Climate change deniers foster no civil dialogue - letter by Wendy Weaver

Mr. Scott Warwood wrote a letter to the editor, and Ms. Wendy Weaver wrote a response. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses are in bold.

------------------

Mr. Warwood's letter is first:

Call me a denier. When I see sensational, above-the-fold headlines like “U.S. roasts to hottest year on record by landslide” in the Chronicle, I get hotter because it makes my blood boil. As an engineer who has worked for the same big “evil” corporation for the last 28 years, I help my customers save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and construct alternative energy sources – all for that ugly ‘p’ word – profit.

The socialist left, who despise the”p” word, have taken up residence in the climate change debate. Their true aims are power and control – they always know what’s best for the unwashed masses.

Bozeman has a highly educated populace, and yet the Chronicle continues to foist this propaganda on us without questioning it in the slightest. A lie repeated enough times is soon accepted as the truth.

In doing a little research, I found this: Global temps have moderated over the last 15 years. The media has chosen to concentrate on the U.S., which accounts for 1.6 percent of the earth’s surface!

Apparently the National Climatic Data Center has two sets of data – the correct set, and an inflated set for use by the gullible media and populace (www.wattsupwiththat.com).

If the same measurement stations used in 1930 were used for 2012, 2012 would not crack the top 10 for record maximum. Many more stations have been added, skewing the data (www.climatedepot.com).

Polar bear populations are up by more than 13 percent (www.polarbearscience.com).

When Al Gore stops lining his own pockets with our money, starts flying commercial, drives a hybrid car, and moves to a small, energy efficient home, I might start to listen, but until then, question everything when it comes to this topic.

Scott Warwood
------------

Now for Ms. Weaver:

In response to Scott Warwood, the climate change denier:

I too am an engineer but come from a different school of thinking — one that values peer reviewed science over special interest drivel promoted by front groups with an obvious agenda. (Notice the either/or scenario: Either you agree with Ms. Weaver, or you believe special interest drivel. There apparently is no legitimate opposition opinion. This is an easy and convenient rebuttal method, isn't it? All you have to do is blow off your opposition with a couple of abusive assertions and your job is done.)

Scott, everything you find on the Internet is not true.(Um, what? Did she mean "not everything you find on the internet is true?" Anyway, besides the obviousness of this [corrected] assertion, simply tossing out a generic assessment does nothing at all to address the specific points Mr. Warwood brought forth. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong about Mr. Warwood's sources? I'll wager Ms. Weaver never even visited the referenced sites.)

As an engineer I would assume you’re familiar with the scientific process — the process that allows us to develop cancer drugs, launch the Mars Explorer to a distant planet, and tells us where to drill for natural gas. (Now Ms. Weaver gets condescending. "Mr. stupid man, you do know how science works, don't you?" Look at all the wonderful things science has been able to do! Look, we can send probes to Mars! And because we can send probes to Mars, this means that climate change is correct. 

Because science does other amazing things, climate change is unassailable. Really.)

The evolving understanding coming from this same scientific process is overwhelmingly in support of the view that climate change is real, that the changes we see today are primarily human caused, and that its impacts will be detrimental to our future vitality. (This all might be true, but what exactly does it have to do with the points raised by Mr. Warwood? Is there any point at which Ms. Weaver will address and refute the points offered?)

As a self-proclaimed denier, you fuel the divisive and polarized politics that have made proactive community action on climate change so difficult. (See, Mr. Warwood? You're part of the problem. Dissent is not patriotic. Skepticism is not scientific. Challenging the status quo is divisive. Yup, Ms. Weaver has a real scientific perspective here, doesn't she? Can you feel the science oozing from her every pore? Oh, and by the way. Action on climate change is not a scientific activity, it's a political one.) 

Your statements do nothing to help us build a strong and vibrant regional economy or encourage civil dialogue. (It's even worse for you, Mr. Warwood. You are damaging the economy! Does anyone note the irony of Ms. Weaver's statement. She has lambasted and impugned Mr. Warwood in a most venomous and puerile way, and suddenly now she values civility?)

While no one person or group has all the answers, in civic dialogue there is a hope that all parties coming to the table hold on to some small shred of reality. (Whoa, stop the presses. Did she really just say that no one has all the answers? Hasn't she spent her entire letter on a denunciation of deniers like Mr. Warwood? If the deniers cannot be admitted to the table, then could Ms. Weaver identify what parties would be allowed to dissent from the "consensus" and offer their small "shred of reality," since she has already excluded everyone who is not already marching lockstep with the "Consensus"?) 

As for the socialists who can’t stand profit, which of these companies — GE, Shell, Wal-Mart, or BP — would you call the biggest socialist climate kook? (My head is now beginning to spin. These companies are hated by the Left. BP dumped millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico a few years back. Walmart treats its employees like chattel. Shell's products pump millions of tons of carbon into the air every year. GE makes war machines that kill people all over the globe. So now they're friends of the environment because the donate a portion of their obscene profits to environmental causes and print their brochures with green ink and pictures of trees? How naive can someone be? 

Further, Mr. Warwood did not make any claim about corporations being socialist. He said the profit-hating socialist Left has "taken up residence in the climate change debate." Rather than debate this point, Ms. Weaver drags corporations into the mix and refutes that instead. This is known as a Red Herring.)  

And when did the U.S. military — which discusses climate change as a major force for global geopolitical destabilization in the 21st century — turn communist on us? I must have missed that headline... (Wow. The disconnect from reality is staggering. Mr. Warwood made no mention of the military. And when, exactly, did the military become a for-profit corporation? I didn't see the announcement. It shouldn't surprise anyone, even Ms. Weaver, that the military, as a government entity, implements government environmental policy.)

Years from now when I am sitting around the table with my grandchildren, I will know that I worked my butt off to do everything in my power to prevent and slow climate change. (This is so over the top. Everything in her power? I'm willing to be she owns a pollutant-spewing automobile, that she lives in a house or apartment constructed of wood and heated with fossil fuels. She buys food, which was delivered to the store in fossil burning vehicles, produce grown by extracting natural resources from the soil, and clothing made in a factory somewhere. 

Ms. Weaver is a hypocrite. She lives a lifestyle that could pay for hundreds of people who live on pennies a day in the third world. If she really wanted to do everything in her power to prevent and slow climate change, she would remove her carbon footprint completely. But of course, she isn't willing to do that for the sake of the planet, which means that some level of pollution is completely acceptable to her. The only difference between her and someone like Mr. Warwood is where that line is drawn.) 

What will your legacy be? (Notice the smug, self-satisfied narcissism. She is so superior to Mr. Warwood, someone she knows nothing about, that she is happy to pass judgement on him. This imperious, pompous arrogance is distasteful  especially in the context of her scattershot diatribe.)

Wendy Weaver

Monica Lindeen, regulator, watchdog, or commissar?

Sometimes I don't know what to think. Today a young lady showed up unannounced, a Ms. Amber Worman. She works for the Montana Commissioner of Securities and Insurance.

The State of Montana pays her to go around the state visiting insurance agents like me to ask two things: 1) are the agents listed on my insurance license supposed to be there, and 2) am I displaying the current year Montana insurance license?

This person, given the Orwellian title of "Public Outreach Coordinator," is more appropriately deemed a compliance officer. She was checking my office for compliance. She was not here to reach out or coordinate anything.

You see, insurance agents in Montana are licensed by the state and are required to display this license in public view. One might ask why, since the paper license really serves no purpose. Well, there is one purpose. The license is the official government stamp of approval that the agent has filed the proper paperwork and paid the proper fees, and also, has taken the 24 hours of continuing education coursework every two years. That is, the license is a certificate of achievement, something that documents that you have jumped through all the government's hoops.

One would think that people like used car salesman or Walmart employees should be put the through the licensing wringer, but no such luck. For some reason the state takes its insurance regulation duties very seriously, but doesn't seem to care that much if you get an incompetent waitress at Applebee's.

I suppose the state wants insurance agents to be minimally conversant regarding insurance policy coverages so that they can advise their customers properly. But I'd rather that the clerk at Home Depot be certified so that I don't have to make three trips to find the right sized plumbing fitting.

Ms. Worman asked me her two questions, looked at my proudly displayed licenses on the wall, and left me her card and five copies of a brochure, which is displayed below. I wish to note that the brochure apparently costs $.50 each, and cost nothing to distribute. Hmm.

You'll note on the above page that Monica Lindeen, the Commissioner of Securities and Insurance, describes here role as being "responsible for the regulation of this industry."  Indeed, that is what she is charged with under state law. Which apparently includes checking to make sure the right piece of paper is hanging on my office wall.

Now on this page she describes her department as a "watchdog for the citizens of Montana," charged with "protecting Montana's consumers through informing the public about securities and insurance issues." Are you starting to wonder what Ms. Lindeen's department is actually supposed to do?

The Montana Constitution establishes the office of auditor, and informs us in Article VI, Section 4.5 that "The...auditor shall have such duties as are provided by law." The Montana Code Annotated, in 2-15-1902, tells us: "Insurance department. (1) There is an insurance department of this state which shall be located in or convenient to the office occupied by the state auditor. (2) The insurance department shall be under the control and supervision of the commissioner," followed by  2-15-1903: "Commissioner of insurance designated. The state auditor shall be ex officio the commissioner of insurance of this state."

So there we have it. Part of the job of State Auditor is to be the Commissioner of Insurance. I looked around quite a bit in the MCA and could find no actual auditing duties described by law. However, the Auditor has extensive insurance regulatory duties as described in Title 33.

33-1-311 describes the general powers and duties of the commissioner. One of those powers is to "administer the department to ensure that the interests of insurance consumers are protected." 33-1-402 tells us that "for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this code, the commissioner may, as often as the commissioner considers advisable, examine the accounts, records, documents, and transactions pertaining to or affecting its insurance affairs or proposed insurance affairs of: (1) an insurance producer, surplus lines insurance producer, general insurance producer, or adjuster..."

Nothing about being a watchdog. And really, does any government agency prevent crime, or does it simply respond when a crime is committed? That's what I see in the law, that lawbreakers get prosecuted. I doubt that any person has benefited by a government watchdog. I doubt any crime has been prevented by agents of the commissioner hanging out on street corners.

So there it is. The law empowers the commissioner to pry into the the practices and procedures of insurance agents. Is that a "watchcdog," or is it more like a "commissar?" I'll leave it to you to decide that.

A strategy outline for tackling your financial problems

A) Some Biblical principles regarding difficulty, money, and identity:

1)           It all belongs to God. Psalm 50:10

2)           God knows your troubles and brings comfort. 2 Cor 1:3-4, Ps 34:19

3)           Troubles come and go, but God is faithful. 2 Sam 22:26-30

4)           Remember whose you are

5)           Money is not the center of your life, it is not your master. You are its master.

B) Some things that every person of faith needs to do, whether times of trouble, or times of blessing:

1)     Pray

2)     Worship and give thanks

3)     Meditate on the Word

4)     Stay in Fellowship and not isolation

5)     No naval gazing or woe-is-me

6)     tithing

7)     Be generous in outlook (not necessarily money… no spirit of poverty)

8)     Use your spiritual gifts

C) Gain perspective

1)     These things are temporary

2)     God is worthy and able

3)     Good stewardship is not an automatic skill

4)     Nothing is off limits regarding your life and finances… everything is on the table

D) The process

1)     Need total income and outgo. Itemized list of the any regular expenses, plus irregular expenses that exceed $20. List of all credit cards and their balances, creditors and their balances, mortgages and loans of all kinds from all sources.

2)     Year and make of vehicles

3)     All insurance policies of every kind

4)     Deferred maintenance on house and autos

5)     Deferred health needs

6)     Determine total monthly deficit, total net worth, and total accessible assets.

E) The evaluation

1)     necessary vs. nice-to-have

2)     What can go on the chopping block

3)     Additional ways to earn money, additional sources of income (charity, etc)

4)     Let’s not go overboard with rigidity

F) The solution

1)     There always is one.

2)     It’s going to be very tough for a while. Are you up to the challenge?

3)     God will be glorified.

Metaphysical center opens in Bozeman - commentary

This appeared in our local paper today. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

If you don't like religion, stop reading now. Still here? Ok. My comments interspersed in bold.

------------

(I want to note before getting started on the article itself that the reporter apparently accepts the entire premise uncritically. I can't imagine the reporter employing similar treatment to a Christian telling the reporter what God had just said.)

Canadian children’s entertainer Raffi Cavoukian told millions of children in the 1980s that you have to sing when the spirit says sing.

And when the spirit says go to Billings, you go to Billings (Can we ask, which spirit? Who is "the spirit?")

Even if it gives you pause, as it did with Cheryl Barry, (Why would it give anyone pause? Perhaps because it is kooky and weird?)

psychic and owner of the Bozeman metaphysical center, A Soul’s Own Place, located at 103 S. Eighth Ave, in the Community Food Co-op’s former offices (Wow, quite a sentence. What, no hours of operation? Why not make the sentence run on even more by giving us a list of services provided?).

About four years ago, Barry had been meditating on where in the world her family was supposed to move when guiding spirits gave her the “very specific answer” of Billings, Mont (Now they are "spirits," not a "spirit." Who or what are these spirits, and why should we listen to them? How do we know they are telling the truth? What is the source of their knowledge? I wonder, is there any incredulity at all from this reporter?).

“I went, ‘What?’” said Barry, who was living in Seattle at the time. “I sat back down and I asked them again, and I’m like, ‘Are you sure it’s Billings?’”

The spirits — which are difficult for Barry to explain, (No kidding?)

but are angels or “ascended masters” who help guide her toward the answers to difficult questions during meditation — directed her to go to Montana’s most populous city and look into the earth’s energy grids. There she learned to use a pendulum and map to find her way. At each four-way stop, Barry would pull over and put the pendulum over the map, ask where to go, and be directed by its pull, she said. (Yet again the reporter relaties this information to us in a completely uncritical way. Does any of Ms. Berry's beliefs make any sense at all? How dose Barry know they are angels or ascended masters? What does that mean? Is there any evidence at all that energy grids exist? What are they, exactly? What benefit do they serve? Why does a pendulum engender such trust?)

“We would’ve gone north once and the next time it would tell me I needed to go south,” Barry said. “We were everywhere and it got really annoying after a while.” (How dependable and trustworthy is a "system" that sends her around randomly? And what does that say about Ms. Barry's unquestioning obedience?)

She and her kids went to Big Timber for a week while Barry worked with the pendulum. She got frustrated and decided to go to Bozeman to replace a crystal. The town didn’t have a metaphysical store at the time, however. The image of one flooded into Barry’s mind immediately.

It took a few years, but Barry and her husband, a software developer, moved to Bozeman about a year ago. A Soul’s Own Place opened in March last year. It expanded into the rest of the building on the corner of South Eighth Avenue and West Babcock Street several weeks ago and held a grand opening in December.

“It’s been really good. Terrifying, but good,” Barry said.

(I mean no disrespect toward Ms. Barry, but it is only proper we question her beliefs and practices. After all, she chose to make them public, didn't she? She presented them to us, and the reporter notes she is unable to explain the basic premise upon which she bases her entire world view. 

She clearly does not completely trust these spirit guides, which suggests that she might want to consider why they're entitled to her trust at all. How does she know they are unswervingly benevolent? How does she know they don't lie? Such questions are reasonably asked by inquiring minds.

I have noticed that beliefs like this have gained access to the mainstream. It's as though asking questions about such things is frowned upon. But the same people who so vehemently oppose the mixing of church and state seem to have no problem with other forms of spirituality. Even some atheists embrace various kinds of spirituality. I think it's worth the time to ask why, and to expect a good answer.)

THE GREAT RESET Recession, advancing technology kill middle-class jobs - BERNARD CONDON - commentary

I found this article in my local paper.Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------

This article is too long to republish here, so I will quote some relevant passages and comment on them.

The author of this article is concerned that technological advancements are eliminating jobs in favor of machines doing those tasks. He writes, 

"The global economy is being reshaped by machines that generate and analyze vast amounts of data; by smartphones and tablet computers that let people work just about anywhere; by smarter, nimbler robots; and by services that let businesses rent computing power when they need it. Whole employment categories, from secretaries to travel agents, are starting to disappear." 

This is classic Luddite thinking. Luddites resisted the advance of technology brought about the by the industrial revolution. They viewed these advancements as detrimental to their way of life and their jobs. Economist John Maynard Keynes gave credence to the theory in the 1930s. Keynes, of course, advanced the economic theories beloved by leftists, who implemented them to our ruin.

The Luddite fallacy is just that, a fallacy. It is (or should be) common knowledge that technological advances and labor saving devices have brought a prosperity unprecedented in human history. The problem is, the Left typically views situations as static. They don't account for the dynamic changes possible when one aspect of the situation is changed. For example, they assume that a $500 billion tax increase will generate $500 billion in revenue. Of course it never does, because peoples' behavior changes to avoid the tax as much as they can. Or, an anti smoking law will be passed, but people don't stop smoking, they just smoke elsewhere.

It is the same thing with technology. technology doesn't kill jobs, it simply redistributes them. In fact, new industries spring up around new technologies. For example, no one would be making covers for cell phones if cell phones hadn't been invented. But if the Luddites had their way, we would still be communicating by pony express. In actual fact, it is a good thing pony express riders lost their jobs.

So because the economy is dynamic and not static, the loss of jobs in a soon-to-be obsolete industry means that some other part of the economy is prospering. No one should expect that their low tech/low skill job will survive. No one should expect that they are indispensable. A person has a job only because his employer has tasks that need to be performed. He isn't employed to further a government agenda or a social purpose. He is employed because his skills are needed. When his skills are no longer valuable, he will lose his job. 

Because this 

giving way to this

is a good thing. It means more productivity, more prosperity, and more employment for those who wish to acquire the skills to succeed.

Consider: If we did not have computers, we would be using type writers and calculators. But those were technological advances. So we should have rejected them because of people losing their jobs, people who made pens and slide rules. But those were technological advances as well. People who made quills and bottles of ink were put out of work. 

The author blames YOU: 

"The uncomfortable truth is that technology is killing jobs with the help of ordinary consumers by enabling them to quickly do tasks that workers used to do full time, for salaries. Use a self-checkout lane at the supermarket or drugstore? A worker behind a cash register used to do that. Buy clothes without visiting a store? You’ve taken work from a salesman. Click “accept” in an email invitation to attend a meeting? You’ve pushed an office assistant closer to unemployment. Book your vacation using an online program? You’ve helped lay off a travel agent."

It's your fault people don't have jobs. You want convenience, low prices, and ease of use, and it's costing a lot of people their jobs. Of course this is total nonsense, but why should we expect that people know anything about economics these days?

In actual fact, the whole article is a diversion, an attempt to shift blame for the failures of government and crony capitalism (resulting in our present financial devastation) on something completely unrelated. 

Interestingly, the author offers no solutions. One would think that had he been so completely persuaded that technology has cost people their jobs, that he would present the obvious solution: Technology is bad, so technological advancement must be stopped. But he does not do that. 

It is ironic that the author's article appears on the internet, a product of technological advances that may soon lead to the demise of print newspapers. Is there any doubt that he composed his article on a computer program, has an automobile in his garage, and has cable TV? 

Legislation would limit ability to vote - Letter by Nancy Detrick, Montana League of Women Voters

Published in a recent Bozeman Chronicle. Published for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------

As the world’s leading Democracy (No, no, no! I have covered this before. The founders gave us a representative republic. They despised democracy! James Madison: "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Federalist #10.),

the most treasured value we hold is that every eligible citizen has the right and responsibility to vote. (The letter writer states a principle that we all would probably agree with ["every eligible citizen"], but then devotes the remainder of her letter to objecting to verifying that eligibility. 

Regarding the responsibility to vote, there is no such thing.) 

Two bills have been introduced in our Legislature which would significantly restrict the ability of large numbers of Montanans to vote: HB 30, would roll back Election Day voter registration , and HB 108, would require IDs that many Montanans must pay for ($8 every four years. And isn't it a surprise it is to find a Leftist who suddenly thinks that the burden of government must be avoided!) 

and renew frequently (HB30 is not particularly controversial, let alone the affront to voting rights the letter writer is portraying. It is perfectly sensible to establish voter registration provisions. Same day registration is prone to fraud, and is unnecessary anyway. Responsible people take care of things like this in advance. No accommodation is required for those who are irresponsible. 

HB108 does change what would be required to ensure the voter is eligible. However the changes are pretty mild, not worth the histrionics of the writer.).

Under current law, voters can present identification from a school, tribe, utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document that shows the voter’s name and address. (Interestingly, the same people who tend to not like voter registration restrictions also do not like employers being required to ensure the citizenship of those they hire. This means that a paycheck stub would be sufficient proof of identity for voting, but does not prove the voter is eligible to vote!) 

HB 108 would only allow a current Montana or tribal ID card in order to vote. (Not true. A Montana drivers license and the last four digits of one's Social Security number is acceptable.) 

Montanans most affected by this requirement would be the poor, elderly, young, Native American, and those with disabilities (Everyone is affected by Montana voter requirements. Everyone has to prove that they are eligible. The way that proof is offered is the issue.).

If passed, HB108 could have a significant fiscal impact on Montana counties, costing taxpayers many dollars to implement — costs for voter education to avoid voter confusion and making sure qualified electors are not turned away from the polls; and costs associated with training election judges to examine IDs (Is the writer grasping for straws here? Since when are government activities implemented without training or cost? Do election judges not examine presently-required documents to assure that the voter is eligible at present? Are qualified voters never turned away under the present law? 

A significant fiscal impact? Since when are these people concerned with the fiscal impact of government?).

Montana voter ID laws are already stronger than federal requirements. We should come together to make sure that every eligible Montanan can participate equally in our elections (Because this apparently isn't happening now? We should come together, why? Are we separated now? Come together and agree with her, since disagreeing with her is, what, divisive?).

Voting is something all Montanans can do to help strengthen our communities (Does making sure only eligible voters vote do anything to strengthen our communities?).

Both of these bills will disenfranchise voters: therefore the Montana League of Women Voters opposes HB 30 and HB 108 (Actually, these laws will disenfranchise ineligible voters. If you can't prove who you are satisfactorily, you are not a voter. This is right and proper.)

Nancy Detrick President, Montana League of Women Voters Billings Sally Maison President, Bozeman Area League of Women Voters Bozeman

A comprehensive vision for the local church

This is published mostly for review by people who are in the process of establishing a church or clarifying their purpose. It is based on a vision statement of a local church where I served as elder.

INTRODUCTION

…Healed up …Built up …Filled up …Turned Loose.

A stream of God's Spirit and Kingdom has been flowing for many years in the Gallatin Valley. Local Christians at various times have been drinking from this stream, perhaps now more than ever before. Prayer has become more intense, both personal and corporate; praise and worship is in our hearts and seeks expression; unity between Christians is sought intentionally. The spiritual gifts are being poured out on people to build up and encourage the Church. It seems God the Father is saying to His children, "See, I am doing a new thing!"

The Spirit of God has given us vision for a local body of Christians as part of the larger Body of Christ that God is raising up. The vision is challenging and exciting! We have the privilege of seeing God build His church as only He can. Built on the proper foundations of the apostles and Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, this church seeks to be a local body of believers who are a People of Intimacy, a Refuge for Healing, a Center for Equipping and Sending, and a Body with Harvest Eyes.

The cornerstone of this church is Jesus Christ. His redemptive acts of love continue to give new life and refreshing to those who come to Him in faith and receive all His provision for fruitful living. Jesus is the source of the springs of water that well up to eternal life (see John 4:14, 7:37-38; Revelation 7:17, 22:17): We will honor the person and work of the Holy Spirit who is the streams of living water flowing from within the believer in Christ (John 7:38).

The promises of God include a covenant give His manifest presence by His Spirit; to fill God's temple (His people) with His glory; to make financial provision for His Church; and make this church a house of peace. As God's people we are called to "be strong … and work" (see Nehemiah 8:10, Zechariah 4:6); and we must trust the leading and provision of our God without fear. The Lord Himself will build this church (Matthew 16:18, Psalm 127:1). 

Gun rights must be balanced by life, liberty, happiness - Jack Kligerman

We've dealt with Mr. Kligerman previously here and here. Mr. Kligerman has a spotty record on his logical thinking, and this letter is no exception. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

Since 1979, there have been approximately 900,000 gun-related deaths within the U.S. (source: Bloomberg Government News). (34 years? That long, long time period allows Mr. Kligerman to make the number seem high. But that averages out to 26,000 per year. In addition, we don't know home many of those were accidental deaths, deaths caused by self-defense, or suicides. 

But since he compares those deaths to deaths caused by war, it would be reasonable to isolate the number to firearm homicides, that is, violent deliberate war deaths compared to violent, deliberate firearms deaths.

Happily, the CDC splits out the death by cause in this chart. Here's their statistics from 1988 to 1992:

From this we can see that there were 15,769 firearm homicides in that 4 year period. Since I don't have the figures for other years, we shall extrapolate. 15,769/4=3942.5 firearm homicides per year. 3942.5 x 34 years = 134,045 firearm homicides, much less than the 900,000 Mr. Kligerman asserts. 

Mcdonalds sued for violating Islamic dietary law - analysis

Originally found here. Republished for fair use and discussion purposes.

-----------

You might think that I am going to go after McDonalds for caving to Islamic interests by serving Halal food, but I'm not. The article says that there are 150,000 Muslims in Dearborn, so it seems like a prudent business decision to provide a product for those consumers.

The reason I'm posting this is the idea that a Muslim would go to McDonalds to eat, and then expect that Halal Chicken McNuggets are honoring to Allah, but non-Halal McNuggets dishonor Allah. Remember, we are talking about fast food and religious acceptability. Devote Muslims go to MCDONALDS to partake of holy food?

The original lawsuit stated that the plaintiff was suing for "emotional distress" from eating McDonald's non-Halal food. It is interesting to see how this lawsuit morphed into a Muslim community benefit, where unrelated parties, after submitting proposals to the attorneys, received part of the settlement.

The other thing I wanted to note is the allocation of the lawsuit's settlement: $275,000 to the Huda Clinic, $150,000 to the museum, $230,000 to attorneys and $20,000 to Ahmed. 

Characteristics of Post Modern Discourse - FB conversation

I posted this on FB:

Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse

• sensitivity, inclusivity, and inoffensiveness are key values;
• priority on cooperation, collaboration, quietness, sedentariness, empathy, equality, non-competitiveness, conformity, a communal focus;
• seems lacking in rationality and ideological challenge;
• tends to perceive satire and criticism as a motivated by hate or fear;
• lacking the means to respond to dissent, it will typically resort to demonizing personal attacks upon the opposition;
• will typically try to not answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely by assigning labels like ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.;
• tends to value feelings and impressions rather than logic or reason;
• frequently results in the withdrawl from the discourse due to feelings of offense from being challenged.

B.R.: Great list, and while I'm sure you'd assign many of these tendencies to me, I wouldn't say they encapsulate all postmodern discourse. But what about you? Which items on this list apply to your own discourse? What tendencies or shortcomings do you observe in yourself? I see a lot of accusation but there's an opportunity for self-awareness as well.

Me: I did not present the list as if it were everything to say about post modern discourse.

Don't be solipsistic. Also, are you being ironic?

B.R.: Oh, did you mean "Some Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse" instead of "Characteristics of Postmodern Discourse"? That's an important distinction.

I didn't think I was being solipsistic, but if you do, please tell me how.

I'm not trying to be ironic. Your list supposes a good deal of preference; it seems to be a litany of tendencies that bother you about other people. Of course, that's just my assumption, based on our previous posts and conversations. While reading your list, I realized that you've accused me of many of these tendencies, and not in complimentary ways. I don't think the list is solely about me, but I think that I fall into some of these categories. My question for you, then, is "do YOU belong in any of these categories? And if not, what kinds of bothersome tendencies can you recognize in your own discourse?"

Me: "Seems to be?" I have to add another to the list now.

• A tendency to engage in at-a-distance psychological diagnosis

My approach is and always will be the relentless pursuit of base assumptions and the the extension of those assumptions to their logical conclusion. I always match the tone of my interlocutor and respond on the same level. If my interlocutor is generally thoughtful and logical (like you, for example), I will respond similarly. However, if he or she responds with disrespect, insult, or shabby thinking, I will point it out, and if necessary, employ similar techniques myself.

I wondered about solipsism because your very first thought appeared to be that what I wrote was about you.

B.R.: Is there anything about your discourse habits that you would like to change or evolve?

Me: You seem to want to impose on me some sort of requirement for introspection, as if I have an obligation to defend myself against my own observations.

B.R.: I would love to impose upon you a requirement for introspection. But that's not what I'm doing here. I read what you think of others. I processed it. I applied it to myself, and found some overlap. Now I want to know what you think of yourself. When someone assigns shortcomings in others, I find great value in that person's ability to identify shortcomings within themselves. If you don't want to discuss what you think of yourself, just say so. If you think you're perfect at discourse, just say so. Tell ya what, I'll give you a few to get us going. I totally own up to the following tendencies. I've marked the ones that I'd like to change about myself with a *. I've put the words I don't apply to my own tendencies in parentheses.

• sensitivity, inclusivity, and (inoffensiveness) are key values;
• priority on cooperation, collaboration, quietness*, (sedentariness), empathy, equality, non-competitiveness*, conformity, a communal focus;
• lacking the means to respond to dissent, it will typically resort to (demonizing) personal attacks upon the opposition;*
• will typically try to not answer opponents with better arguments, but to silence them completely by assigning labels* (like ‘hateful’, ‘intolerant’, ‘bigoted’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘homophobic’, etc.;)
• tends to value feelings and impressions rather than logic or reason;*
• frequently results in the withdrawl from the discourse* (due to feelings of offense from being challenged.)
• A tendency to engage in at-a-distance pychological diagnosis

R.R.: I have to disagree with a few points, of course. I would have to argue that your 2nd bullet listed as priorities are in actually residual consequences of two competing philosophies in postmodern culture: anonymity and self definition. Anonymity is the tendency to consider ones self separate from the mass culture, a buffer between the public and the self which yields safety from ridicule and defense against retaliation. Self definition is almost the opposite, as the projection of what a person would like others to perceive. This facade of self is a hypothetical entity generated to embody values and character that a person exhibits, or romanticizes or aspires to obtain. This persona is the sum of that which a person believes is moral, beautiful, valuable, and "good" and is out on display, beyond the chasm of anonymity. The end result is an explanation of the rest of the points you list. To argue with a person is not to have a different view, but to call into question the self definition of a person. This personal entity becomes defensive, having both his values and ,through the violation of such values, his anonymity. This dissolves the once rational argument into a battle of wills, and coupled with the philosophy of anonymity, opposing forces begin to attack the character of the other person, for as we established earlier, the self definition is a representation of character. This is why these debates result in the withdrawal from the discourse; offense is only the manifestation of almost literal self preservation.
That is also why labels like hateful or bigot come into play. A direct attack on someone's values erases a perceived reverence for another's viewpoint, by eroding away a a person's assumptions about someone else's values. It begins with an assumption of misinformation. 'As I am obviously dealing with a person of equal intellect, I will fill the other person in on the information he may be lacking. When that person demonstrates a counter argument to this information, the assumption is that he cannot comprehend this information and that the opponent lacks the required intellectual power to rationalize what you value. Argument ensues " I will now attempt to break down what I believe as to allow for your own edification" this is the beginnings of the dissolution because the willingness to acknowledge the other has been compromised by assertion of self definition, which of course is the values of the person in the argument, and more importantly, it is a exaltation of a person's values over another. Finally, the last stage of this breakdown is the realization that an opponent is equally intelligent, can understand the values just fine, which means 'this guy knows the truth, he won't admit it. He must be a malevolent person bent on disinformation.' This means that the persona of self is pulled back from the debate, leaving the rampart of anonymity to hurl insults, defamations of character, and claims of discrediting. A person is safe behind anonymity and therefore both people return to the cut off status of safety behind being faceless. This is why the modern discourse seems impotent and petty. We have the luxury of anonymity and self definition that allows us to demonize people because they don't share a viewpoint.

Me: B.R., I appreciate the fact that you want to help me, but I feel no need to address any inadequacies I may or may not have. I am quite aware of my flaws.

I tend to resist the incessant naval gazing that society seems to value. People do not achieve by keeping their flaws dredged up, they achieve by pushing themselves into greatness.

Me: R.R., I'm not entirely convinced that anonymity is a feature of post modernism. I think that it is more like situational anonymity. The desire for being noticed and acclaimed conflicts with the idea of "personal space" and "personal choice."

This manifests as the presumed equivalence of all ideas without judgment. For example, we frequently see people demand "suppport," as in, "Why can't you just support me in my decision?" "Support," of course, is "agreement." If you disagree, you aren't "supportive." You aren't even a friend.

It places extraordinary value on "me" while simultaneously disparaging merit. It transforms the interplay of competing ideas into adversairies.

It is self-focused. The typical response to an event or occurence is, "How does it affect me?" It pretends to be amiable but quickly attacks dissent.

It is rigidity masked as understanding, conformity masked as intolerance, and lack of conviction masked as accomodation.

And B.R., no, this is not about you.

R.R.: I am well acquainted with the paradox of "being special like everybody else." You are right, anonymity and self definition are conflicting principals. What you have termed situational anonymity is the result of how that dissonance resolves, and the middle ground of "being alone in a society." I myself see the irony of Godzilla telling a cartoon face that anonymity is not a feature of post modernism, when there is no recourse, not even a face to react to in this conversation.
The analysis is spot on by the way, extrordinary value on "me." What you are talking about of course goes both ways when it comes to the supposed interplay of ideas.
When don't support things like abstenance education or required prayer in schools, I am worse than unsupportive; I'm a damned sinner or anti-christian. If I don't "support" conservative principals, my morality is called into question, not my ideas. This creates discord and starts those with differing opinions are the 3 levels of creating an enemy I was referring to earlier.
Where you lose traction with me is the assumption that all ideas are then reduced to being equal without judgement, as though judgement is a universal concept and not a relative one. Judgement is the weighing of the worth or severity of an entity so by it's definition it is a relative concept, and until judgement is assesed, all ideas ARE in fact equal, and when value or sentance is determined, the result only applies to the judge, who then reacts in a manner most appropriate with him. The ideas which lack merit to you are in fact very valuable to those you are in conflict with, to extend the metaphor, put on appeal and given a different verdict by someone who sees things differently. This is why the discourse deteriorates so quickly, it is the values of one being in conflict with another until anonymity takes over and reduces the conversation to an antagonistic quarrel. End result, both sides staring down the other, first thinking the other uninformed, then stupid, then malevolent. Nothing is solved, nothing is discussed, everyone returns to their computer desk in isolation worried about the future with people like "that" in the world.
See, this is where I make assumptions about people. You don't like the idea that people are requiring you to agree with things you do not. You have a distaste for the linguistic choice of concealing dissent for lack of support and silence instead of the possibility of hegemony. You are upset that people do not respond to the truth in a way that is balanced or rational. Those things violate your persona you want to project and make you recoil for the sake of saving face, or relieving frustration. Well, I don't like the idea of anyone thinking in absolutes that are too strong to be changed based on proof, (which is irrational and borderline delusional by the by) I have a distaste for the linguistic choice of consealing dissent under the insult of a lack of reason, just because it conflicts with traditional beliefs. I am upset when a man judges a person's character based on the lens of the observer and not the merit of the concepts the other person presents. It is rigidity masked as supposed superiority, conformity masked as truth, and a lack of conviction masked as morality and precidence. There are two sides to every coin, not counting the edge. The edge of the coin is where actual debate can happen, but in our society we have the luxury of staying on our sides and creating projections of ourselves to represent us, unless of course you can crush Tokyo and if you blew me up with dynamite, I would only be covered with black stuff...

B.R.: I'm not trying to help you. I'm having the kind of conversation I like to have, which is based on more than simply proving myself and disproving others. Of course, that's just what it "seems" like you're doing.

Me: A vigorous exchange of ideas inevitably leads to disparate positions. This is a good thing. On what basis do you believe that your kind of conversation is better?

B.R.: I'm not of the opinion that mine is better. I believe that a) yours is not better either, and b) that mine allows for a wider variety of conversational outcomes. I place value on that variety, but I don't expect everyone to do the same.

Me: Then we've reach a nice post-modern values neutral assessment that neither of us are more correct. So why did you post your complaint if you already knew that your methodology was no better or worse than mine?

Martin Luther King's Legacy and national service - commentary

There's a lot that could be said about this. The perversion of Dr. King's legacy into a "national day of service," as well as the watering down of his message and mission, are all fertile hunting grounds for people like me who aim to dig out the hidden agenda and shine the glaring light of day upon those who pretend to be compassionate, yet have only destruction on their minds.

MLK fought for a high purpose - That all men, regardless of skin color, would be treated with dignity and respect. He based his entire pursuit to overthrow the yoke of oppression on the Bible and his Christian faith. You can see it over and over again in his speeches. His people were beaten, hated, and persecuted, even to death. The stain of racism upon this nation is not simply a matter of equality under the law, it is fundamentally a spiritual one. 

In almost a biblical sense, MLK was Moses leading his people out of bondage. Lincoln had freed the slaves nearly 100 years before, but injustice still prevailed. Blacks experienced horrific violence, codified in solemn law. Yes, that's right. Racism was more a legal matter than anything. Government was the facilitator and perpetrator of racism. Of course, people were racist, but the many people who objected to the poor treatment of blacks were prevented by law from accommodating them in their restaurants, hotels, and shops. 

MLK was a man of faith, despite his flaws. He acted because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a God of justice. MLK recognized that God's mercy had been extended to all men, and he was a partaker of this mercy. God is very attentive to the the plight of the widow, the orphan, and the dispossessed. He brings justice to the weak, He cares for the poor and the persecuted. MLK acted on these truths of Holy Scripture, and according to the power of the Holy Spirit. This was not MLK's mission, it was God's purpose carried out in him.

So now we have a day of service proclaimed in honor of MLK. Can you imagine? Liberation from bondage has morphed into volunteerism. How sad.

Despite differences Atheist calls for partnerships with religion at King lecture - Analysis

Published here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Below is an article that appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle. The subject of the article is connected to the day of service nonsense. My comments interspersed in bold. 
----------------

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.
------------
Atheists and people of religious faith can work together to build a better world despite their differences, activist and author Chris Stedman told a Bozeman audience Thursday at a Martin Luther King lecture. (I presume the speaker thinks that this does not naturally happen. Christians have for centuries created and ran hospitals, food banks, and charities. Christians have wrote the book on charity. 

Christian morality so permeates society that government has done its best to insert itself into the charity equation in an attempt to replace individual mercy with government programs. Unfortunately, it is succeeding in its objective, but failing in its mission. Atheists and others are late to the party, but I'm glad they finally arrived. Unfortunately, it is not without the implied denigration of Christians. ).

Stedman, the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, spoke to more than 100 students and community members at Montana State University for the university's annual King lecture.

He recently wrote a book, "Faitheist: How An Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religions." It describes his personal journey in and out of faith, and how he came to work with a Christian pastor to fight hunger. In the Boston area, he said, they've provided meals for 70,000 hungry children (Here is a tacit admission that it is Christians who are caring for the poor, clothing the naked, and healing the sick.).

"What would happen if atheists and Christians could see themselves as necessary partners in making the world a better place?" Stedman asked. "What might we accomplish together?" (I find it interesting that Mr. Stedman is doing Christian things despite his atheism. And the is what he is doing. He adopted, whether consciously or unconsciously, Christian morality and values. He didn't follow the logical conclusions of lacking faith in god or gods. If he did, he would have to admit that the universe came into being as a result of unguided forces, and that we are nothing more than random assemblages of atoms with no meaning or purpose. The fact that some random assemblages of atoms require ingestion of other kinds of assemblages of atoms (food) carries no moral imperative for the honest atheist. His values are made up, or adopted from others. There is no way to ascertain their merit, for merit would not exist. The atheist lacks purpose, because their is no purpose in the universe.)

King, the black civil rights leader, was known for reaching across religious lines to work with Jews and Christian pastors of different denominations, Stedman said. But few know that one of King's closest advisors, Phillip Randolph, a black labor leader and organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, where King gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, was also an atheist (and a Socialist. But MLK didn't "reach across religious lines" with Randolph any more than he reached across political lines with him. Randolph was also a civil rights activist, and since they had a common cause, they joined up together. There was no grand tolerance on display. The two worked together on what they believed. All this is is an attempt to steer MLK's legacy into today's leftist agenda.). 

Atheists are one of the most distrusted groups in America and live with a great stigma, Stedman said. (Mostly self-inflicted. Atheist as a whole are a disagreeable lot. Not content to embrace their own lack of belief, they feel the necessity to foist it on others, generally in the most mocking and disrespectful of ways.)  People assume they're angry and want to tear down religion. (Which, of course, is largely true. The most popular atheists are men like Dawkins and Harris, who have written book after book mocking and tearing down religion. Atheists do not ostracize them, they embrace them, celebrate them, and regurgitate their vile pronouncements.)  Polls find that Americans are less likely to vote for atheists than for Jews, Mormons or Muslims, and atheists are the ones parents least want their children to marry. (This makes sense. People who reject God tend to reject virtue, or at least, hold it in low regard.) Yet the ranks of non-believers are growing (well, no. Depending on the poll, per capita atheism is on the decline. But even if it were on the rise, a small increase can appear as a big percentage increase when atheists comprise 1-6% of the population.) especially among young people, he said. One in five Americans is not religiously affiliated (which is not the same thing as them being atheists. Lots of people of faith do not associate with churches, and the number is growing as they desert mainline denominations.).

Stedman said he grew up in a secular household in Minnesota, yet at age 11 when his parents split up, he joined a fundamentalist church. He eventually realized, however, that he was a gay man. He struggled to reconcile his sexual orientation with his religion. 

He was at "the lowest of the low" points when his mother read his journal and stepped in to find him a progressive church where the pastor accepted him. Inspired, Stedman decided to become a pastor himself and went to college to study religion. He ultimately realized that while he valued the Christian community, he never connected with the beliefs, and that he was an atheist (Well, he must have connected with the beliefs on some level since he's partnering with a Christian ministry to help feed the poor.).

Working on hunger issues with his friend the Christian pastor, he said, "I call it service, he calls it ministry. Because we don't let our words get in the way, we are able to make a dent in hunger."

He quoted King on the importance of love and nonviolence. With violence, King said, you murder the hater, but you do not murder hatred. "Hate cannot drive out hate. Only love can do that," King said. 

Stedman said he has been challenged by believers who ask how he explains the origins of the universe. He answers that the question doesn't interest him much. "What concerns me most is, given that we're here, what do we do?" The answer for him is to promote justice, try to improve the world and "find ways to live together." (While very noble sounding, these values are arbitrary and meritless in the atheist universe. Why is suffering bad? Why is helping people good? On what basis are these value judgments made? Personal taste? Consensus? Faith? It is clear that Mr. Stedman has almost completely adopted Christian values. But he appears to be a very confused young man. He clearly misses the fact that he acts like a Christian as he leads his daily life helping others, but has a pagan life philosophy that contradicts his actions. No wonder he has this history. He's conflicted.)   
-------------
Here is a page from the Obama National Day of Service. As you can see, this is a government push for volunteerism. You will note that you register with the site and report your activities to the government. 

Tax debate need not confuse Constitution - Vern Smalley - Analysis

Jack Levitt wrote this letter, and Vern Smalley's response is below, with my commentary interspersed in bold:
-------------

Jack Levitt: Freedom of action, freedom of thought, and freedom to own private property are concepts fundamental to the very heart of our way of life.

Since the start of the 20th century, these freedoms have been slowly compromised. The most drastic loss is the erosion of the right of absolute ownership of property. John Quincy Adams, sixth president of the United States, said, "Property has divine rights, and the moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, anarchy and tyranny begin."

Our forefathers held no doubt as to the supreme importance of a person's private property rights.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution expresses that right simply and directly; "...nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without just compensation." The word "property" was purposely used with those of "life" and "liberty."

The framers of the Constitution understood that a person had inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, and that to take one's property was tantamount to taking one's life or liberty. Private property, like life and liberty, was not to be subject to the whims and caprices of the majority or of the government. Yet, leaders speak in favor of human rights over property rights, as if the two were inconsistent or mutually exclusive.

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create," wrote Chief Justice John Marshall. Today's corollary is that the power to regulate involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the right to own property.

Confiscatory taxes and overburdening regulations improperly take our private property and gravely threaten the fabric of our capitalistic society. They are the tyranny of which Adams spoke.
----------------------

Vern Smalley: A recent letter complained about “confiscatory taxes,” that is, taxes which are not designed to increase revenue, but target the wealthy to take away their money (Mr. Smalley offers this definition, but it is not how Mr. Levitt characterized the issue. Mr. Levitt repeatedly made the point that property rights are being infringed upon by government. He then goes on to state that "confiscatory taxes and overburdening regulations improperly take our private property..." As one reads Mr. Levitt's letter, there is no mention at all of the wealthy. So the question is, why did Mr. Smalley mischaraterize Mr. Levitt's point?) . I suppose this means extra taxes on vacation homes, luxury boats, private airplanes and the like. According to this definition, confiscatory taxes are used as penalties for being rich (He "supposes." In other words, he imposes concepts that were never offered by his interlocutor. Mr. Smalley is now extending his false definition by making inferences).

If one has accumulated significant property, including money, I can see how the owners might view any tax as being confiscatory (Mr. Smalley now compartmentalizes Mr. Levitt's position, twisting it into him defending the rich.).

However, taxes are something that most of us pay (Now Mr. Smalley circles back around and chides Mr. Levitt for leaving out the regular guy. Of course, Mr. Levitt made no point about "most of us," either.). The more money you make, the more taxes you should pay, and at a higher rate (A point that was never discussed by Mr. Levitt.). People who don’t make much shouldn’t have to pay much, if any at all. Those who make the most money should be willing to contribute more to our country as a payback for being able to reap the greatest bounty (So Mr. Smalley has taken Mr. Levitt's property rights argument and transformed it into his own issue, that being, who should pay taxes and how much. Mr. Smalley creates a strawman and then attempts to  tear down. But he isn't really that successful at that even. He simply makes 2 or 3 bare assertions as if they were gospel truth. 

Mr. Smalley mischaracterized Mr. Levitt's point in order to morph the issue into "the rich vs the little guy." Mr. Smalley had no intention of addressing Mr. Levitt's actual point.).

But then the letter writer claims that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, “...nor shall any person ... be deprived of his life, liberty or property without just compensation.” The ratified Fifth Amendment is different. It reads, “...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Twisting what the Constitution’s amendments say to strengthen your argument is not polite (I wonder if Mr. Smalley has similar reservations about twisting Mr. Levitt's letter? But as we compare the language of the 5th amendment to Mr. Levitt's somewhat awkward paraphrase, we see that the meaning of the quote has not been particularly twisted. Mr. Levitt conglomerates "due process of law" and "just compensation," which are separate but related concepts. The entire amendment is restricting the government from doing a number of things, including the taking of property.  

Mr. Levitt is drawing a conclusion that taxes take property just like regulation does. We can debate the merit of that conclusion, but he has done no violence to the Constitution. But really, since when is literal reading of the Constitution been a high priority for the Left anyway? I thought it was a living document?). 

Vern G. Smalley Bozeman

Is it right to charge interest? - FB discussion

I posted this:

Money is a representative proxy for man's ability to reason, labor, produce and create. Money therefore is a fungible representation of human life.

Personal property is also a proxy for human capacity. Humans exchange their labor and productivity either for direct payment with other commodities, or, most commonly, for money, which they then turn into either consumable commodities OR personal property.

This is why the coveting and/or stealing of another person's personal property and/or money is specifically prohibited in Seventh and Tenth Commandments. If you steal a man's property or money, you are stealing the part of his life, labor and capacity that the property or money represents. If you covet another man's property, you are begrudging him the right to be compensated for his labor and/or creativity, and thus his sovereignty and human dignity.

Money and property are therefore interchangeable concepts.

If a person purchases a tract of land and agrees to let it to a tenant for a year, the landowner is paid for the TIME VALUE of the productivity of the land for the year in which the tenant has possession and use of the land, and the landowner necessarily surrendered by virtue of the lease.

Money has time value just as the land has time value. If a man lends another man money for a year, which is simply a different, more fungible form of property, upon returning the money to the lender after one year of possessing and using the money and reaping the productivity of the money, why shouldn't the lender be paid a fair rent on the money in exactly the same way that a landowner is paid a fair rent on his land?

To deny interest on money, which is a proxy for human capacity and productivity, is to deny that human life has any time value. To deny that human life has any time value is to deny that human life has any value at all, since all human life exists traversing through time at the precise rate of one second per second. Hence, wages are paid as a function of TIME, per hour, per month or per year. - Ann Barnhart

Me: I'll have to chew on this a while.

L.J.: Yep, good stuff and yet, God forbid the Israelites to charge one another interest.....

Me: Explain.

K.M.: Interesting perspective and yes....food for thought. As for interest - my understanding of that scripture is specific and pertains to certain loans/people lent to which, I believe, should be taken in consideration of context as well as all other passages having to do with believer-to-believer behavior. Just a thought...

M.F.: Fascinating. This makes sense with what The Lord was teaching me last year in regards to "spending" my time working for money or "spending" that same time being with my wife. I was seeing it to mean that my time is more valuable than money, for I don't get any time back if I spend it, but this shows that instead, there is so much more represented by money - a symbol of the time spent. Makes sense as to why Jesus spoke about money so much. It's required that we steward it well, for it is symbolic of the investment of our lives. Where our treasure is, so too is our heart...

L.J.: I agree, K.M.. Context is very important and the context there is very clear, "Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. 20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess." Deuteronomy 23:19-20. It does indeed refer to a "brother" and not a foreigner. I think it still lines up contextually with New Testament revelation as well since there is much made in the new covenant about caring for one another in the Kingdom. However, on a deeper point to which Rich referred in an earlier post (see, I do read them, Rich) Compulsion to give by an outside force is not God's design, or desire. Personal responsibility born from intimate relationship is the ONLY solid basis for charity. big subject, lots of nuance, and limited venue on FB :)

Me: Translated "usury," excessive or illegally high interest.

L.J.: So, in the context of what you know about the character of God revealed in Exodus 33-34, 1 Corinthians 13, etc.,....as well as the multiple other places where God delineates just and kind treatment of the foreigner and alien, It is here in Deuteronomy that it is acceptable to charge them illegally high, excessive interest?? Hmmmm. (you know I love you man) :)

Me: Is it acceptable to charge a foreigner any amount of interest at all while charging your brother no interest? Same question, isn't it? And I love you too, dude...

L.J.: I agree..... The law is tricky whenever it gets in the mix. I love the thinking of Ann Barnhart though. Solid, logical, and pretty tough to refute in a real legitimate manner..... All theological discussion aside ;)

Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary

Excerpted from here:

Jack Lew’s role at Citigroup was especially dodgy. Citigroup was not merely a facilitator of bubbly hedge funds through the Alternative Investments division for which Lew was chief operating officer. The COO handles legal, regulatory, and administrative matters, and Lew’s bonus of $900,000 for 2008 pegs him as a minor player; a mid-level structured products salesman would have earned more than that. Nonetheless he was there, and signed off on one of the worst scams on Wall Street.

When Lew was a COO at Citigroup, I was strategist for a credit derivatives hedge fund that did a great deal of business with Citigroup. We created collateralized debt obligations out of credit default swaps written on junk-quality debt, and through the magic of structuring, turned the junk debt into AAA-rated bonds. Citigroup not only underwrote these bonds, but bought virtually all of them through its so-called structured investment vehicles (SIV’s). These are off-balance-sheet devices sanctioned by the deaf-dumb-and-blind monkeys at the regulatory agencies that allowed banks to lever up AAA-rated paper at a ratio of 70 to 1. That is, Citibank bought $70 of these phony AAAs with $1 of actual shareholders’ capital. Of course, the supposedly AAA-rated paper rubber-stamped by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s bore no more relation to a true AAA security than a Thai counterfeit Rolex bears to the real thing (in fact, the Thai Rolex holds up better under scrutiny — at least it will tell time). When the crisis hit, the price of these supposed AAA-rated bonds collapsed, leaving Citi with losses multiplied by the 70:1 leverage factor.

That’s why Citigroup went bankrupt (or would have except for repeated federal bailouts). There was a daisy-chain between the hedge fund investment side run in part by Jack Lew, the structuring desk, and the structured investment vehicle. Citigroup took a fee for investing in hedge funds, took a fee for structuring the hedge funds’ investments, and also bought a great deal of the dodgiest product. We used to tell our counterparties at Citigroup that they were crazy to buy this garbage (in effect, we were short the phony AAA paper that Citigroup was buying with 70:1 leverage. And I told the whole world this was the case on CNBC.) One of the reasons I knew with certainty that the banking system would blow up in 2008 was that I knew in detail what Citigroup had bought on Jack Lew’s watch. (The hedge fund I advised paid out its investors in late 2008 with a profit).

Economic Theory: Expanding the Money Supply - Ann Barnhart

Ms. Barnhart clearly explains things.Love it!

----------------
...money is a representative proxy for man's ability to reason, labor, produce and create.

Money therefore is a fungible representation of human life.

Personal property is also a proxy for human capacity. Humans exchange their labor and productivity either for direct payment with other commodities, or, most commonly, for money, which they then turn into either consumable commodities OR personal property.

This is why the coveting and/or stealing of another person's personal property and/or money is specifically prohibited in Seventh and Tenth Commandments. If you steal a man's property or money, you are stealing the part of his life, labor and capacity that the property or money represents. If you covet another man's property, you are begrudging him the right to be compensated for his labor and/or creativity, and thus his sovereignty and human dignity.

Money and property are therefore interchangeable concepts.

If a person purchases a tract of land and agrees to let it to a tenant for a year, the landowner is paid for the TIME VALUE of the productivity of the land for the year in which the tenant has possession and use of the land, and the landowner necessarily surrendered by virtue of the lease.

Money has time value just as the land has time value. If a man lends another man money for a year, which is simply a different, more fungible form of property, upon returning the money to the lender after one year of possessing and using the money and reaping the productivity of the money, why shouldn't the lender be paid a fair rent on the money in exactly the same way that a landowner is paid a fair rent on his land?

To deny interest on money, which is a proxy for human capacity and productivity, is to deny that human life has any time value. To deny that human life has any time value is to deny that human life has any value at all, since all human life exists traversing through time at the precise rate of one second per second. Hence, wages are paid as a function of TIME, per hour, per month or per year.