Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Even one is one too many

From the environmental perspective, God is the enemy of earth.

While the general narrative in most religions runs to the effect that "God created this world", that may not be the case. Think about this: over the past thousands of years, and especially in the last couple hundred years, human beings have prospered at the cost of other species of flora and fauna. Human development has been intimately proportional to the detriment of other earth-dwellers; for all our so-called "environmental awareness", this continues to be the case.

Every new house that is built takes the earth underneath away from its former inhabitants. Ever new square foot of cropland takes away from forests. Nearly every act of significance you do in the modern world leaves some kind of effluent on earth.

It is then plausible that God is really the antithesis of earth. God is in a perpetual fight with earth; human beings are His/Her soldiers.

The two most important institutions of God's war/propaganda machine are religion and economics. The dominant doctrines in both these areas are based on a heavy reliance on procreation or growth. Think of the anti-abortion movement as an example of the former, and the the idea of "demographic dividend" as one of the latter.

Read this letter by one of my favorite libertarian writer/economist, where he berates a newspaper for suggesting that bigger populations bring misery. The pro-population thinking is almost the bedrock of libertarian thought. Etlamatey consider himself libertarian-leaning in most affairs, but here he peels away.

Monday, May 09, 2011

Two stories

A few days ago, US Congressman Joseph Crowley from New York did this on the floor of the House:



I'll be! For those too young to know, too old to remember, or too disrespectful to care, Crowley stands on the shoulder of a giant. Bob, the Bob, the mother of all lyrical Bobs, did it first:



Note: The message in both presentations is make-believe.

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Denial of a crisis foretold

Buttonwood has an interesting chronology of the widespread denial that has accompanied the financial crisis. It is worth your time:
Back in 2005 and 2006 received wisdom denied that the rapid growth of subprime mortgages was a problem. American house prices were extremely unlikely to fall at the national level. In any case, the debt had been widely spread among investors thanks to the derivatives market.

Once the subprime woes became obvious optimists still argued that their economic impact would be limited. The banks downplayed the extent of their exposure to subprime lending. As the scale of their exposure was revealed they switched tack to argue that they had a liquidity, rather than a solvency, problem.

When the banks duly had to be bailed out and debt was transferred from the private to the public sector, a further layer of denials was needed. The finances of governments are not like those of individual households, it was said. Governments have the power to tax and to print money, and have recovered from high debt-to-GDP ratios in the past.
The denial continues as we speak. For instance, most bits on punditry on popular media talk about how the housing market has now surely "bottomed out", the very same assessment that has been made for the past 3 years...

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

Why entitlements make no sense


Click image to enlarge.(Link)

Monday, May 02, 2011

I have no love to spare for warmongers...

....but funny is funny.

Sunday, May 01, 2011

There are no human rights abuses when you are at 30,000 feet

What is the difference between suicide-bombing innocents in a bus for a purported cause, and blowing up innocents in an air attack, also for a purported cause?

A NATO assassination attempt on Moammar Gaddafi in Tripoli is said to have killed one of his sons (who had little involvement with his father's regime) and three grandchildren. For all we know, the news may be fabricated, but only underscores the fact that 'targeted' NATO bombing in Libya is likely to have killed innocents.

This is not to defend Gaddafi, but to point out the moral hazard involved with foreigners' intervention in a quarrel that is not theirs to fight.

* * *

In other news, US Senator John McCain lambasted the Chief Warmonger for "taking a backseat role in Libya". He wants America to lead NATO's war on Libya, not just be a part of it.

Two weeks ago, McCain was in rebel-controlled Libya himself, whence he argued for greater material support to the rebels. Said he:
"Same thing we did in Afghanistan...weapons delivery can be facilitated."
Of course, delivering weapons is second nature to the federal government of the United States.

Ever since the Libyan revolution started, there has been an argument that the violent but relatively secular Gaddafi regime will be replaced by a more Islamist one. McCain turned this argument on its head:
"If there is a stalemate (in Libya), it could open the doors to radical Islamic fundamentalism..."
True that. Except that it is likely to happen even if the rebels come to power. Just like the fall of Saddam Hussein opened the doors of Iraq to religious extremists (Psst, here is a secret - Mr. McCain egged on that regime change as enthusiastically as in Libya).

It is hard to say who the more attention-hungry performer is: McCain or Donald Trump.









See, you go to war for me, and I clown for you.
free html hit counter