Why Egypt will make us not regret Iraq

I, for one, used to take a stance somewhat against the Iraq war, however, in light of some recent considerations, I now support it.

Ground Rules: I will not be talking about ethics, lying and all the other charges brought up against the Bush Administration. Whatever happened to get us into Iraq is history, what we need to consider now is purely cost-benefit analysis. The remainder of the post will be devoid of any potential ethical malfeasance that may or may not have come about in getting us involved in Iraq.

Stability

When considering military action, one need not only consider the costs associated with taking action, but also the cost of inaction. Whenever a given Olberman wishes to make a case against the war, they always make an argument from the loss of blood and treasure, without considering the potential benefit of taking the action. Here are a few things to think about before outright rejecting the Iraq war.

Arguably, the most dangerous region in the world is the middle east. In order to maintain the security of the world, and avoid World War 3, the Middle East must remain stable. If there is one thing that Jimmy Carter did right, it was the Camp David Accords. By maintaining peace between Israel and Egypt, the two most militarily powerful countries in the Middle East, a period of unprecedented stability followed.

Sadly, like all treaties, this too shall pass. The current president of Egypt, Housni Moubarak, is on his last legs. At the age of 83 and struggling with esophageal cancer, people are surprised to still see him alive, let alone in any position to run the country. Nonetheless, when his day of reckoning comes, a power vacuum will arise. When that does happen one of three people, or groups of people will take over.

One possibility is that the culturally liberal Albaredi takes over. If that were to happen, Egypt will enter into a long period of economic prosperity, and Ramses the Second will rise from his tomb and walk the streets of Cairo singing "Everybody Dance Now!". Sorry I got a little carried away there. Whenever I begin a thought with something as unlikely as the election of Albaredi, I decend into ludicrousness.

Another possibility is that Hosni Mubarak corrupt son Gamal takes office. Everyone will shout death to the pseudo-monarchy, but this may very well be the US's only hope for stability.

The final possibility, which I dread, is that the terrorist organization known as the Muslim brotherhood takes over Egypt. The reason for my dread is due to their marked anti-Israeli stance. Just to put things in perspective, Hamas, the main opposition to Israel, is a wing of the Islamic brotherhood. If they take over the Egyptian government, which they are poised to do, the treaty between Egypt and Israel will be as good as gone.

This brings me back full circle to my main argument. By taking over Iraq, the USA, makes sure that the region erupts if, er I mean, when Mubarak kicks the bucket. Iraq, if nothing else, may very well be the only foothold that the United States has in the middle East. The Afghani president hates our guts, The Saudi king is on his last legs and Iran is on the brink of becoming a nuclear power.

I can't believe I am about to say this, but the only bright spot in the Middle East may very well be Iraq.

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="628" caption="Middle East"][/caption]

Government sucks

'Why are you a conservative?' I get asked this question  many times. Its usually phrased "Aren't you to young to be a conservative?" The short answer is no. The rest of this post will be giving the long answer.

Government sucks.

A good friend of mine once asked me 'why am I against taxes? Why not just elect representatives who would do what you want?' My answer is that the government has yet to prove its efficacy in ANYTHING. Everything that the government is in control of, has failed, while everything that the government has let go of, succeeds with flying colors. Speaking of flying colors, airline regulations were in place until 1978. Up until that point, service was terrible, prices were high, and safety was nonexistent. With the advent of airline deregulation all of that changed. The airplanes were more punctual, the prices fell to 40% (in real dollars) of what it was preceding airline regulation, and the number of fatal accidents per year fell by almost half [1]

This story is by no means atypical. For example the telephone industry [2] also had similar increases in quality and decreases in pricing when the government removed regulation.

Allow me to preempt the very obvious question, what about finance? Yes I admit, that with the deregulation of the finance system, companies were more likely to invest in things they had no business investing in, but that is not the issue as I see it. If they were stupid enough to invest in terrible assets, then why don't we let them face the repercussions of their actions? Too big to fail is unconvincing at best. I am a fan of capitalism, not big business, and a major part of capitalism is that those who do stupid things are kicked out of the market. The fact that the government's deregulation made it easier to be stupid, has nothing to do with the merits of the government.

Actually, I can use this argument to even help my case. If you were to look at the instigators of this crash, subprime mortgages, you would realize what REALLY started this. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, unlike all other companies subjected to the free market, are government sponsored enterprises who's job was to give loans to the less fortunate, aka subprime loans. Republicans argued to weaken the amount of government power of this organization, but were accused of unfair play by democrats.

Here's a little mind experiment for you. Remember the last time you stood in a really long line (...that wasn't in Disney)?  Chances are it was in a government owned building. The DMV and the post office are all examples of inefficiencies instituted by the government. The post office is unable to economically support itself [3] and the DMV's lines are miserably wrong.

[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="400" caption="Government Sucks"][/caption]

Here's a challenge to anybody out there. Name one successful government program. One program that achieved the goal it set, and is not insolvent.

The market solves racism

One more reason to love the free market: it ends racism. Does this sound ridiculous? Probably at first but hear me out. I just read Economic Facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell which addresses this very issue. Its an excellent read that deals with many of the misconceptions associated with the free market, but by far my favorite part was when he addressed how the free markets solve the problem of racism.

There is some confusion in dealing with labor in the market, but what's important to realize is that labor is just like any other product that is bought and sold on the market. Let's assume that we have an economy with two groups of people: purple and green. We'll also assume that both the purple and the green people have the same qualifications so that the labor of purple people and green people are substitute goods. Let's also assume that we have two employers who make cars, one who is racist against green people and one who is indifferent. The racist employer is willing to go out of his way and discriminate against the green people in hiring. We'll also assume that the market set the wages of both groups of people at the same wage, $8/hr.

Some of you sharp Microeconomics AP students will realize exactly what this is. This is a change in consumer tastes. If a portion of the consumers, employers in this case, believe that a given product is worse than another product, then regardless of the truth of that statement, the 'worse' product will be cheapened while the 'better' one will be made more expensive. Now because the racist manager has increased the demand for the labor of purple people and decreased the demand for the labor of green people, the wage of the purple people move up from $8/hr to $9/hr, while the wage of the green people fell from $8/hr to $7/hr.  Now we have an employer who only hires purple people at $9/hr while the other one, reacting to the drop in the wage of the green people, hires only green people at $7/hr. The employer who only hired green people now has lower costs then the purple manager and is thus able to sell cars at a lower cost to the market. The market, which doesn't have any way of differentiating between cars except by pricing, then chooses only to buy goods from the non-racist employer, while the other employer is priced out of the market to be replaced by another. If the other employer is racist then the cycle continues until all of the successful employers do not differentiate between races and then the market equalizes all wages to $8/hr once again.

This works fine, unless there is a minimum wage. Let's say for practical purposes the government set the minimum wage at $9/hr. Now there is no longer the cost to being racist. Instead of there being a price difference between the cars produced the prices are the same, and the racist employers do just as well economically as the indifferent one's. Sounds real good in theory, right? The question then becomes does this bare out in practice.

The most convincing example of this in the book involved the country of South Africa. During apartheid, the government essentially enforced racism. There were laws on the books that required construction crews to have a certain minimum ratio of whites to blacks. This caused a significant drop in the wages of blacks as the demand for their labor decreased. The most successful foremen, who were able to outbid the more expensive companies, were those who violated this law and hired an 'unacceptable' ratio of blacks to whites. They were fined, but continued to do so anyways which meant that even with a cost associated with indifference, it was still better for them to hire more blacks than legally allowed.

To conclude, the free market solves the problem of racism, while price controls, like the minimum wage, allow people to indulge their prejudices at no cost to them.

Rational Christianity

Yeah I know this is allegedly a political blog, but I think holy week warrants a blogpost on the topic.



After going through high school, there  is one thing that I notice all far leftists agree to as a basic tenant of life, it is impossible to be rational and Christian at the same time. I recently picked up several Apologetics books, lectures, and debates and found out that the belief couldn't be farther from the truth. I am going to attempt to amalgamate all that I have read so far and see what happens. My objective is to show that faith can be based on reason.

My argument will be outlined as follows

A. God exists

1. Moral argument


2. Cosmological argument


3. The teleological argument

(Dr. William Lane Craig)

B. Christianity is true

1. Jesus existed


2. Jesus stated that He is God


3. Jesus was crucified


4. Jesus died


5. Jesus was buried in the tomb


6. The tomb was empty


7. Jesus' followers claimed to have seen Jesus after his death


8. Saul of Tarsus, an opponent of Jesus' followers, had a vision of Jesus and became a Christian.


9. Those who had visions continued to support their claims of Jesus being God till death.


10. There are no plausible naturalistic explanations for the above facts.

(Dr. Gary Habermas)

1. Moral Argument

This argument goes as follows:

1. God is necessary for objective morals to exist


2. Objective morals exists


3. Therefore God exists

There are a couple of important clarifications to this argument. This does not mean that atheists cannot be moral. It is also not arguing that life would be too horrible without the existence of God. Simply put, if you believe the first two then the third necessarily follows.

1.God is necessary for objective morals to exist

This claim is widely accepted by most philosophers. By objective here, I mean independent of human opinion, and therefore inter-temporal. So without God all morals are simply based on opinion. Very uncontroversial claim in most circles.

2.Objective morals exist

This is the more controversial claim. The problem with this claim is that there is no evidence for it, outside of personal opinion. If you are of the opinion, that objective morals do not exist, this argument does not apply to you. But there is good reason to believe that objective morals exist. If there are no objective morals, then nothing is "wrong." It all becomes a matter of personal preference. Making the statement "Rape is wrong" is the equivalent of saying "2+2=5 is wrong." If you believe that morality is simply a convention created by humans, then one has no right to criticize someone for doing an "immoral" act as morality is simply a matter of preference. Saying "helping others is good" is the equivalent of saying that "chocolate is good".

2. Cosmological argument

This argument is just as simple as the last one. It goes like this:

1. Everything that comes into existence has a cause


2. The universe came into existence


3. The universe has a cause

This is actually a really old argument. Most objections to it were on the basis of the second contention. Back then most atheists believed that the world existed universally. That view however is untenable given modern science.

This one is actually really hard to dispute.

Some try to argue that the universe is everything and therefore the argument is simply tautological. The simple response is that there are "things" outside of the universe  like abstract concepts. For instance numbers, and mathematics exist independent of time and space. No one ever argues that the number 7 came into existence, therefore the number 7 is uncaused.

3. Teleological argument

This is the argument that the universe is so fine tuned that its so unlikely that all of the universal constants, like gravity, the weak force, are so fine tuned that the universe must have been designed.

Some argue that regardless of what the universe's constants are some form of life will exist. Easy response:

Stephen Hawking estimates that a decrease in the expansion rate of even one part in a hundred thousand million million one second after the Big Bang would have resulted in the universe’s recollapse long ago; a similar increase would have precluded the galaxies’ condensing out of the expanding matter.

These all provide adequate arguments for the existence of God or at the least provide evidence that God's existence is possible. Given the possibility of God's existence, then you cannot reject the resurrection a priori. So now let's analyse the possibility of the resurrection.

The historicity of the Resurrection

The following facts are accepted by the majority of New Testament scholars:

1. Jesus existed


2. Jesus stated that He is God


3. Jesus was crucified


4. Jesus died


5. Jesus was buried in the tomb


6. The tomb was empty


7. Jesus' followers claimed to have seen Jesus after his death

These facts are accepted by both liberals and conservatives alike, both atheists and theists. The thing is, atheists must provide an alternative, naturalistic explanation for these facts. Some atheists take the position that Jesus was never really dead, although this view has been largely abandoned as ridiculous. Another argument that attempts to explain these facts is that the disciples had a delusion that made them believe Jesus was risen from the dead. That would not explain why Saul, a man who stood against the church and had everything to loose by becoming Christian, became a Christian.

All of these facts are widely attested, and support the existence of the Christian God. Perhaps I did not convince you to become a Christian, but I believe I provide good evidence for belief in Christianity to be rational. There are plenty more arguments that I don't even mention, but I think this is a good basic explanation. To quote Blaise Pascal:

I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.

You were expecting a religious quote weren't you?

I have now moved to wordpress

Here is the address: wahbapolitics.co.cc

Wordpress is the new blogger

On Education

There is probably not a single parent or student alive who is happy about the public education system in the US and for good reason. The academic performance of students in the United States is not improving and is getting worse relative to other countries.  And like every other problem, thousands of people are proposing solutions. Sadly these "solutions" are simply throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away. As a nation, we have been trying this solution and the sane among us have come to the forgone conclusion that it doesn't work. Let us bring to light some solutions that solve the problem, rather than strengthen the Educational Legislative Complex *Eisenhower rolls in grave*.




Proposals

• Make it easier to become a teacher

Often times, people with real world experience, being economically fulfilled, think to themselves that they want to give back to their community. They want to spread the knowledge and experience that they got throughout their careers. They take one look at become an educator and are turned back immediately. Why? By the time they get their credentials they wouldn't want to teach anymore. In order to get your credentials, it takes a full year and a half after which you will work as an intern for two to three years. Does it really take that long to retrain a professional to become a teacher?

• Remove tenure for compulsory education

In college, a professor should be free to study controversial topics and challenge their adult students in provocative ways. That is the purpose of tenure, to give professors liberty in teaching. These same reasons don't apply in the pre-college world. In post-secondary education, tenure is seen as a "keep up the good work" award, but when it comes to high school and lower it becomes a "you've made it" award. By giving a teacher tenure, you are giving them job security. Once you do that, there is no way to fire an inept or lazy teacher.

• Free up the market

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and the government decided to nationalize the fast food industry. Another rule is that you can only go to the fast food place in your geographic zone. You will pay for it through taxes, but you have to eat there, even if there is better food elsewhere. This doesn't make any sense for fast food, so why should it make sense for education? Under the current system, there is no accountability. If you are unhappy with your school, you can file a "complaint" that will be taken under "consideration". 

• Issue Merit Based pay

Competent teachers should be compensated better that incompetent ones. The process is simple. Make two tests, one in the beginning of the year and one in the end. The difference in score multiplied by constants for income of parents and other socially significant factors, is how much the teachers get paid. Teachers will suddenly see a direct correlation between time spent working with students and their pay checks. 

These are all systemic changes that will not cost a dime. For a more exhaustive study on this topic, here is a documentary made by John Stossel.

On Education

There is probably not a single parent or student alive who is happy about the public education system in the US and for good reason. The academic performance of students in the United States is not improving and is getting worse relative to other countries.  And like every other problem, thousands of people are proposing solutions. Sadly these "solutions" are simply throwing money at the problem and hoping it goes away. As a nation, we have been trying this solution and the sane among us have come to the forgone conclusion that it doesn't work. Let us bring to light some solutions that solve the problem, rather than strengthen the Educational Legislative Complex *Eisenhower rolls in grave*.




Proposals

• Make it easier to become a teacher

Often times, people with real world experience, being economically fulfilled, think to themselves that they want to give back to their community. They want to spread the knowledge and experience that they got throughout their careers. They take one look at become an educator and are turned back immediately. Why? By the time they get their credentials they wouldn't want to teach anymore. In order to get your credentials, it takes a full year and a half after which you will work as an intern for two to three years. Does it really take that long to retrain a professional to become a teacher?

• Remove tenure for compulsory education

In college, a professor should be free to study controversial topics and challenge their adult students in provocative ways. That is the purpose of tenure, to give professors liberty in teaching. These same reasons don't apply in the pre-college world. In post-secondary education, tenure is seen as a "keep up the good work" award, but when it comes to high school and lower it becomes a "you've made it" award. By giving a teacher tenure, you are giving them job security. Once you do that, there is no way to fire an inept or lazy teacher.

• Free up the market

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and the government decided to nationalize the fast food industry. Another rule is that you can only go to the fast food place in your geographic zone. You will pay for it through taxes, but you have to eat there, even if there is better food elsewhere. This doesn't make any sense for fast food, so why should it make sense for education? Under the current system, there is no accountability. If you are unhappy with your school, you can file a "complaint" that will be taken under "consideration". 

• Issue Merit Based pay

Competent teachers should be compensated better that incompetent ones. The process is simple. Make two tests, one in the beginning of the year and one in the end. The difference in score multiplied by constants for income of parents and other socially significant factors, is how much the teachers get paid. Teachers will suddenly see a direct correlation between time spent working with students and their pay checks. 

These are all systemic changes that will not cost a dime. For a more exhaustive study on this topic, here is a documentary made by John Stossel.

Free will & Bigotry

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."

-Mahatma Gandhi

As much as I see this statement to be true, I believe that this doesn't violate the separation of church and state. While the institution of the Church should definitely be separate from government, Christian philosophy has, is and always will remain undeniably attached to politics. One need not look any further than the reason that rights are inalienable to understand why Christianity has so thoroughly integrated. The only reason given for why the government cannot violate life liberty and property, is because these rights were God given. Despite the profuseness of Christian philosophy in the US as the very basis for the country, people who uphold these beliefs are considered bigots.


The purpose of this post is to analyze the meaning of the word, and determine whether or not, it is an acceptable label for those who are so called. For the remainder of this post, I will assume an absolute secular ideology in creation of legal justifications to laws. Bear with me while we go on a journey to determine the meaning of the word bigot, but first let's lay a few ground rules.


The following is the most important presupposition that Christian philosophy imparted on the United States that we cannot assume under a truly secular state.


Free Will


That is it. Under Christianity the justification is that the government should not take away the God-given free will. That is the only basis for the inalienability of Free will. Once you take the endowment by a creator out of the picture by assuming only secular then abridging the will of the people is fair game. Especially in the case where it is for there own good. Simply put Libertarianism and Secularism (in the sense of know religious philosophy in government) are inherently incompatible. Allow me to explain.


One of the first thing that one has to come to terms with when assuming atheism for the purpose of governance, is the existence of materialism. As a philosophical term, materialism is the assumption that there is nothing beyond the material world. Coupled with the logical assumption of causation (every effect has a cause) then all decisions made by a given person are caused by either the environment around them or their genetics. Regardless of whether it is nurture or nature or any given combination of the two, one thing is certain. There is no Free will. 


If free will is for all intents and purposes an illusion, then there is no reason to protect it. People cannot decide for themselves. Some of their "will" is decided by natural selection and the other part is simply societal influence. It would simply be foolish to not exercise control when one has it. 


The belief that humans know what is best for themselves requires a God or at the very least a separate plane of reality, which simply cannot exist if one assumes atheism. Once we have reached this conclusion, that there is no such thing as free will the debate is over. Totalitarianism is the only logical form of government. What people want for themselves can be self destructive but with societal control, then the probability of such an error is way too high. 


For the purpose of argument I will assume arbitrary acceptance of Free will as a concept under a secular government, but as you can see I have objections to that. Moving on.

Bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 I am going to make a statement that will shock all of you who like to use this term loosely. We are all bigots. Every last one of us. There are certain political truths that all of us accept as true regardless of what evidence may be presented. Next I will analyse these political truths that we obstinantly cling to. In other words, how we are all bigots.

1. Humans should be treated equally under the law
2. Life is better than death
3. Children are incapable of making critical decisions for themselves
4. Your own happiness is of equal value to the happiness of others. 
5. There are certain things that are simply repulsive and should be banned:
• Cannibalism
• Human sacrifice
• Public nudity around schools
6. People should have equality of opportunity.

If we assume a truly secular framework for our government and arbitrarily make a law that bans the government from encroaching on certain aspects of the free will of humans then you still have the above noted points to overcome. All of the above are accepted on a gut feeling justification. In other words without a theistic philosophy of some sort then all the laws I just mentioned have absolutely no basis. This is by no means an all inclusive list. There are several things that can still be added. There are obviously people who do not have reservations about any of the above, but we choose to suppress this minority for the sanity of the majority.


The big question is whether gay marriage should be added to the list. Sodomy has long been removed from the list, as people have come to terms with it, however the laws banning sodomy were removed after the majority of the people didn't think that homosexuality should lead to a prison sentence. If the vote on proposition 8 in California, of all places, is any indication, the majority of people are not at this point yet. I believe that they will reach this point, but until then any effort to legalize gay marriage without appealing to the people is wrong. And I know its wrong because I am a bigot!

Free will & Bigotry

Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is."

-Mahatma Gandhi

As much as I see this statement to be true, I believe that this doesn't violate the separation of church and state. While the institution of the Church should definitely be separate from government, Christian philosophy has, is and always will remain undeniably attached to politics. One need not look any further than the reason that rights are inalienable to understand why Christianity has so thoroughly integrated. The only reason given for why the government cannot violate life liberty and property, is because these rights were God given. Despite the profuseness of Christian philosophy in the US as the very basis for the country, people who uphold these beliefs are considered bigots.


The purpose of this post is to analyze the meaning of the word, and determine whether or not, it is an acceptable label for those who are so called. For the remainder of this post, I will assume an absolute secular ideology in creation of legal justifications to laws. Bear with me while we go on a journey to determine the meaning of the word bigot, but first let's lay a few ground rules.


The following is the most important presupposition that Christian philosophy imparted on the United States that we cannot assume under a truly secular state.


Free Will


That is it. Under Christianity the justification is that the government should not take away the God-given free will. That is the only basis for the inalienability of Free will. Once you take the endowment by a creator out of the picture by assuming only secular then abridging the will of the people is fair game. Especially in the case where it is for there own good. Simply put Libertarianism and Secularism (in the sense of know religious philosophy in government) are inherently incompatible. Allow me to explain.


One of the first thing that one has to come to terms with when assuming atheism for the purpose of governance, is the existence of materialism. As a philosophical term, materialism is the assumption that there is nothing beyond the material world. Coupled with the logical assumption of causation (every effect has a cause) then all decisions made by a given person are caused by either the environment around them or their genetics. Regardless of whether it is nurture or nature or any given combination of the two, one thing is certain. There is no Free will. 


If free will is for all intents and purposes an illusion, then there is no reason to protect it. People cannot decide for themselves. Some of their "will" is decided by natural selection and the other part is simply societal influence. It would simply be foolish to not exercise control when one has it. 


The belief that humans know what is best for themselves requires a God or at the very least a separate plane of reality, which simply cannot exist if one assumes atheism. Once we have reached this conclusion, that there is no such thing as free will the debate is over. Totalitarianism is the only logical form of government. What people want for themselves can be self destructive but with societal control, then the probability of such an error is way too high. 


For the purpose of argument I will assume arbitrary acceptance of Free will as a concept under a secular government, but as you can see I have objections to that. Moving on.

Bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 I am going to make a statement that will shock all of you who like to use this term loosely. We are all bigots. Every last one of us. There are certain political truths that all of us accept as true regardless of what evidence may be presented. Next I will analyse these political truths that we obstinantly cling to. In other words, how we are all bigots.

1. Humans should be treated equally under the law
2. Life is better than death
3. Children are incapable of making critical decisions for themselves
4. Your own happiness is of equal value to the happiness of others. 
5. There are certain things that are simply repulsive and should be banned:
• Cannibalism
• Human sacrifice
• Public nudity around schools
6. People should have equality of opportunity.

If we assume a truly secular framework for our government and arbitrarily make a law that bans the government from encroaching on certain aspects of the free will of humans then you still have the above noted points to overcome. All of the above are accepted on a gut feeling justification. In other words without a theistic philosophy of some sort then all the laws I just mentioned have absolutely no basis. This is by no means an all inclusive list. There are several things that can still be added. There are obviously people who do not have reservations about any of the above, but we choose to suppress this minority for the sanity of the majority.


The big question is whether gay marriage should be added to the list. Sodomy has long been removed from the list, as people have come to terms with it, however the laws banning sodomy were removed after the majority of the people didn't think that homosexuality should lead to a prison sentence. If the vote on proposition 8 in California, of all places, is any indication, the majority of people are not at this point yet. I believe that they will reach this point, but until then any effort to legalize gay marriage without appealing to the people is wrong. And I know its wrong because I am a bigot!

Pax Malus

The Pax Romana was a period in the history of the Roman Empire where Caesar took rights away from every Roman citizen and in exchange provided them with order. But this article is not about Roman history, it is about the nanny philosophy.

As you may or may not doubt have guessed (or googled) the word "pax" is the latin word for "peace" and the word "malus" is the latin word for apple. I am, by any standards, an outspoken critic of the Apple business model. My objections are not monetary, as their stock prices will no doubt refute that, but rather on philosophical grounds. Their treaty with the customer base is that we will take away your right to do anything cool, and in exchange the device will run faster. Do you want wallpaper in the Background? no. How about the ability to run multiple programs at the same time? no. The theory of restricting you for your own good is the definition of evil. This isn't Pax Malus, but Pax Malum (evil peace, go learn your latin!). As much as I would love to write an article about the business practices of Apple, it would be off of the blog's theme. 


As I stated in a previous post, I believe in the concept of natural rights. In other words, I

"...hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it "

When a right wing extremist refers to democrats as "anti-american" they are not too far off. The entire Democratic platform has turned towards the nanny state. The Uncle Sam has become Mama Sam. Instead of calling people to service, the country has become a caregiver that has to deal with irresponsible children. Allow me to explain:


Democrats tend to favor government actions that are "for your own good". For example: 

1. Mandating health insurance for everyone, even if they don't want it.
2. Mandating the payment of social security for everyone, even if they don't want to.

These restrictions all make one fatal assumption: I know better than you. The text of the declaration of independence is clear. Liberty is an inalienable right and not even the almighty government can stop that. Let me be clear, any claim of "we're screwing you over for your own good" should not be used to justify any law except when dealing with minors. The assumption with those under the age of 18, is that they lack the capability to decide for themselves, which I do agree with, but once someone can decide to grab arms they are legally responsible for themselves. sound off below.   

Put it all on red!

Let's go back a year

Barack Obama has just been sworn in and the mood of America can be defined as hopeful. This man promised that he will change the culture of Washington. He had a majority in the house. He had a majority of 58 in the Senate, which would later become a super-majority of 60 with the addition of Minnesota Senator Al Franken and the conversion of Republican Senator Arlen Specter. He had all the wind a president could ever wish for in his sails. All he had to do was propose any reasonable middle-of-the-road legislation and the Grand old Party would be a fool to filibuster. He obviously had the marketing skills to make a virtually unknown Black Senator the Potus (President of the United States). All he had to overcome was a dependence on the Totus (Teleprompter of the United States, http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/). To sum up the mood of the nation at the time Time Released the following cover.

 Let's go 1 year forward.

Virginia and New Jersey just elected a Republican Governor. As if that wasn't impressive enough, Scott Brown got elected to the Senate of Massachusetts. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that this is the most significant senatorial election in our lifetime. I don't think there is a single metaphor, no matter how clever, that can describe how impressive this feat was. For a Republican Senator to get elected in the land of Kennedy is the equivalent of Black man to become an Imperial Wizard. That itself doesn't capture how ridiculously unlikely that a Republican would win a Senate seat in Massachusetts.

If that was all that the Republicans had going for them, I would say that this coming midterm election was going to be a moderate swing in the polls because there's simply not enough known Republican Senatorial candidates. If only there was a way for these relatively unknown candidates to get known, say through advertisements. Wouldn't it be something if these relatively unknown candidates would somehow get money to make their name known? Oh. Wait a second. There was that one completely insignificant and irrelevant Supreme Court case that happened recently. A case that legally gives corporations permission to donate money to campaigns. This case will hurt democrats. Big time. Why, you ask?

The way the system works is that "Big Business" supports the Republican party and "Big Labor" the Democratic Party. Americans, even in these anti-business times, hate unions more than businesses, and for good reason. Unions represent the employee when the union gets its way, it increases the cost on a company and in turn increases the price of a given product or service. By contrast when Businesses get their way, they decrease their costs in the form of corporate tax cuts which in turn translate to savings for the consumer.

Wow. My prediction? The house swings and the Senate, at the very least, goes 48-62. If it was up to me, I would put it all on red. 

Put it all on red!

Let's go back a year

Barack Obama has just been sworn in and the mood of America can be defined as hopeful. This man promised that he will change the culture of Washington. He had a majority in the house. He had a majority of 58 in the Senate, which would later become a super-majority of 60 with the addition of Minnesota Senator Al Franken and the conversion of Republican Senator Arlen Specter. He had all the wind a president could ever wish for in his sails. All he had to do was propose any reasonable middle-of-the-road legislation and the Grand old Party would be a fool to filibuster. He obviously had the marketing skills to make a virtually unknown Black Senator the Potus (President of the United States). All he had to overcome was a dependence on the Totus (Teleprompter of the United States, http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/). To sum up the mood of the nation at the time Time Released the following cover.

 Let's go 1 year forward.

Virginia and New Jersey just elected a Republican Governor. As if that wasn't impressive enough, Scott Brown got elected to the Senate of Massachusetts. I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say that this is the most significant senatorial election in our lifetime. I don't think there is a single metaphor, no matter how clever, that can describe how impressive this feat was. For a Republican Senator to get elected in the land of Kennedy is the equivalent of Black man to become an Imperial Wizard. That itself doesn't capture how ridiculously unlikely that a Republican would win a Senate seat in Massachusetts.

If that was all that the Republicans had going for them, I would say that this coming midterm election was going to be a moderate swing in the polls because there's simply not enough known Republican Senatorial candidates. If only there was a way for these relatively unknown candidates to get known, say through advertisements. Wouldn't it be something if these relatively unknown candidates would somehow get money to make their name known? Oh. Wait a second. There was that one completely insignificant and irrelevant Supreme Court case that happened recently. A case that legally gives corporations permission to donate money to campaigns. This case will hurt democrats. Big time. Why, you ask?

The way the system works is that "Big Business" supports the Republican party and "Big Labor" the Democratic Party. Americans, even in these anti-business times, hate unions more than businesses, and for good reason. Unions represent the employee when the union gets its way, it increases the cost on a company and in turn increases the price of a given product or service. By contrast when Businesses get their way, they decrease their costs in the form of corporate tax cuts which in turn translate to savings for the consumer.

Wow. My prediction? The house swings and the Senate, at the very least, goes 48-62. If it was up to me, I would put it all on red. 

Dear Mr. Obama, Thank You Very much. Signed, John Wahba

Several years ago, a young student by the name of John Wahba was posed an essay at the end of his sophmore year. The essay's question was to write about a person who exhibits "The Power of One." For those of you who know me well enough, such abstractions really piss me off. After brief consideration I put pen to paper and wrote of a man who in my opinion had a net positive impact on the world. Osama Bin Laden.

This of course was a purely intellectual exercise at first. To analyze the good that an international terrorist did is borderline unpatriotic, but it was all for the best. The theory behind my essay was two-stringed. First, that he taught us all a valuable geography lesson (Not so strong), and second, he inoculated the United States against a much worse attack. Think of 9/11 as a vaccine to a nuclear bomb. Alas, that essay is done and gone, but I feel it necessary to look into Obama's positive effect on the USA, no matter how inadvertent.

Let's begin:

Happy Obama-versery everyone! On this day approximately 1 year ago, history was made and Obama was elected to the presidency making him the first half-white man to become ruler of the free world. But aside from such leaps in civil rights like a rich, published, Harvard alum becoming president, what did he really do in the past year. Let's analyze a list of campaign promises he didn't keep.



Some may say that it is to early to judge a president. They suggest that the year mark is way to short. I ask the critics this, name a good president who defined his term after the first year. If you can find one, please send it over.

Now that we are done with that, let's see what his real impact was on the country. He ran under lofty rhetoric and sheer idealism. He gave people hope. He told his supporters that together we can do anything. And proceeded to do none of it. So Mr. Obama, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for reminding Americans that a pretty face will not change the system.

PS To those reading this off of facebook, you missed the embedded video. Go to http://wahbapolitics.blogspot.com for the full effect.

Dear Mr. Obama, Thank You Very much. Signed, John Wahba

Several years ago, a young student by the name of John Wahba was posed an essay at the end of his sophmore year. The essay's question was to write about a person who exhibits "The Power of One." For those of you who know me well enough, such abstractions really piss me off. After brief consideration I put pen to paper and wrote of a man who in my opinion had a net positive impact on the world. Osama Bin Laden.

This of course was a purely intellectual exercise at first. To analyze the good that an international terrorist did is borderline unpatriotic, but it was all for the best. The theory behind my essay was two-stringed. First, that he taught us all a valuable geography lesson (Not so strong), and second, he inoculated the United States against a much worse attack. Think of 9/11 as a vaccine to a nuclear bomb. Alas, that essay is done and gone, but I feel it necessary to look into Obama's positive effect on the USA, no matter how inadvertent.

Let's begin:

Happy Obama-versery everyone! On this day approximately 1 year ago, history was made and Obama was elected to the presidency making him the first half-white man to become ruler of the free world. But aside from such leaps in civil rights like a rich, published, Harvard alum becoming president, what did he really do in the past year. Let's analyze a list of campaign promises he didn't keep.



Some may say that it is to early to judge a president. They suggest that the year mark is way to short. I ask the critics this, name a good president who defined his term after the first year. If you can find one, please send it over.

Now that we are done with that, let's see what his real impact was on the country. He ran under lofty rhetoric and sheer idealism. He gave people hope. He told his supporters that together we can do anything. And proceeded to do none of it. So Mr. Obama, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for reminding Americans that a pretty face will not change the system.

PS To those reading this off of facebook, you missed the embedded video. Go to http://wahbapolitics.blogspot.com for the full effect.

Race is Culture

Quick question. Who said the following:

"[Barack Obama is] light skinned [and] with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

No it wasn't Rush Limbaugh. Not Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck but whoever said that must be a real racist. Unless of course that person was Senate majority leader Harry Reid, whose statements automatically get the Democratic Teflon Coat of immortality when it comes to racist comments towards, blacks, jews and hispanics. But no, Harry Reid can't be that insensitive, can he?






Let's look another quote by someone whose Democratic Teflon Coat has already been worn away slightly. 

"This guy — he was catapulted in on hope and change — what we hope the guy is. What the (expletive)? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little Laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up."

 Any guesses on who said that. The expletive probably gave it away. Otherwise this quote is bleeping golden. That's right former governer and furniture salesman Rod Blagojevich, made this beef up, without his Democratic Teflon Coat on but it didn't hurt him too much because he can only go one direction from where he is, up.

But this isn't a post about Democratic Teflon Coat, which  sounds like something that can be sold on an infomercial, this is a post on race has come to mean. I contend that race and race relations is not defined by the color of someone's skin, but by the color of their rice. Race has become culture and that is something no politician wants to admit.

So let's talk race. Mind you I am not wearing my Democratic Teflon Coat so this is going to be very off the cuff. Let's begin:

(Oh and one last thing. In order to be as confusing as possible, I will try to use a different phrase every time I mention a racial group. It will keep you on your feet, and make you hate political correctness. Win win.)

A Race develops when a group of people are thought to stereotypically act in a certain way. The one that I mentioned earlier was African-American. The Negro culture itself is easy to define. If I were to point at prominent politicians of African Ancestry like Colin Powell and ask, "What makes Colin Powell black?", you would be very hard pressed for an answer. Most people when thinking about Colin Powell, don't think black man. If you look at his accomplishments, you will find them to be racially independent. He worked his way up the army and eventually became Secretary of state. If you were knew to American politics and never saw his picture, you would probably guess he was white.

There is a reason for that. The Caucasian culture has defined itself as the politically active side of race relations. If you were to look at Congress  sun bathing, you would be blinded by the lack of pigment. Politics is largely a profession for the pigmentally challenged. To those who say that it doesn't matter who you are on the outside, they're right. Colin Powell may have been black on the outside, but on the inside, he was white. Mind you I respect him as an intellectual and a politician but, the fact that he's got slightly more melanin than other statesman, has nothing to do with it.

Still don't believe that race is culture? Consider this. Race is not something you are born with. *dodges rotten tomatoes*. Hear me out for a second. If race was something primordial, how can   someone whose physical qualities are not unlike that of someone who came from the west side of the African continent, go about calling other people with the same physical characteristics "white." The fact that people can change their race proves it is not coded into their genes. Better yet how can the phrases "Twinkie" and "Oreo" be used to describe anyone. While you are eating that food for thought, (Get it? Twinkies. Oreos. Food for thought). watch this awesome segment on Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-29-2007/frog-princess

PS. For those wondering what Oreo and Twinkie mean, Black/Yellow on the outside, and white on the inside.

PPS. Democratic Teflon Coats are available at retailers near you. Make checks payable to  the inventor of these coats John F. Kennedy.

Race is Culture

Quick question. Who said the following:

"[Barack Obama is] light skinned [and] with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

No it wasn't Rush Limbaugh. Not Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck but whoever said that must be a real racist. Unless of course that person was Senate majority leader Harry Reid, whose statements automatically get the Democratic Teflon Coat of immortality when it comes to racist comments towards, blacks, jews and hispanics. But no, Harry Reid can't be that insensitive, can he?






Let's look another quote by someone whose Democratic Teflon Coat has already been worn away slightly. 

"This guy — he was catapulted in on hope and change — what we hope the guy is. What the (expletive)? Everything he's saying's on the teleprompter. I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little Laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived. I saw it all growing up."

 Any guesses on who said that. The expletive probably gave it away. Otherwise this quote is bleeping golden. That's right former governer and furniture salesman Rod Blagojevich, made this beef up, without his Democratic Teflon Coat on but it didn't hurt him too much because he can only go one direction from where he is, up.

But this isn't a post about Democratic Teflon Coat, which  sounds like something that can be sold on an infomercial, this is a post on race has come to mean. I contend that race and race relations is not defined by the color of someone's skin, but by the color of their rice. Race has become culture and that is something no politician wants to admit.

So let's talk race. Mind you I am not wearing my Democratic Teflon Coat so this is going to be very off the cuff. Let's begin:

(Oh and one last thing. In order to be as confusing as possible, I will try to use a different phrase every time I mention a racial group. It will keep you on your feet, and make you hate political correctness. Win win.)

A Race develops when a group of people are thought to stereotypically act in a certain way. The one that I mentioned earlier was African-American. The Negro culture itself is easy to define. If I were to point at prominent politicians of African Ancestry like Colin Powell and ask, "What makes Colin Powell black?", you would be very hard pressed for an answer. Most people when thinking about Colin Powell, don't think black man. If you look at his accomplishments, you will find them to be racially independent. He worked his way up the army and eventually became Secretary of state. If you were knew to American politics and never saw his picture, you would probably guess he was white.

There is a reason for that. The Caucasian culture has defined itself as the politically active side of race relations. If you were to look at Congress  sun bathing, you would be blinded by the lack of pigment. Politics is largely a profession for the pigmentally challenged. To those who say that it doesn't matter who you are on the outside, they're right. Colin Powell may have been black on the outside, but on the inside, he was white. Mind you I respect him as an intellectual and a politician but, the fact that he's got slightly more melanin than other statesman, has nothing to do with it.

Still don't believe that race is culture? Consider this. Race is not something you are born with. *dodges rotten tomatoes*. Hear me out for a second. If race was something primordial, how can   someone whose physical qualities are not unlike that of someone who came from the west side of the African continent, go about calling other people with the same physical characteristics "white." The fact that people can change their race proves it is not coded into their genes. Better yet how can the phrases "Twinkie" and "Oreo" be used to describe anyone. While you are eating that food for thought, (Get it? Twinkies. Oreos. Food for thought). watch this awesome segment on Jon Stewart: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-29-2007/frog-princess

PS. For those wondering what Oreo and Twinkie mean, Black/Yellow on the outside, and white on the inside.

PPS. Democratic Teflon Coats are available at retailers near you. Make checks payable to  the inventor of these coats John F. Kennedy.