Special Interest Groups

Status: Ticked off at FDR.

FDR pioneered a brilliant political strategy, special interest groups.  A politician supports one particular group so that the group will vote for them.  FDR did this with multiple groups.  B.O. put funding for special interest groups in the stimulus package.  I call him B.O. because he stinks.  What's worse is that the special interest groups that he's helping is teacher unions.

This article points out how exactly unions are special interest groups.  Unions support democratic candidates.  What do the candidates give in return?  How about some nice, green tinted pictures of Benjamin Franklin.  Where do they get the money?  Well, they take some from the tax payers and borrow some from China.  Of course borrowing from China will get us kicked in the butt.  But my point is that in a way, B.O. is now forcing us to make contributions to his campaign.

Is B.O. really above Washington?  Not at all.  We need to tell people about this funding of special interest groups.  Many were deceived by B.O. and they need to realize their mistake.  Some will still cling to their messiah like a Pennsylvanian clings to his their guns and religion.  (Please note that I said "his" instead of "his or her".)  By the way, Pennsylvanians are angry and bitter at politicians, and that is something worth being angry over.

James Tuttle

End Log.

Day 106 - Inflation, Stupidity on the Rise

Status: Thinking. Hi, yes, I'm still here, though I've been busy recently, and overwhelmed at the speed with which the Obama Administration has been moving. Unfortunately, the Stimulus (read "Spending") Bill has been passed. [Read/search the bill here]

Apparently, I like getting into political fights on the internet as well, because recently I got into another one. This one was on the aforementioned bill. The thread's title was "Do you believe the Stimulus bill was really bipartisan? I don't.". This lead to a discussion where I got involved. The following transcript occurred: [Thread Viewable Here]

I (tustin2121) said:

Politics! Gah! I don't want to get involved, but....

No, the bill isn't bipartisan, but the Dems WANT it to be bipartisan so that when it fails, they can blame Republicans. (Note: not "if" it fails, but when, because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation, which is BAD for the economy. If there were tax cuts in there, there won't be when they're done with it. And I know they're gonna try and slip in a few things that Republicans should hate too.)

Person A said:

tustin2121:

Politics! Gah! I don't want to get involved, but....

cause major inflation, which is BAD for the economy. If there were tax cuts in there, there won't be when they're done with it. And I know they're gonna try and slip in a few things that Republicans should hate too.)

Step outside sir.

You *Punches tustin* will not *backhand* talk utter *knees Tustin in the face* crap in economic *crushes Tustin's nose* terms *final punch* again.

As you can see, economic ignorance is something that makes me deeply angry.

I responded:

Excuse me?! Economic Crap?! What makes me economically ignorant? PLEASE point out my flaws instead of simply beating me up! This isn't a counter argument, it's violence (albeit fake violence, but you get the point).

Also, if you're going to quote me, quote my entire statement, thank you. You seemed to have left out a vital part of my argument...

Person B responded:

Indeed he did. He's right though.
tustin2121:

because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation

This is wrong.

I respond:

No it isn't. Listen: money only has a certain value if a) it is backed by something of real value (eg Gold) or b) it is limited in quantity in proportion to all the goods in the market. Money by itself does not have any value; the paper bill has no intrinsic value, and most coins now a days are made of worthless pot-metal.

If there's more money in the system then there is value, then the value per money unit (eg. the dollar) drops (simple division here). When the value per dollar drops, people have to pay more dollars to get the same valued item, which is "rising prices", which is "inflation".

MMO designers and managers know this, because they use the same concept in games that have an economy. If there the value of their currency starts to fall, they'll create "gold sinks", which in the games usually are NPC shop owners and the like. When a player pays for something from the gold sink, the gold is taken from the player and taken out of the economy, which keeps the value of the gold from dropping.

Creating a money sink in real life is much much harder, because only the Federal Reserve, and by extension the Government, has the ability (or rather, the interest) to take money out of the system; everyone else wants and needs to use the money.

Therefore, generating money out of nowhere, like the stimulus bill proposes, will flood the market with representations of value (money) when no real value is being produced, and will cause hyper-inflation. QED.

Person B replies:

tustin2121:

Therefore, generating money out of nowhere, like the stimulus bill proposes, will flood the market with representations of value (money) when no real value is being produced, and will cause hyper-inflation. QED.

Oh, I won't argue about a bill I don't know anything about, but your initial post said:
tustin2121:

because spending several billion dollars will, if already hasn't, cause major inflation

and that is plain wrong. Investments can be the way to counteract inflation. I won't argue your poins on the specific bill, 'cause I can't be bothered to research it. But what you wrote there, was very wrong.

As for
tustin2121:

No it isn't. Listen: money only has a certain value if a) it is backed by something of real value (eg Gold) or b) it is limited in quantity in proportion to all the goods in the market. Money by itself does not have any value; the paper bill has no intrinsic value, and most coins now a days are made of worthless pot-metal.

That is wrong too. The world eceonomy runs on one central things today: optimism. I'm not BS'ing here.

I replied:

How can one statement be wrong and the other right when both are saying the same thing? Are we talking in double speak now? In order to spend the 700+ billion dollars, someone has to generate it first. Simply making the money does nothing if it doesn't get spent into the economy. Therefore, they go hand in hand when it comes to this.

[And] Yes, the economy does run on optimism, or as I like to call it, a promise; the promise was that this dollar has value. We run on this optimism because we scrapped the "backed by gold" in the 20's-30's, and we are now scrapping the "proportional value" with this bill. We are breaking the promise that we wouldn't make more representations of value than there is value by making billions of representations of value without making new value (or making very little of it).

Of course, more is to come, but I do think that people are getting slowly dumber as time goes on. This isn't rocket science, and I sure hope I explained the non-rocket-science to them well enough...

End Log.

Legotown

Status: Annoyed.

This is James Tuttle.  I know that this article is old, but I need to comment on it.  So I now feel feel like playing with legos because it is a toy which teaches kids the values of capitalism.  Let me start by talking about Legotown.

Legotown is a capitalist town.  Some people have more than others.  People keep trying to produce something of value so that they can get more.  The people who move up are the hardest workers and the people who contribute the most to the town.  As production goes up, people get jobs and the producers can afford to pay the workers more money.  It works out great.

Suddenly, Legotown turns to communism.  People say, "I won't work harder because it won't get me anywhere."  This will drop production and lower everyone's standard of living.  Whatever gets produced, does not get produced well because no one has any incentive to produce it well.  Workers will not work efficiently, and the producers don't care, because people who produce more efficiently do not get rewarded.  Some people even have creative ideas.  Some are medical devices to help improve the quality of lives and even saves lives.  Others are tools for people in different lines of work.  These tools help others do their jobs at a quicker pace and saves them money.  Some of these workers are contractors who can now charge less with the help of the tools, saving somebody else money.  But these ideas don't get invented because the inventors can't earn extra money for them.

The new equal government housing is terrible.  Without much being produced, they cannot build great houses.  They can improve some houses, but not every house, so they don't improve any house.  Did I say house?  I'm sorry.  I meant apartment, without a yard for kids to play in.  And some families are too big for their apartment.  The government is trying to create different sized apartments for different sized families, but that is not going well.

Now let's talk about eminent domain.  It's fine for government to take somebody's property to be used as a road.  The real problem is when it is taken and given to a private company.  If a private company wants it, they need to pay what it's worth, which is what the owner is willing to accept for it.  If they don't want to sell it, then they are simply exercising their right to private property, which is necessary for a healthy economy.

Individuals and companies in the private sector know how to best use and allocate resources.  Government cannot do that.  Why?  Because the incentive to make profit forces producers to produce what is best for society.  That incentive for profit does not exist in government.

I now feel like reading The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.  He is an economist who developed the ideas of capitalism.  Also, raise your kids on Legos so that they will learn the way of capitalism.

End Log.

Day 90 - "Islam is the Light"

Status: Addressing it finally. I've been holding this back for a little bit now, but I think it's time to show it to the world.

I recently came across this article on FrontPage Magazine entitled "What Islam Isn't". It gives graphic details on how Islam is more than just a Religion, but a freaking full force system. It "has religious, legal, political, economic and military components" with the religious component as just the maiden-head to bring about all the others, to take control. A video was made off of it, that does well to deliver the message:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8789NMWZ9EI

Now I know Correlation does not equal Causation, but given the very strong correlation, maybe its worth a gander? And I know that quite a few Muslims are anything but terrorists and just want to live in peace, but I think that they are simply ignorant of the power that Islamic system is capable of and how the "radicals" use it to take control of places. And while no one will listen to me, I advise that these individuals who simply want peace branch off into a new Religion, based on the teachings of Islam that they hold dear, but without the system of Islam detailed in the article above.

You want proof beyond these statistics? Try this recent discovery: [CrunchGear] A Nintendo DS game was discovered recently to have the EXACT SAME AUDIO as the infamous "Islam is the Light" doll. As the video on the page details, the phrase "Islam is the light" is uttered by this children's toy when the kids are playing with it. The phrase is the ONLY thing distinguishable as speech in the bunches of gibberish babbled by the baby doll (and DS game). Those who pass it off as gibberish need to have their ears cleaned and those that pass is off as "Go into the light" need to realize that "Go" does not have the "S" phoneme in there anywhere! Here lies the Principle "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

End Log.

Line By Line: Teaching Children the Pleasures of Gay Sex

Oh I wish I was making this up...

Welcome to Line-By-Line!WARNING: If you can see this line, than the following transcript may not be formatted properly: you will not be able to tell the article from the commentary. Please go to the original post to see the proper Line-By-Line output transcript.
Please enter the URL of the news article you will be berating today.
>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091608.html

Now Loading Article...
Title: U.K Government Funded Project Teaches Children as Young as Five About the "pleasures of gay sex"
Author: Hilary White
News Source: LifeSiteNews
Release Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Area: London

Begin Article:

From the earliest primary grades, school children in Britain should be taught about homosexual relations, a government funded education research project has said.

Heba...hooba....wwhe....WHAT?!?! Whoa!! Where did THIS come from?!?!

No Outsiders, a 28-month, tax-funded research project funded by the government's Economic and Social Research Council, is already functioning in 14 primary schools in Britain, using books, puppet shows and plays to teach children as young as five about the "pleasures of gay sex."

"The Pleasures of GAY SEX"?!?!?! WHY do we need to teach CHILDREN the pleasures of GAY SEX?! AT AGE FIVE?!?!?!

The project is costing British taxpayers £600,000 (Cn. $1,143,989) and is being promoted in schools under the rubric of combating "homophobic bullying" in schools.

At Age FIVE?! Kids don't even know what sex IS at age five! Why the HELL would you need to COMBAT Homiphobic BULLYING at AGE FIVE?!?!

No no no, there's more to this than combating bullying, I know there is.

At a seminar this week at Exeter University, the project's members and supporters said they will go beyond what is taught to the children in schools, and "interrogate" the "desexualisation of children's bodies", [...]

Interrogate what?! The "Desexualization" of children's bodies?! You're the one sexualizing children! You want to teach children the pleasures of gay sex!

[...] "the negation of pleasure and desire in educational contexts" [...]

The removal of pleasure and desire is usually a GOOD thing. Just look at any single sex school out there! And you want to introduce pleasure and desire?!

[...] and "the tendency to shy away from discussion of (sexual) bodily activity." The ultimate goal, they wrote, is to create "primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated."

"Celebrated", huh? So we are going to hold a celebration everyday for gay student (who I might remind everyone, are only five years old). WHY?!

Papers prepared for the seminar by the No Outsiders project leaders say that the seminar will question the "taken-for-granted" status of the "supposedly sexless" primary classroom.

Primary School Classrooms ARE sexless!! There's no such thing as sex when we're dealing with five year olds!! The only concept children have about sex when they're FIVE YEARS OLD is that the opposite sex has COOTIES!!

The project will examine "'the place of the research team members' own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research."

Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight: You are going to examine your own bodies, desires, and pleasures in reaserch involving small children and teaching them about the pleasures of gay sex. Does anyone else see where this is heading?!?!?!

Elizabeth Atkinson, a project leader, however, denied that this week's seminar was connected to the No Outsiders work in classrooms. "The seminar is part of a long-standing academic debate and has nothing to do with schools," she said. "It has no connection with sex education."

It just hit me that the group that is "studying" the "sexual pleasures" of children, and doing "work in the classroom" is called "No Outsiders". No Outsiders, as in, "we don't want YOU CLOSE-MINDED PARENTS involved in our study of children... oh... oh hoh!" REMEMBER PARENTS: Being closed minded is a GOOD THING!!

The seminar document admits that the researchers are responding to "accusations of the corruption of innocent children" [...]

NO!!!!! Having sex with children in a classroom setting ISN'T CORRUPTING CHILDREN!!! NO!!!!!

[...] that has "led team members to make repeated claims that this project is not about sex or desire - and that it is therefore not about bodies.

No, it's just about teaching kids the pleasure of gay sex, which, I might add, by pure definition MEANS that it IS about their bodies, since their bodies are what experiance the pleasure.

"Yet, at a very significant level," they said, "that is exactly what it is about and to deny this may have significant negative implications for children and young people."

Oh, good, there's someone there with a FREAKING QUARTER OF A BRAIN!!!

Questions for discussion outlined in the seminar schedule, include: "How might we create primary classrooms where gender-queer bodies and queer sexualities (for children and teachers) are affirmed and celebrated?"; [...]

Um.... we don't. Because if we did, that would detract from, say, ACTUAL LEARNING! Oh, wait, we don't care about that...

[...]"What would it take to teach queerly? How would teachers' and children's bodies be implicated in this? What sorts of subversions and reversals might it entail?" [...]

Um... is the word "Impacted" a good word to use in the context of "teachers' and children's bodies" and "teaching queerly"? And by God, what the hell is "Teach Queerly" supposed to mean?!

[...] and, "At what cost do we deny children's and teachers' sexuality? What do we lose if desire and pleasure are banned from the classroom?"

WHAT WE LOSE IS YOUR FREAKING SOCIALIST CONCEPT OF SEXUALIZING CHILDREN!!!! THAT'S WHAT WE LOSE!!! These people are going to give me a heart attack!

LISTEN, You Queer Socialists, A) children are NOT sexual beings! They do not live around sex and they do not care about sex, as opposed to YOU SCUMBAGS!! In fact, most of THE WORLD does not LIVE around SEX. You Are The EXCEPTION!!, And B) We have been "denying" people's sexuality in the classroom for about TWO HUNDRED YEARS now, and no one's complained until YOU want to go have SEX in the FREAKING CLASSROOM!!!

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute, however, has responded to the seminar, saying, "When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police."

Oh my God, a SANE INDIVIDUAL!!! THANK YOU!!!

The project's supporters include the National Union of Teachers, the General Teaching Council for England, Stonewall, the homosexualist political lobby and "Schools Out", a homosexualist promotion project for schools.

And all of these groups should be JAILED for considering this..... thing in the classroom. FIVE YEAR OLDS!!! They want to do this to five year olds!

Oh I am definatly sleeping well tonight after this rampage...

Thank you for choosing Line-By-Line! Good Bye!
C:\>
End Transcript.