based company than competency.

Attending the boss's daughter's wedding was pretty much mandatory.

The event itself was rather humiliating. Mormon members of the firm were part of the ceremony. The gentiles were lined up herded through a cattle chute divider where we each received a condescending gesture from the bride and groom before being sent on our merry way to salvage the rest of the day.

Last week's event was a little better. The grand parents of the bride were gentiles. The couple had thing called a "ring ceremony" followed by a more traditional reception.

A "ring ceremony" is a re-enactment of the wedding done for the public.

Apparently, non-Mormons are not allowed to witness the actual event which is called a "sealing."

Legend tells that secret words and secret names are given during the sealing.

During the "ring ceremony" the bride and groom appeared at a reception center and were clearly play acting as they exchanged rings for a second time. There was a big joke about how the groom had already kissed the bride an hour earlier and was getting good at it.

A Mormon bishop read a passage from The Bible. This makes sense as a ring ceremony is usually performed for people are are Christian, but not LDS.

Watching a re-enactment of a wedding isn't really that much fun. IMHO, the fun part of a wedding ceremony is that a couple enters the room as two singles, then make a formal commitment in front of the community.

I believe that marriage is an important foundation of our society. I would even venture that public wedding ceremonies are important for a community as a public ceremony helps strengthen the commitment to matrimony.

Conversely, I think the practice of having "sealings" take place in secret is a negative tradition that leads to a fractured society.

The LDS practice of secret sealings was started by Joseph Smith. In 2014 the LDS Church finally openly admitted that Joseph Smith had "secretly" to over 40 women. The acknowledged list included fourteen-year-old girls and the wives of Smith's followers. (The list may be longer than 40).

I imagine that LDS couples believe that a secret sealing at a temple makes a marriage extra special.

I admire all couples who are dedicated to making their marriages work.

As an outsider looking in. I see a sealing as a creepy ritual that traces back to acts by Joseph Smith that could be described as adultery and child molestation.

I believe the true merits of a marriage is found in the dedication the couple give to their relation. Our society can affect through education and counseling and respect for the institution of marriage.

In this regard, I think the LDS practice of secret sealings in the Temple is negative. 

I've known girls who, in their young teens, were sealed to old men. These child brides had horrible stories of abuse that was hidden from view by the secret act of secret sealings.

Well, to end this blog post. I simply need to say that I usually enjoy attending weddings. Watching a "ring ceremony" by an LDS couple made me feel queasy.

I started the post by feeling bad that, in the 40 years I've lived in Utah, I've only been invited to two LDS Wedding Receptions. The two events that I did attend made me feel queasy; So, maybe the Mormon practice of excluding others from their ceremonies is needed.

This video by BrighamYoungSpeaks has a dramatic reading of Brigham Young sermons in which the second president of the LDS Church boasted that he will have millions of wives and untold power in the Celestial Kingdom. This is the way that Mormonism looks like to people standing on the outside:

Yep, The Government Lies

How pathetic.

According to the New York Post, The Federal Reserve stopped using the unemployment rate published by the BLS.

Had the Feds been using the information published by the BLS, they would have raised interest rates quite significantly. Instead we find that, eight years into this recession, the Feds still have the interest rate stimulus running at full throttle.

It appears that the BLS is publishing information based on the effects that it wants to achieve and is not simply trying to accurately reflect reality ... which is what it should be doing.

Happy Easter Everyone

Happy Easter everyone.

For those following this blog: I have not fallen off the face of the earth.

I simply haven't been pressing the publish button after writing posts.

I've concluded that the way people are blogging, engaging in forums and tweeting is actually making the political problems faced by the world worse.

I don't want to be blogging unless I feel that I am making things better.

This, being Easter, one might ask: Would Christ be writing a blog?

I suspect that he would be reading other blogs, shaking his head and muttering: "They know not what they do."

The story of Easter is one in which all of the players in our community are engaged in their various mind games and end up executing an innocent man.

Christianity holds that, not only was Jesus innocent of the accused crimes, the Christian belief holds that Christ was the Son of God. The people didn't just execute an innocent man. They executed divinity.

I started this blog simply as a flow of conscious. The driving idea behind a blog is just to write out opinions for the sake of writing.

The idea behind this style of blogging is simply that if millions of people write down their observations, that the world might find a better path forward.

The actuality is that flow of conscious blogging seems to be leading to greater conflict and less understanding.

Notably, one of the most bellicose politicians of our age in on the verge of obtaining the GOP nomination. The Democrats are gleefully nominating the wife of an impeached president.

The activism on the left and right is leading us into a more dangerous world with the worst of both parties running rampant.

Until I can figure out a way to show that both sides in this partisan divide are wrong, I want to temper my writing.

Unfortunately, demanding compromise and bipartisanship is not a solution. The compromise between two wrong positions is an even worse wrong.

The term "bipartisanship" implies that one should proceed by advancing the factors that the parties have in common.

The factors that both parties have in common is a desire for concentrated power and intellectual corruption.

Bipartisanship only works when the common factors of the two parties are positive. When the common factors are simply the desire for power and corruption, the bipartisanship is an evil.

In the last decade, Americans have been acting like the crowd that called for the death of Christ.  While individuals may have good intentions, the shrill noise coming from us is leading to injustice.

While the political landscape looks bleak. I believe it is possible for people to find a positive direction.

The first step to finding this positive direction is for people to ask if their individual actions are helping lead people in that right direction.

Simply denouncing partisan opponents is not sufficient.

Obama rose to power simply riding on the deficiencies of Bush. Trump hopes to gain power on the deficiencies of Obama and Clinton hopes to regain power by riding on the deficiencies of Trump.

The result of this methodology is an overbearing government that is simply deficient.

The story of Easter shows that this type of political game has been played out since antiquity.

So, Happy Easter. It is the beginning of Spring and things might get better despite our politics.

Violence for Political Ends

Is it strange to see Barrack Obama in Cuba celebrating the life of Castro at the same time as the terrorist attack in Brussels.

The article Castro and Terrorism provides a timeline of Fidel's and Raul's ongoing support for international terrorism. Many of the groups funded by Castro have devolved into the terrorists that we see today.

The Castro Brothers trained terrorists in Northern Africa and Syria which are ground zero for the current round of terrorists.

In Latin America, the left wing terrorist groups devolved into drug lords.

Genocide Watch groups report that there were over 26,000 reported disappearances in Mexico between 2006 and 2012. Estimates of the victim count often reach 100,000.

It is hard to get good counts as the numbers include 80 journalists who disappeared for daring to report on the genocide.

(Doesn't anyone else find it strange that a neighboring country had a genocide during the Obama administration that was simply ignored by the left wing media?)

I understand the desire to whitewash Castro's terrorist history and to normalize relations. Unfortunately, the escalating terrorism that we see in the world show that now is not a good time for this course of action and that Obama's rush to arrange photo-ops with the Castro's is effectively a tacit approval of the use of violence for political ends.