Outside The Asylum

An interesting comparison I just ran across- Iraqi Refugees call the American Dream, a "Bad Dream" . Threatened at home by death threats on the door, they came to America in search of security, only to be threatened in America by eviction notices on the door. And in this economy, when even Americans are going, on average, 56 weeks without work, how is an Iraqi Immigrant, who may have worked as a translator for our troops, injured in the line of duty, going to find work or even medical insurance? When our economy and our health care system is worse than that under Saddam Hussien, you know we're in trouble!

But it's been the busiest month of my life. FIVE weekends away from home. So I just this week returned to Economic Populist, and got myself into trouble right away for insisting on the Classical Economics definition of wealth with respect to day trading: http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/wall-street-transaction-tax#comment-9271 Note that right after chastising ME for being outside of economic Theory, Robert Oak posts a comment titled "Adam Smith was wrong"- well, if you're just going to change economic theory on a whim, you can't expect everybody else to keep up. This led to me pulling an instapopulist on this story as well: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27260 Which admittedly came from a slashdot post, from that well known Conspiracy Theorist and Georgia Farmer, Zogger: http://slashdot.org/~zogger/journal/236375 Which Robert Oak objected to because I used the term Gross World Product interchangibly with Global Gross Domestic Product. I still wou...

Or better yet, is it a component of being pro-homosexual to believe in the overpopulation myth to the point of being for the extinction of the human race? Tony Jones asked the difficult question theologically, about what was sinful about a homosexual, MONOGAMOUS relationship. The answer I finally reached is this: That under John Paul II's theology of the body, sex for recreation alone will always be inferior to sex for procreation and unification. And to remove either procreation (sex in a couple that is naturally infertile) or unification (sex in a couple that is either not married or intends to get divorced) also degrades the concept irreparably. So therefore, I have to ask the question- what is the ultimate purpose of homosexuality in a society? And I can only think of ONE purpose- to end that society with a degraded form of sexuality that is neither procreative nor unitive.

The other half of the argument I would have presented here if not for censorship on EP is that for the past 20 years, abortion has been the *only* cause of the demographic problem in the United States, in that if we merely do what it takes to provide compensation for motherhood to lower the abortion rate by half for 20 years, the demographic problem will *disappear* completely. That to me is economics and math, not morality- but there's a ban on EP for talking about anti-choice economics.

I had a reply to this but it either wasn't "fact based" enough or not economics enough. Or I messed up trying to post it. At any rate, it better belongs here than on EP anyway: Americans are weird creatures. Our liberals like progress, our conservatives like freedom. Between the two, we have no real liberals (who prefer status quo utopias that attempt to maximize freedom) or real conservatives (who prefer status quo utopias that attempt to maximize order). Our conservatives crave freedom more than order; and so support the chaos of the free market and think that getting the Chinese to float the Yuan will magically erase the trade deficit; where real conservatives would probably either ban Chinese trade outright or use a public corporation charter to limit imports from China to be equal to exports to China. Our liberals prefer progress- and thus are often for change regardless of who the change hurts, merely for the sake of change and trying out something new. Betwee...

Under what absolutely insane form of economics is 20% profit taking sustainable? All the clues were in these two videos from more than a year ago....

I'm sure many people will disagree with what I write in this blog, that's OK, it's your right to disagree, and I'm not going to censor anything. But my grandmother taught me to read Ann Landers- and when her daughter Amy took over the column, I started reading that too. Today's first letter completely missed the real worry- and mislabeled it as simple discrimination or homophobia. I give Amy and the University only 1/2 point though. Would you put a female lesbian in a dorm room with a straight 18 year old human male? Would you put a female heterosexual in a dorm room with a straight 18 year old human male? No, because in both those scenarios, the chance of rape is actually quite high. It might not happen still, but being forced to enjoy one another's company long periods will cause at least the fear of rape in the female. Either that or it will turn into a romance. So why would a straight male, roomed with a homosexual male, feel any different than the fe...