The Left vs Reality

By Tom Rhodes, 7/5/2013

Fundamentally the political left cannot accept reality and observable truth. The real world doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas of how the world “should be.” They see the real world as broken and needing to be changed, ignoring the fact that their preconceived ideas on how the world “should be” may be what are broken.

Equality between sexes, races, geography, has never been observed and does not exist anywhere in the world today or in the history of the world. There is zero evidence of equality actually existing. The fact is, if you believe in evolution, then equality is not something you can justify. Evolution produces unequal outcomes, not better or worse outcomes but unequal outcomes.

Fact, people of east African descent disproportionately win marathons. Fact in USA, where blacks make up around 13% of the population, they comprise about 80% of the professional NBA players. Fact in the USA white people of Northern European Ancestry make up a disproportionate percentage of professional NHL players. Over the past 15 years a totally out of proportion percentage of American spelling bee winners have their ancestry in India. For generations the best design and manufacture of optical lenses come from Germany and Japan. Equality just doesn’t exist – PERIOD!

In the real world people can and do capitalize on their inequality. The left however desperately wants equality, even in absence of its existence. They see some people getting rich as proof of evil, not evidence of scientific fact that some people have different skills than others. The see some groups being more violent than others as evidence that they are being suppressed, rather than they have a different unequal culture that is more accepting of violence as a means of solving differences.

“The agenda of the left -- promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for "rights" to what other people have produced -- is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.” ~ Thomas Sowell

The ideas of “equality” have been put to the test. The moral call for equality is a background for the political agenda of the left. This call for equality they claim will lift the poor out of poverty, end wars, and make the world a better place. This is the same claim that ruling oligarchies has made for centuries all around the world. It has also failed for centuries. Those nations which mandated equality, strictly controlled by ruling elite who knew best how to make things equal, are dead. From the French Revolution, to the Boxer Rebellion to the rise of the USSR and Communist China and the other ”equality” based societies created in history all resulted in the same outcome; mass starvation and mass murder.

Because the observable truth and history, clearly shows that equality does not exist, the left only use emotions to promote their failed ideas on how the world should be. If the preconceived idea of the left was right, then history would show that central planning by educated elites with the power of government to force their would have been more vastly more successful than economies based on individual liberty and free trade with millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests.

The radical idea that has proven to provide the most people with the highest standard of living is embracing inequality. Liberty results in unequal outcomes, but those outcomes are generally better for everybody. The only equality that should and can exist in culture is the idea that all people should be treated equally under the law; this is to prevent oppression, allowing all people to use the advantages they have by being unequal from their fellow man. This is an idea that is based on reality and observable truth.

The reality of people not being equal in IQ, disposition, drive, strength, speed, coordination, social skills, size, beauty, and all other capabilities, results in unequal outcomes in life. This isn't fair; to bad, life isn't fair. Because life's outcomes don’t fit with the emotional desires of how the left thinks things "should" be, they emotionally attack it leaving reason on logic behind. Human equality is a myth. I challenge you to prove me wrong by showing some scientific rationale to prove equality actually exists.

Tocqueville’s warned that equality is not a defense against tyranny, but an open invitation to ambitious and cunning leaders who enlist our support in depriving ourselves of freedom, saying:

"The…sole condition required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced, as it were, to a single principle."

NBC Newsman Violates Law on TV

Washington DC Law states, “No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. A ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition,” and carries a $1000 fine and/or 1 year in prison.

In the Washington Studios during “Meet the Press”, David Gregory held and was in possession of a 30 round AR magazine, in clear violation of the law. When are the DC police going to arrest David Gregory? Did some NBC producer give it to him at the studio and transfer it to Mr. Gregory? Obviously the law was broken at least once but probably many times? Why is there no outcry from the loony hoplophobes on the left for the arrest of Mr. Gregory? Or is the law only meant for the “little people.”

REEs make Green Tech a Fashion Statment

By Tom Rhodes, 12/18/2011

“Investigating Rare Earth Element Mine Development in EPA Region 8 and Potential Environmental Impacts,” is the title of the study released in August 2011. In it’s study EPA reported on several sites located in the intermountain West, from Idaho to Colorado, which could become only the second REE mining operation in the entire country. (LINK) This study reported extensively on the possible sources of contaminants and waste byproducts associated with all mining, and especially those concentrated in REE-related extraction. This study clearly explains why Green technology is not actually “Green” and why US plants producing such products as photovoltaic cells have closed (even with federal funding) and moved to other countries.

The truth is so-called “green” tech, is more hazardous to the human health and the environment than burning coal to make electricity. The EPA reports:

“…every ton of rare earth elements produced generates approximately 8.5 kilograms of fluorine and 13 kilograms of flue dust. Additionally, sulfuric acid refining techniques used to produce one ton of rare earth elements generates 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters of gas laden with flue dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid. Not only are large quantities of harmful gas produced, alarming amounts of liquid and solid waste also resulted from Chinese refining processes. They estimate at the completion of refining one ton of rare earth elements, approximately 75 cubic meters of acidic waste water and about one ton of radioactive waste residue are produced. The IAGS reports China produced over 130,000 metric tons of rare earth elements in 2008 alone (IAGS, 2010). Extrapolation of the waste generation estimates over total production yields extreme amounts of waste. With little environmental regulation, stories of environmental pollution and human sickness remain frequent in areas near Chinese rare earth element production facilities.”

The volume of hazardous waste produced for each metric ton of REE is vast. To put it in terms understandable the average car weighs about one metric ton (2204 lbs), that is the amount of radioactive waste produced for each metric ton of REEs. In addition about 20,000 gallons of acidic waste water is created (the amount that fills a large swimming pool). The reason China produces 95% of the rare earth elements is not just because they can be found in China, but because it is one of the few places where they can be mined. In the US the EPA would not allow the vast amount of pollution associated with REE mining to even be considered. These REEs are are vital for green-energy products including giant wind turbines, hybrid gasoline-electric cars and compact fluorescent bulbs.

Consider “Green” Power like wind; there are two tons of REEs used in the permanent magnets of every 3 MW wind turbine. That means that 2 tons radioactive waste and the equivalent of 130,000 swimming pools of acid water waste are generated for each turbine. Nuclear power per KWH is far less damaging to the environment, including less radioactive waste per KW of generated electricity. Explain how “green” wind power is again?

Since China owns 95% of the REE’s they set the price. REE’s prices have skyrocketed because demand is artificially higher (we demand “green” tech) and there is a single government controlled source. “The high cost of rare earths is having a significant chilling effect on wind turbine and electric motor production in spite of offsetting government subsidies for green tech products,” said Michael N. Silver, chairman and chief executive of American Elements, a chemical company based in Los Angeles that supplies rare earths and other high-tech materials.

From the EPA report;

“Permanent magnets represent the staple clean energy technology of future green economies. They constitute main components of lightweight, high powered motors and generators due to their production of a stable magnetic field without the need for an external power source. Permanent magnet motors power contemporary electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, while permanent magnet generators produce electricity from wind turbines (USDOE, 2010). The key element derived samarium-cobalt permanent magnets dominate rare earth technology because they produce a magnetic field in a much smaller size. The samarium-cobalt permanent magnet also retains its magnetic strength at high temperatures making it ideal for clean energy and even military applications, including precision guided munitions and aircrafts (IAGS, 2010).

Permanent magnets work in conjunction with high efficiency rare earth based batteries to store energy in electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (USDOE, 2010). Current generation hybrid electric vehicles use a battery with a cathode containing a host of rare earths including lanthanum, cerium, neodymium, praseodymium, and cobalt (Kopera, 2004). Each hybrid electric battery may contain several kilograms of rare earth materials (USDOE, 2010). Plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles require even greater storage capacity and higher power ratings than typical hybrid vehicles. In light of this, automakers will likely use the lithium ion battery, increasing demand for yet another key element. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory estimated one lithium ion battery contains 3.4-12.7 kilograms of lithium depending on proprietary design (USDOE, 2010).”

Hybrid cars, like Toyota’s Prius, contain around 25 pounds of rare earth elements. “Green” technology uses twice the REEs of regular vehicles. So if you do the math on the amount of REEs used by hybrid and electic cars sold in the USA have used over 5 MILLION pounds of REEs. We won’t even go into the energy used and waste generated “re-cycling” used up cars laden with REEs.

Now take the lowly lightbulb; we are being forced to purchase CFL’s not traditional incandescent lightbulbs. CFL’s are getting more and more expensive, had if you breakone you need to have a hazmat suit, evacuate your home, and treat your floor like a hazardous waste site, but at least they are “Green.” The coust of CFL’s is going up and up; why? Because of the amount of REEs involved in their production. REE costs are climbing at unprecedented rates. Here’s what GE has to say about it; “Rare earths are undergoing extreme cost increases due to unprecedented market forces. In less than 12 months, costs of some rare earth oxide materials used in lighting products have experienced increases ranging from 500 percent to more than 2,000 percent, and they continue to climb. For perspective, if the rate of inflation on the rare earth element europium oxide were applied to a $2.00 cup of coffee, the new cost would be $24.55.”

And why are REEs so expensive, and why aren’t mines opening up in other countries? Again from GE’s Rare Earth FAQ; “In addition, increasing environmental standards and growing labor wages have resulted in the development of fewer mines.” In not so politically correct terms, the EPA and US federal regulations make mining REEs in the USA cost prohibitive.

It’s going to get worse. China, acting like a sensible owner of it’s own resources, will keep more and more of it’s REE for use within China. In its latest report, "Rare Earths & Yttrium: Market outlook to 2015, 14th edition 2011," international metals and minerals research firm Roskill said much of the total output would go to Chinese manufacturers to address the demands of domestic industry, leaving only a small amount for export.

This explains why even after receiving lots of US Federal Dollars (stimulus money) BP closed its US Photovoltaic manufacturing plant and moved it to China. Having to import REEs from China puts you into a business that will not be allowed to compete. The cost of REEs exported from China will become too expensive.

This is not China’s fault, other countries including the USA have REEs that could be mined. We choose not to do so for environmental and political reasons. No company in its right mind would take the risk and costs associated with mining REEs in the USA under current federal regulations. Knowing China has vast reserves and could flood the market making it impossible to sell your REEs, and the huge costs associated with mining in a manner which meets US federal environmental standards,

Green tech and materials will not be done in the USA. Green tech requires REEs, our Government has regulated green tech out of the country. It is also regulating traditional energy out of business like coal generation of electrical power. If you didn’t know better you’d think that liberal greenies want the US to exist at third world energy and technology use.

We may want green tech like more wind mills, but they are hugely expensive, going to get more expensive, and will not be able to be created in the USA because of the scarcity of REEs. BP recently ceased production of solar cells at its Frederick, Md., plant and laid off 320 of the 430 employees. Thus ending all of BP’s solar cell manufacturing in the U.S. Green jobs promised by Obama, are being killed by Federal Regulations.

Until we solve the resource problem associated with REE’s, “Green” technology will remain cost prohibitive to the average person. Just as “Green” tech CFL’s now cost as much as much as 10 times traditional tech incandescent lightbulbs. The Chevy Volt costs more than double the same vehicle powered with traditional tech (it would be 3 times the cost if not for government subsidies), only the very wealth making a fashion statement can afford “Green” tech.

The Moral Value of Effort

By Tom Rhodes, 12/7/2011

Imagine you are a mildly disabled couple with no employment, if you apply you are currently eligible to receive more than $1,200 a month in public housing vouchers, plus state and government disability checks and food stamps. Not only is there is no requirement to show your net worth and assets, but they are not considered, the only thing considered to be eligible is your income. Wages not wealth are what we tax, and use measure a person's ability to pay.

Wages are not considered a person's own but your labor is considered the government's who determines what part of those wages you are allowed to keep. Our whole system is based on taxing the labor of those who work; it is assumed if you don't work you have no access to money. This is why the average person living on welfare has color TV, Cable, AC and Heat, Microwaves, a car, and lives in an apartment or house with more square feet per person than the average middle class European. Significant numbers of people on welfare are better off living on the dole than trying to live on the wages commensurate with their skills, and can and do live without working better than if they worked, the incentive to work and increase their skills is not there. We reward those with no skills or ambition. This is not to say that there are not people truly in need, but that number is far less than the numbers of people who actually live on the dole.

Actually being needy is not a requirement for government "charity." Consider this couple, they live in a million dollar mansion, etc, and have huge amounts of accumulated wealth, can afford to give to charity and travel the world, yet receive tens of thousands of dollars from the government a year because their income indicates that they live in poverty. No not everybody is abusing the system this much, but why are we giving money to anybody who can support themselves but won't. Our current welfare system is immoral.

The reason why the US and Germany are arguably the most successful in the world, is they share as societies a basic moral value. These values can be summed up as follows: Effort should lead to reward as often as possible. People who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity but not a guarantee. People should be rewarded monetarily based on enterprise, merit, and effort. People should be rewarded for exercising self-control while sloth and envy should not be rewarded. Our government and other institutions should nurture responsibility and fairness and shame irresponsibility and favoritism.

However there are a large group of people who see things through poorly shaded lenses that cloud their vision with an image of a permanent class war. They do not think it matters how people conduct themselves, they only consider the final outcome of who has and does not have wealth. Rather than expect a person to be self-reliant they assume any person who does not have wealth is poor because a person of wealth purposefully withheld either opportunity or property. They do not consider the effort put into creating and accumulating wealth to have any more value than breathing. These people are generally liberals, progressives, leftists, socialists, etc, and all firmly believe that resistance to redistribution of wealth is greed and avarice and treated with outrage.

Our current financial crisis came from bankers buying off politicians and both getting rich off of securing mortgages to people who were not qualified to repay them. Even now the government is requiring banks to grant loans to people who cannot repay them, in order to be "fair." We still reward sloth and envy those who legally acquire wealth. We know this yet, the left, our press, the government, and the banks refuse to even talk about letting the people who caused the crisis to be held responsible. Our massive debt is the problem, not a lack of taxes, yet the left never even considers any strategy to unwind the gigantic debt buildup. Because the basic structural problems plaguing our economy are not attended to, nor does our current leadership, regardless of party, appear to be willing to address them, as we currently see, the result is that the United States suffering from a horrible crisis of trust. The result of this lack of trust is crippling slowdown in growth, a paralyzed government, and the strangest direction of politics in modern history.

Business is sitting on massive wealth, but will not invest it because the uncertainty of whether they will be allowed to grow those investments. If investment and labor cannot be reasonably assured to produce prosperity, while government cronyism and theft are visibly rewarded and while we routinely provide for those who can but don't provide for themselves, you cannot expect people to work and invest with such uncertainty and obvious moral corruption. The very moral fabric that created the most prosperous and generous country the world has ever seen is being torn apart by power hungry collectivists who seek to redistribute the wealth of this nation not based on the idea that effort should lead to reward as often as possible, but based on the idea that regardless of effort everybody should receive the same rewards, and the ruling elite should receive a lot more.

We cannot subsidize behaviors that make us poorer, and penalize behaviors that make us richer and expect people to choose to behave in a manner that enriches themselves and the country. If you want people who have legally acquired wealth, to invest that wealth (not hoard and protect it), you cannot penalize the profits from investing and take away the fruits of their labor to such an extent that they are better off doing nothing with their labor and wealth than they are to exploit both for their and their communities betterment. Why would a person or company make an investment whose efforts are taxed to such an extent that if they simply purchased gold or other commodity and did nothing, they would make more off the increase in value due to inflation, than the profits from investing?

Here is an example; we need massive expansion to our aging power grid. Power companies are regulated extensively but guaranteed a profit (about 10%). If you have money to invest and after you pay the taxes on your dividends the real profit from investing in a power company is a modest but because power companies are government protected monopolies such investments are fairly safe. This investment would allow the power company to expand and make improvements. Now if you invested that same money in gold, you have an even safer haven for your wealth and the return is greater than the investing in a power company. There is not growth, but the wealth is protected against inflation; the growth and payout from the power company doesn't even cover real inflation. Obviously the incentive is no longer to invest but to protect wealth and assets. It is the government regulation that severely restricts the profit that can be made by power companies, and takes the profit that can be made by investors, and inflates the value of dollars, which has made conditions such that those with wealth are better off sitting on it that putting it to work. Since we now punish people who invest and work hard, and reward hoarding wealth and doing nothing, people are no longer investing and working hard, but are doing everything they can to protect what assets (wealth) they have.

Eliminating those who would protect the very moral fabric of our society is essential for liberals and the Wall Street - Government Complex. The ruling elite do not garner wealth through effort but by graft. They make the less fortunate dependent upon the largess of the ruling elite to buy their votes so they may remain in power and suck the wealth and labor from those who labor. Explain why congress and its employees are exempt from insider trading laws. Explain why the ruling elite guaranteed known bad mortgages, and rewarded bankers and themselves with massive amounts of money at the expense of the taxpayer. Explain why it is acceptable to have generations of people living on the dole. Explain why with more and more spending and more and more government control that the actual output of government education continues to get worse not better, especially for those who live dependent upon the government for their every need. Explain why they have restructured and tried to change the purpose of government to supply the needs of everybody, rather than provide protection for the rights of all individuals equally. Explain why we reward sloth and envy and punish self-reliance and effort. Obviously those who would return the US to a system where effort, enterprise, productivity, and self-discipline were rewarded and bad governance, sloth, and envy were not rewarding, would result in the ruling elite losing both wealth and power. The protection of individual liberty, although historically prove to enhancing a societies overall wealth and well being, diminishes central control and power, the ruling elite would rather all lose liberty than they have less power.

It took a little while longer than I expected but the ruling elite in DC have succeeded in eliminating or silencing all the presidential candidates who are willing to address the true problems facing this country. Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Gary Johnson, and all the third party candidates have effectively been disqualified by the media and ruling elite in Washington. Even though Ron Paul, is still taking 2nd place in polls, and the people resonate with his message, the press and ruling elite will not address the issues he and others running who represent half of Americans who don't live off the government. All these candidates the collectivists don't want you exposed to share a common belief. They believe it is moral and just, and have a willingness, to hold the government accountable for its spending and seek to reestablish the basic moral formula that made this country great, based on moral values that has historically proven to provide the highest standard of living for the most people, a moral formula that so called progressives hate and refuse to acknowledge or address. That moral formula is simple, Effort should lead to reward as often as possible.

Liberty vs the Left
Equality, Fairness, and Ethics

By Tom Rhodes, 12/2/2011

How do liberals (leftists) compare to those who believe in liberty and smaller government when it comes to Equality, Fairness, and Ethics.

Leftist yell that those who want smaller government are against equality, we are not. While generally recognising the benefits in Scandinavian-style homogeneity: crime tends to be lower, people are less stressed etc. The problem is a content size country like the USA, consisting of a vast and diverse population, is not and cannot be homogenous; nor will the policies and laws that work for a small homogenous society work for ours. The primay objection however is is not that egalitarianism is undesirable in itself, but that the policies required to enforce in involve a disproportionate loss of liberty and prosperity, Historically outside small nations with homogenous populations, egalitarian laws when implemented result in an overall lower standard of living and poorer quality of life for the society as a whole (look at USSR, Cuba, even the USA since implementing the War on Poverty).

The left accuses those who want smaller government as being against "fairness." The problem is that the left doesn't want fairness, they want socialism. If you promote more government, please explain how it's fair that public sector employees get paid more than private sector employees for the same jobs. Public school teachers get more than private school teachers is just one example. How is it fair to make our children and grand children pay for todays spending because we are unwilling to live within our means? How is it fair to the boy who leaves school at 16 and starts paying taxes to subsidise the one who goes to university? How about being fair to the unemployed, whom firms cannot afford to hire because of the social protection enjoyed by existing employees?

Of course the one subject the left avoids is ethics. Leftists rant and rave about how uncaring people on the right are, but when the truth is told it is they who lack ethics, and moral clarity. There is virtue in helping the poor, donating time, money to help others, but there is no virtue in being forced to do the same. Choosing to give your money to charity is meritorious; paying tax is morally neutral. Evidence is clear that, as taxes rise, and the state squeezes out civic society, people give less to good causes. It is also clear that those who believe in smaller government give more to private charity in both time and money than those who want and promote government solutions to our problems.

Equality, Fairness, and Ethics all subjects the left tries to claim superiority but when the truth is revealed the liberals support less equality, less fairness and lower moral action.

Statist Rags

By Tom Rhodes 10/11/2011

The St. Pete Times Tuesday October 11, 2011 editorial was based on a recent Philadelphia Inquirer editorial, even though the times treats it as a news article. The basis is: if the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania won't issue a person a carry concealed weapons (CCW) permit then Florida shouldn't be allowed to issue such a permit to the same person. Florida issues concealed weapons permits to all applicants who hold a valid driver’s license in their state of residency, are mentally sound, have never been convicted of a felony, and have had firearms training. Philly won’t issue CCW’s to anybody they don’t like.

Because the government in Philadelphia either cannot or will not convict a person of some crimes, but that person is “known” to be a criminal, they think that is justifiable reason to restrict a person’s rights. The Times laments that the State of Florida may grant a CCW permit to a person whom the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has denied. They seem to think the Florida standard of guilty until PROVEN innocent is extreme. They want to Florida to accept Pennsylvania’s standard of guilt by association. The Times tries to make this out to be a State’s Rights argument. They blame the agreement Florida has with Pennsylvania honoring the CCW permits issued from each other.

It is not a State’s Rights issue; Pennsylvania is free to change its laws, and/or modify its agreement to only honor Florida CCW permits from Florida residents or not honor Florida CCW permits at all. The Times fails to even recognize that people are Innocent until Proven Guilty, and accepts the standards of guilt by association, and guilty until proven innocent. Not one time to they think about the rights of individuals, nor consider that a person should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Yes, by the standard of treating people innocent until PROVEN guilty, some guilty people will get through the cracks, but as a society we long ago determined that it is better for some guilty people to go free, than infringe upon the basic rights of all people.

So what is the point in noting that the Philadelphia Inquirer and St. Petersburg Times have a bias against citizens having guns? Both of these newspapers have proven and long standing “liberal” bias, and have consistently held anti-gun positions. The point is not to further expose known truths about them, but to note that they are in fact not liberal newspapers. A liberal, by definition, is someone who is favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. The articles from both papers lament the fact that Florida honors and protects civil rights over the interest of the State. They conclude that the State should have the authority to restrict an individual’s civil liberties without due process or having to actually prove a person is guilty of something. They want to allow the State to instill a penalty for merely being suspect of committing a crime. They in fact are not “liberal” newspapers but “statist” rags. They actively promote principles and policies of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty. This is the very definition of Statism.

My open question to the Philadelphia Inquirer is why don’t you condemn the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for restricting fundamental rights of its citizens without due process?

My open question to the St. Petersburg Times is why do you consider Florida’s belief and protection of the concept that all individuals are “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” and as such should be treated as innocent unless actually convicted of a crime do you find radical or extreme?

Monopoly vs. Life

This political cartoon demonstrates two very clear and very wrong beliefs of Obama and liberals.



Major fallacy one) Regardless of the life choices a person makes given equal opportunity if everybody doesn't end up with the same results it isn't fair, and it's the governments job to redistribute the limited wealth available. In Monopoly everybody is given the same opportunities, there is some chance, but overall the decisions a person makes determines who has the most in the end.

Major Fallacy Two) Unlike Monopoly, life is not a zero sum game. Wealth can and is created by the value that individuals add to the capital they have. One person become wealthy is not at the expense of another. If a person is industrious, they can take dirt and water and heat and create something far more valuable than what they started with. A potter using simple inexpensive materials, time and talent creates value and wealth.



Zane Kuhle, the creator of this vase in no way cheats or forces his fellow man to pay him for his efforts, others are willing to take their capital and give it to him in exchange for his work. Thus by taking a few dollars of basic materials, the creator of that vase created a logarithmic increase in wealth.

Monopoly and life are similar in some ways:

Like Monopoly, everybody starts Life with exactly the same resource – time.

Like Monopoly, luck plays a role in Life- parents and their accumulated wealth, genetics, right time and place, all affect the final outcome.

Like Monopoly, risk plays a role in Life - choices to play it safe or risk your capital for future gain. In Monopoly you have choices like “do I buy Park Place and risk most of my capital hoping to land on Boardwalk, or save my capital for less profitable but more secure properties with higher chances of return.” In life you have choices like “do I practice sports as hard as I can and risk most of my study time hoping to land in professional sports, or do I invest my time for study to enter a less profitable but more secure employment market with higher chances of return?”

Life is unlike the game of Monopoly where nobody is allowed to create anything new or add value to any capital they have. The liberal mindset that there is only so much wealth and thus must be re-distributed in order to be fair is a fallacy they use to try and control others; it ignores the reality that the USA and most of its wealth was created from the free exchange of capital and work of the people, and that the individual decisions people make about what to do with what they have, determines how and where capital created and traded. Some luck is involved and natural talent helps, but overall those who take what they have and add more value to it create for themselves more wealth, and those who choose to waste what they have do not gather wealth.

Why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

Things are tough, unemployment hovers near 10%; there were only 71,000 new jobs created last month, but with 202 thosand jobs lost in the same period there was a net loss of 131,000 jobs, things don't look good. We are having to borrow money to extend unemployment benefits, and consumer spending is low. In light of this our government is subsidizing $40,000 toys for rich urbanites.

You can get $7500 off your taxes if you purchase a Government Motors Chevy Volt. The Volt is a $41,000 mid size car that is beyond the purchasing power of most Americans. It's limited range and design lead it to be an urban type car. So the extreme rich who can afford new $41,000 cars get to have a feel good toy, at the expense fo the average tax payer. Sorry this doesn't make sense to me. I'm not alone in this feeling,

Kenneth Green, an environmental scientist at the American Enterprise Institute says, "Like the EV1 that GM tried to peddle in the California market, the Volt is a vanity car for the well-off that will be subsidized by less well-off taxpayers at all stages, from R&D to sales and to the construction of charging stations."

Governemnt Motors is already owned and operated at taxpayer expense, the true cost of the volt is around $81,000 dollars according to blogger Doctor Zero So a government owned company is selling the electric car at 1/2 the cost of creating it, and is giving rich elite a $7500 tax credit if they choose to buy this overpriced toy.

I call it an overpriced toy, because the same car configured with a gasoline engine, the Chevy Cruze, costs $17,000 and gets 40mpg. Considering the extra energy and expense that goes into creating and recycling the electric version, environmentally it’s hard to justify the government losing $40,000 per car, and subsidizing its sale. Total cost to tax payers will be almost $47,500 per volt sold (correction: since the taxpayers only own 61% of GM, they will only lose $32,000 per car).

Now the pro-electric car, environmental extremists say that this is necessary to get the electric car industry up and running, and that this will allow technology to make them more affordable. Exactly how long should it take before we realize that the energy density of electric cars make them totally impractical for the vast majority of Americans. We've only been working on this for a little over 100 years.

Here is an ad for an early electric car.



At the time it sold for around $2600, and new batteries cost about $600, A new Model T cost $600 that same year. Note that today the Chevy Cruze sells for about the price difference between it and it's electric version the Volt. Interesting comparison is that to lectrify a car in 1914 cost the same as a basic car did and today electrifying a car cost about the same as a basic car does. Electric cars have been competing with gasoline/diesel cars for a century, they routinely lose for two reasons, they cost too much, and they have too little range. Even the Volt is dependent upon a gasoline engine, to make it a usable toy for the urban elite who can afford to spend $41,000 so they can feel good about the environment.

The volt's target market is upscale urbanites. It's safe to say that upscale urbanites, who are environmentally conscious and would choose to be early adopters of the Volt, are probably liberals. This demographic is one of the few that haven't abandoned Obama. It looks like he is spending taxpayer money to support what little base he has left.

Remember when Obama told Joe the Plumber, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too, My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."

I didn’t realize that rich liberal urbanites who can afford $41,000 cars needed a chance at success too. I’m outraged that to Obama "spreading the wealth" means subsidizing rich urbanites so they can pompously feel good about themselves for purchasing a echo-friendly midsized sedan, that Government Motors is selling at a loss. Would somebody please explain to me why is the Government using Taxpayer Money to Subsidize Upscale Urbanite Toys?

The Pretense of Knowledge

Walter Williams does it again, this article fully and simply explains why having the government not individuals make decisions like healthcare for everybody is a bad idea.

When elites make our decisions for us
Posted: December 01, 2009
By Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.

The ultimate constraint we all face is knowledge – what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Since you don't know the answers, who do you think, here on Earth, is likely to know and whom would you like to make these decisions for you – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? I bet that if these people were to forcibly make housing or marital decisions for us, most would deem it tyranny.

You say, "Williams, Congress is not making such monumental decisions that affect my life." Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year – purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business – and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance? Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh-and-blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Fairness vs Liberty

Start of Ben Shapiro's article Titled The 2nd French Revolution

"Every old ideological conflict eventually becomes new again. So it is with today's battle between the forces of socialism, called "fairness" by its advocates, and the forces of capitalism, labeled "liberty" by its supporters. What we are witnessing is an ancient struggle between those who believe in the rights of the individual and those who believe in a sort of "general will." Those of conservative bent ardently hope for a second American Revolution; those of the left wish desperately for a second French Revolution.

This is not mere rhetoric. Look at the history of the first American Revolution, and you will see the fundamental principles that animate Rush Limbaugh; look at the history of the first French Revolution, and you will see the spirit that animates President Barack Obama."

Please go read all of Ben Shapiro's artilce, he clearly defines the battle between going on for the political future of this country.

I love the quote he uses in John Adams' Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ratified in 1780, provides the basic framework for American governing philosophy: ""All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." The purpose of the government is to secure these rights.

Where do you stand on liberty vs fairness?