About Me

Name: Mark Holt
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Tetris for my iPod

Posted by Mark Holt on Monday, November 10, 2008 2:31:34 PM
I had an interesting experience yesterday.  I learned a profound lesson while I watched my nephews fighting over, of all things, a video game.  They both wanted Tetris on their iPods.  One of them (we'll call him Nephew R) wanted it so much he was willing to buy it.  The other (we'll call him Nephew D) didn't want it bad enough to pay full price for it.  He wasn't sure how much he would be willing to pay for it, but it wasn't full price.

(Keep in mind, one copy of Tetris was enough to install on both iPods.  For this discussion we'll ignore any possible legal issues that arise from this--since I'm only their uncle and not their dad--and just examine the moral issue that arose.)

The enterprising Nephew D came up with a solution.  Nephew R could buy it for both of them!  What a glorious solution he had found!  What a wonderful world of free Tetris he was now going to inhabit!

The only problem came when Nephew R thought that wasn't fair.  "Why don't we both pay half of the cost?" he asked.  But to Nephew D, this was stealing.  Nephew D knew that Nephew R already planned to buy the game.  He knew Nephew R had already mentally spent the full price on Tetris for his iPod.  Plus, Nephew R is the older brother.  Presumably, he has more money than Nephew D.  Therefore, Nephew D should be able to benefit from Nephew R's purchases without contributing a cent.  Nephew R, for his part, was somehow able to resist the obvious logical superiority of his younger brother, and stuck to his guns.

Nephew D was so upset (not to mention deluded) that he took it to the local Government: his mom.  Now, had this been any other household in my family (most of whom voted for--and love--Obama), it would have been an open and shut case: you already budgeted the money, and you have more of it, therefore you will give your brother Tetris for his iPod.

But this sister didn't.  For whatever crazy reason, she didn't see it the same way as her 12-year-old.  She told her son, the much-abused Nephew D, that she would not force Nephew R to give him Tetris for his iPod.  If he wanted the game so much, he could pay for half of it.  Or he could find some other way to convince his brother to share willingly.  Or he could do without.

Nephew D squealed and screamed like he had been poked in the eye.  He was so upset that he shouted at his mom, he shouted at his brother, and ran to his room crying, slamming the door behind him.

No one went after him.  No one even missed him--after all, before he left, he was annoying everyone, and after he left, we were all still perfectly able to keep doing what we had been doing--including downloading (and buying) Tetris for our iPods if we so chose.

I took Nephew R aside, and took advantage of the opportunity to explain the obvious parallels of his situation to economics.  There is no need to repeat them here--I will assume any of my readers could do the same.

After several minutes, Nephew D emerged, much calmed by the time he had spent alone in his room without being able to play Tetris.  He made amends with his brother, told him he still wanted Tetris for his iPod, and that he was now willing to share the cost of something they would both receive.  A deal was struck, and Tetris playing and brotherly love ensued.

The profound lesson came from pondering this question: what would have happened if mom could be replaced by Nephew D at will, for a different mom that would force Nephew R to "share?"

I leave answering this question as an excercise for the reader.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

George W. Bush is Now Evil

Posted by Mark Holt on Friday, October 03, 2008 1:14:02 PM
For quite some time now, I have defended George W. Bush to his critics.  When they said he had plans to invade Iraq before 9-11, I said he was just preparing for contingencies.  When they said he knew there were no WMD there, I said he believed the same intelligence reports that fooled everyone.  When they said he was stupid, I said he had no gift for public speaking.  Whatever they said, I had an answer.  But this week, I stopped.

I don't have an answer why our President would put a 435-page, $700 Billion burden in front of Congress, with less than a day to read it and no time for debate, and then use all of the power of his office and every ounce of the shrinking influence left to him, to force them to endorse it.  This bill is so full of pork that pigs the world over are worried about bacon inflation.

I recall a similarly proposed bill from a few years ago.  It introduced prescription drugs into our already budget-crushing medicare entitlement.  Also too long to read quickly, also forced on lawmakers with no time.  Also championed with irresistible zealotry by George W. Bush.

Why is it that "urgent" problems demand the crappiest solution we can find?  Why is the government that created the problem suddenly uniquely qualified to craft a solution?  What worthy endeavor ever bettered the world by rewarding the guilty in the dead of night?

Never again will I defend George W. Bush.  Although he has done much good,  he has done it while increasing the burden of government on the citizens of America to a degree unprecedented.  And I can no longer deceive myself that it is not deliberate.  It is deliberate.  And it is greedy, and it is unconstitutional, and I am worried that it might even be, yes, evil.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice for well over 700 Billion dollars, shame on my grandkids.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Taxing the Poor and Giving to the Rich

Posted by Mark Holt on Friday, October 03, 2008 12:44:48 PM
Every election cycle, Democrats spout the platitude that, somehow, the rich are to blame for all the problems of the poor and middle class.  This they then use as justification for whatever tax strategy they think will increase revenue, so they can use our money to buy more votes the following cycle.  So far so good.  But why does no Republican ever bring up the fact that these so-called "progressives" are, in fact, extremely regressive in their financial strategy?

Obama is a perfect example.  He claims to want to reduce the income tax burden on the poor by raising it on the rich.  But here's his problem: Every one of his expensive programs would increase deficit spending, and therefore inflation, and inflation is a regressive tax, which hits the poor hardest. 

Think of it this way: certain things in our economy have been proven to hold their value.  Real estate (especially if it produces a commodity such as food or oil) is a good example.  Gold is another.  Ownership shares in a profitable business.  All of these hold their value when the dollar falls (in other words, their price goes up, and their value appears to increase over time).  These kinds of hard assets are where the rich keep their money.

Where do the poor keep their money?  Probably in cash.  They're just trying to scrape together enough to have an emergency fund, or maybe a down payment on a home.  Perhaps their money is in a 401(k) or IRA retirement plan.  These hard-working, trusting souls save their money in the hopes that, over time, life will improve.  They think that by saving their money, they can escape the burden of taxation.

But regressive politicians (including, unfortunately, presidential candidates from both parties) have shown no compunction in flooding the world with newly printed dollars to encourage spending.  And each newly created dollar steals a little bit of value from every existing dollar out there.  Is your nest egg in dollars?  Then the government gets a chunk.  The dollars the Fed prints don't come from the rich, whose money is in hard assets.  They come from the poor, and those with their money in cash.  And the dollars don't go to the poor, who, when the dust clears, Democrats don't care about that much at all.  Those dollars go straight to the rich, in the form of government subsidies and bailouts.

The reason our income tax system is progressive isn't compassion, as the left would have you believe.  It's to balance out the regression inherent in our financial system as implemented by the Fed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time to Stop Chearleading for the Cheerleader

Posted by Mark Holt on Friday, October 03, 2008 12:11:22 PM
As a pretty staunch conservative, I was just as pumped as everyone else was when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.  She brought an energy and a focus that was sorely lacking to the campaign.  And I do believe that all of the smear tactics that have been employed against her are totally bogus.

So we know that Sarah Palin has been treated unfairly.  But does it follow that she is deserving of all the praise she receives from the right?  In the several public appearances she has made, the only one in which she really shone was the Republican Convention.  Here are some of the mistakes she has made that it does conservatives no good to ignore:

  1. In front of reviewers, she is often visibly uncomfortable if not clearly intimidated.

  2. Her command of political facts has been, shall we say, less than perfect.

  3. When questioned on the Bush doctrine, she clearly had no idea what it was.

  4. When questioned on her favorite media sources, she said "all of them."

  5. When asked to name a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed, she said she would get back to the reviewer.

  6. At the debate, she missed at least a dozen opportunities to pounce on Joe Biden, who, time after time, lied about his stance or Obama's (and especially McCain's), dropped hints about his true agenda, or left an opening where she could have exposed the rift between them.  However, because she was almost entirely on the defensive, she capitalized only one or two of them.

  7. Again at the debate, she dodged question after question from Joe Biden, when it would have been the easiest thing in the world to respond.  I could almost see the training sessions in which she was told "don't let HIM pick the topic, just keep guiding the attention back toward your strengths."  The problem was, she was too shaken to realize that that advice didn't apply.  She should have given a solid answer before attacking--and in each case, there did exist an easy, solid answer.

  8. When questioned on her stance about the bailout, she spouted some utterly nonsensical garbage about health care and job creation.  Now, I don't expect her to be an economist, but she should know some basic finance (she could learn more than Obama knows by reading a single book on the subject).
In short, though her heart is obviously in the right place and she is undoubtedly a very capable woman, she was brought up too early from the minors.  I was forced to think hard during last night's VP debate whether I would want her as President.  The answer was a very clear "no."  If forced to make a choice between Obama and Palin, obviously, I would choose Palin.  I would rather have someone grow into the job and make mistakes than deliberately take us in the wrong direction.  But that isn't the ideal choice that should have been placed before us.

Since John McCain's victory on Super Tuesday, I knew I would have to vote for him.  My main reason for voting for him has gone from Hillary, to Obama, then briefly to Palin.  Now I'm back to Obama.  It's just unfortunate that the main reason I'm voting for the Republican candidate is not the candidate himself. And just as unfortunately, nor is it his running mate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That's What You Get For Makin' Whoopi

Posted by Mark Holt on Monday, September 15, 2008 5:51:10 PM
On a recent appearance on the View, John McCain came under fire from most of the panel members on the issue of abortion.  After discussing this, Whoopi Goldberg said one of the most insulting and ignorant things I have ever heard anyone ask a candidate for President.  First, I'll recap the abortion discussion, then we'll get to the issue of Whoopi.  They asked him what kind of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court.  He replied, as most Republicans do, that he has no litmus test.  But he went a little farther and gave them some honesty.  When asked, he said that he disapproved of Roe v. Wade.  But his honesty was actually misleading, for two reasons:

First of all, what a President thinks of any decision matters not at all.  Presidents are unable to dictate to justices they appoint on any issues before them.  A justice may indicate his or her opinion on an issue, but they never do.  This would be like rendering a decision on a case before hearing the evidence.  So, when a President says he does not have a litmus test, that is right--because even if he did, it would mean exactly nothing.  The only thing the President knows is the appointee's general philosophy and level of judicial activism.  Both of which can change.  So a President has little control over reversing Roe v. Wade.  More control than you or me, but still, little control.

Second of all, there was sort of a murmuring uproar in the room after McCain voiced his disapproval of Roe v. Wade.  Neither the hosts nor the audience paid attention to the rest of his thought, which was the reason that he disapproves of Roe v. Wade.  What they assumed was that he disapproved because it legalized abortion.  But, in fact, he said he disapproved because Roe v. Wade granted powers to the federal government it should never have had.  He didn't say he wanted to ban abortion.  He said it should be an issue for the states.  Which, again, is exactly right.  Not to mention the fact that Roe v. Wade technically didn't legalize abortion.  But that's a topic for another post.  The point is, no matter how much those in the federal government might approve or disapprove of abortion, they shouldn't have any legal means of enforcing their opinion on the country.  At least, not on the shaky "privacy" grounds of Roe v. Wade.  When John McCain said he disapproved of Roe v. Wade, he was expressing concern about its legality, and not its morality.  Of course, the reason its legality matters more than that of similar cases is because so many people question its morality.  But there is still a difference between questioning the morality of a decision, and questioning the legality of that decision.

What John McCain did was show his deep respect for the law and the Constitution.  In spite of the fact that he must deeply disapprove of Roe v. Wade on a personal level, he made no objection to it on moral grounds.

Then followed a discussion on exactly what it means to be a Strict Constructionist.  Most of my readers won't need that definition repeated.  But Whoopi, even after learning what it was (we can only presume, for the first time), seemed determined not to understand.  This was when she fired this shot at McCain:
SENATOR McCAIN: No, I want people who interpret the Constitution of the United States the way our founding fathers envision for them to do.

GOLDBERG: Should I worry about being a slave, being returned to a slave? Because certain things returned to the Constitution that you had to change.  (loud cheers and applause from audience)

SENATOR McCAIN: I understand that, and I get it. Thank you.
McCain said the only thing he could say.  What do you say to something so deeply stupid?  And how do you react when that stupidity seems to be widespread among everyone in the room?  You just politely acknowledge it and move on.  Why was it stupid, and why was it insulting?

It was insulting for the obvious reason that it assumes McCain wants a return to slavery.  For her to "worry" about being returned to slavery, someone would have to get a slavery case to the Supreme Court.  Well, in today's America, I doubt one person in ten million wants slavery back.  That case isn't going to be heard. Ever.  When she uses the word you in "certain things ... you had to change," is she insinuating that somehow John McCain had something to do with slavery?  If that is a joke about his age, it's actually funny; if it is, as it appears to be, a sincere insinuation, it is a mortal insult, delivered without reason on a man who had done nothing to deserve it.

It was stupid because, if there was ever a slavery case before the Supreme Court, then a Strict Constructionist would be Whoopi's best friend.  A strict constructionist justice could never reinstate slavery (Ms. Goldberg has perhaps heard of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments); only an activist justice, legislating "from the bench," could do that.

What John McCain did not say, and perhaps should have, is that it was the election of the first Republican president that started the war on slavery.  The South knew Abraham Lincoln would slowly circumscribe slavery, and set it on a "path to eventual extinction," as he put it, so they had no choice but to give up their slaves or secede.  It was also a Republican congress and President who brought the above mentioned amendments about.  The Republican party came into existence for the very purpose of abolishing slavery.

So perhaps when Ms. Goldberg said, of slavery and the Constition, that there were "certain things . . . that you had to change," she wasn't delivering an insult after all.  Perhaps she was simply expressing her thanks, for amending the constitution to abolish slavery.  And, in the absence of Abe Lincoln, her closest option was John McCain, the nominee of Abe's Republican Party.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Federal Curriculum?

Posted by Mark Holt on Friday, September 12, 2008 1:57:42 PM
For a social and fiscal conservative, Obama represents many things that are downright scary.  Vast expansion of entitlement programs.  Rising taxes.  An almost insane dedication to abortion rights.  But the scariest thing I've ever heard come out of his mouth happened just this week, and no one noticed.

On Tuesday, Obama uttered these words, in the broader context of discussing No Child Left Behind:
"Let's finally help our teachers and principals develop a curriculum and assessments that teach our kids to become more than just good test-takers."
To understand why this is such a scary statement, let's examine it a moment.  The most telling phrase is "develop a curriculum."  If you're not scared yet, let me tell you why you should be.  In order to do so, I will quote from the book Nazism: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts, 1919-1945, J. Noakes and G. Pridham, editors.  Page numbers are in parentheses.

In every modern totalitarian regime, leaders have used education to cement their own power.  Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito all had as a priority deciding what went into schools.  Why?
"The Nazi leadership appreciated the difficulty of indoctrinating the older generation.... They were all the more determined to mold the new generation along Nazi lines. As the leader of the Nazi Teacher's League, Hans Schemm, put it: 'Those who have the youth on their side control the future.'" (416)
Does this mean I am likening Obama to Hitler? No.  But Obama is creating (or rather, finishing) a machine that he won't control forever.  I ascribe the highest goals to Obama in this regard.  I (somewhat) believe his only desire is to create a better educational system.  But the effect will be quite the opposite.  Once the federal government is setting the curriculum for students, will they dictate subject matter only in the 3 R's (reading, writing, and ... 'rithmetic)?  I think not.  The Nazis had this to say about curriculum:
"German youth must no longer... be confronted with the choice of whether it wishes to grow up in a spirit of materialism or idealism, of racism or internationalism, of religious or godlessness, but it must be consciously shaped according to principles which are recognized as correct...according to the principles of the ideology of National Socialism." (432)
In other words, once the system is in place, it can (and, inevitably, will) be used to teach ideology.  Nazis used their educational system to teach "principles" which they deemed "correct."  Our system would be used to do the same.  If you don't believe me, look at California.  Already, it is mandated that, statewide, gay marriage must be discussed on a level with heterosexual marriage.  Couple this with the state's decision to restrict a parent's right to homeschool, and you have mandatory indoctrination.  Parents who can't afford private school and who don't wish their children to receive this sort of "education" have one option: leave the state.

But what if there was no other state?  What if every state had the same curriculum, informed by the same agenda?  Even if you agree with all of the doctrines of political correctness today, you have to recognize that a system which implements a federal curriculum will be in place for the foreseeable future.  And anyone who's been alive since the 80's has to admit that political correctness is a rapidly moving target.  What will be "correct" 10 years from now?  Eugenics and euthanasia?  Sovereignty of international law?  Forced abortion?  Many things that are "correct" today were once as unthinkable as all of these.

Never before in our history have we lived under a federal government that dictated curriculum to schools.  That is because many citizens in the country still understand the concept of federalism, which means that while the central government undertakes the tasks only it can do (such as regulate defense and trade), the rest of the job is left up to the states.  It's even in the Bill of Rights (amendment 10, in case you don't believe me).  But Federalism (with a capital "F") now means something much different.  Now it includes the concept of a vast "safety net," which will catch every person who makes a mistake, and lift him back up.

Pardon me, but I happen to believe mistakes are part of learning.  I want businessmen to take risks, and profit from their innovations.  But I don't want to share all of those risks with them, and bail them out when they fail, if I don't get anything when they succeed.  I want schools to be able to try new approaches to education, if the parents of those being taught agree with it.  I don't want to be fed a line of bullcrap about "school choice," when the only choice is how well the school implements federal mandates.

In addition to setting a national curriculum, Obama also expressed a desire to turn kids into "more than just good test-takers."  This makes me ask what, pray tell, he would make them?  Good citizens, presumably.  I hope you will forgive me, but I don't want anyone in Washington determining what turns my child into a good citizen.  Especially not one Barack Obama.  If he wants to sell a DVD course on public speaking, I'm sure I'd be happy to show it to my kids.  Other than that, I can't imagine what educational content he might offer that I'd want them to see.

Both candidates have failed to speak out against the Department of Education or No Child Left Behind.  This is lamentable, because I believe they place us on a slippery slope to totalitarianism.  However, only one has voiced his desire to set a nationwide curriculum.  And that's more than a dime's worth of difference.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Google gets everything but search exactly wrong

Posted by Mark Holt on Thursday, September 11, 2008 3:30:27 PM
As most people know, Google often changes the logo on the main page of their website to commemorate current or historical events and holidays.  When this happens, clicking on the logo will take the visitor to a web page, selected by Google, that gives more details about the event in question.  During the Olympics, for example, there were at least eight days of new logos that I remember.  A couple of days ago, a large ring around the logo advised us all to read about a Hadron Supercollider.

But today is September 11.  And on the Google main page, we have a picture of...

Nothing at all.

I almost expected it.  I didn't have anything to search for, I just went to Google today to see if in some way they would commemorate the victims of the September 11th attacks the same way they commemorate Olympic badminton or Europe Earth Day.  I thought there was a chance they wouldn't, but I didn't want to believe it.  I really did expect to see maybe a little cartoon of firemen raising a flag or something.  Nope.

Don't know why I expected anything different.  At Christmas time every year, I am pissed off with every google search from the 17th until Christmas.  Every December, there are 8 days of little santa mice, or polar bears, or some other animated creature pushing presents around, with the caption "Happy Holidays from Google!"  Every other holiday gets its real name written out, including Hannukah, Ramadan, and even the made-up Qwanzaa.  But Christmas, by far America's most observed holiday, is just sort of generally included in "Happy Holidays."  Even Boxing Day, December 26th, gets its name on the logo.  (Does anyone even know what Boxing Day means?  I like to think it's like President's Day--they combined Mohammed Ali's birthday with Mike Tyson's.  Or maybe it's the day everyone moves all the new worthless junk they got for Christmas to the old refrigerator box in the garage, in a national ritual known as "Boxing").  But Christmas has its name changed to "Holidays."  Further, the representation on the logo is entirely areligious.  For Jewish holidays, there might even be a little Star of David or a menorah.  But for Christmas, no representation of Christ, Christianity, nothing, unless you consider Santa Claus a religious figure.  (Hint: he's not.)

Now, Google has, of course, no obligation to commemorate Christmas or September 11th.  But that's precisely the point.  What they choose to commemorate, by their own choice, is more revealing of their company's overarching philosophy than any financial statement could be.
I don't know why I'm surprised. Whenever I notice Googles failure to recognize it was, in fact, nurtured by the American system, I am reminded of certain events in 2006.  At that time, Google refused to provide the US Government with information which would have assisted them in catching child pornographers.  Because there was no warrant involved, Google said, simply, "No."  Even though every other major search engine thought it a reasonable request and complied, Google didn't.  After all, freedom of speech was at stake!  And privacy!  You know, the privacy amendment, the one in the Bill of Rights, the Right to Privacy While Looking at Child Porn.  I'm sure it's in there.  Coincidentally, around the same time, the Chinese government asked Google to limit (read, censor) its search services.  Don't bother censoring child porn, Google.  Just censor certain political topics of our choice, so we can continue indefinitely with our boots on the face of the Chinese populace.  Google's response: "Of course!"

The problem with the US Government's request is that Google saw no dollar signs involved.  Just as they see no dollar signs in giving Christmas or September 11th the same respect as, say, Marie Curie's birthday.  But if money is the only issue, perhaps Google can answer a question I thought was interesting.  A friend of mine owns a business in search engine optimization, i.e. getting his clients' websites listed on Google.  He said Google would sell you ads for any category under the sun, including any category of pornography you can imagine (and several you can't), but if you wanted to buy listings for websites trading in guns or gun paraphernalia, you were out of luck.  Your money is no good with Google.  They will take money from pornographers, but not gunsmiths, gun dealers, or gun manufacturers.  Unless the Chinese government counts.  They are obviously losing money there--no one will argue there is plenty to be made in gun sales.  So the argument that business decisions rule the policy isn't enough.  The policies of Google have every appearance of being ruled by Leftist ideology.  Which makes me wonder why they seem to have such a gift for capitalism.

I work on the internet, and thus, I'm almost forced to use Google.  They are simply the best at what they do (I'm sure the free market had nothing to do with that).  But someday, somebody else, somebody not Google, will make a search engine that works.  And on that day, I too, will censor Google's search results.  By never initiating another Google search.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »