Archive for Opinion
Blackout In Middle of Chavez Anti-Bush Speech
Posted by: | CommentsFrom the “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” category, strongman Chavez was taking a page from brother Obama’s playbook by giving a speech in which he was blaming all the world’s problems on former President Bush when the power went off.
Friends in Venezuela tell me conditions continue to worsen in the worker’s paradise. I think it’s hysterical to watch the predictable endgame play out in Marxist economies while US politicians promise the masses that national socialism is the answer to every human desire. Meanwhile the Chinese prove they’re smarter than we are by quietly embracing free market economics and simultaneously begin to dump US debt. Como se dice, “Will work for food” in Mandarin?
Along those lines, I was with a Ladino the other day who actually admitted to voting for Colom. He said he liked the idea of giving the Indians 300Q a month (or whatever the figure is), a plank of Colom’s election campaign, and it was one possible reason he won every department other than the capital.
I told this Chapin that he was just suffering from ‘white guilt’, and explained the history of politicians building electoral constituencies by stoking racial tension and using a redistribution of wealth . Setting the issue of whether state sanctioned theft is moral, he said, “Yeah, but they are poor”, to which I responded, “In the US we have spent trillions of dollars buying votes on welfare, which hasn’t changed much in the way of poverty but has gotten decades of Democrats elected, bankrupted the treasury and tricked the uneducated into a lifestyle of dependency. It’s economic bondage, courtesy of Karl Marx.”
My amigo thought about it and said, “Perhaps that’s what the rich and powerful wanted all along.”
And who said Chapins can’t think critically?
Idiot Geniuses
Posted by: | CommentsEl Blogador recently posted studies showing that atheists are smarter than the rest of us and that those of us who believe in God do so because of our own paranoia. He didn’t mention if the studies measured the arrogance of high IQ atheists.
I smiled at the post because I had just come from a bar where I found myself engaged in a lively discussion with three atheists and one agnostic. The agnostic was largely quiet, commenting only occasionally to scoff at the more absurd assertions by the atheist. I thought I’d share an accurate, if not literal, excerpted version of the dialogue:
Atheist 1: So you’re probably one of those evolution deniers, right?
DM: No, I’m open on the question of the method God uses to create things.
Atheist 2: But God and evolution are mutually exclusive!
DM: Prove it.
Atheist 1: Well, that’s just a cop out.
DM: No, you asserted it and evolution dogmatists state it is a fact, so prove it. I hold that God created time and matter and I am less interested in the technique, just as I am more interested in getting another glass of wine than I am in the technique the bartender uses in pouring.
Atheist 2: But you hold to a theory which can’t be proven.
DM: So do you.
Atheist 3: That’s not true, evolution is proven.
DM: I disagree. Many high IQ, atheist scientists believe the common understanding of the evolutionary theory-Darwinism-is severely flawed. And unlike most scientific work, it can’t be tested. It’s a theory that is unproven.
Agnostic: That’s a good point.
DM: Thanks.
Atheist 2: No it’s, not, stop encouraging him. Do you think gravity is a theory?
DM: No, I accept gravity. I consider it proven. I can knock your beer off the table and prove it; will you kindly prove evolution to me?
Atheist 1: You’re a smart guy, are you telling me you really believe some all powerful narcissistic genie character with no beginning and end snapped his fingers and created all this?
DM: You’re a smart guy, are you telling me that everything came from nothing?
Atheist 1: That’s absurd.
DM: Yeah, that was the point I was making. You have faith in a theory you cannot prove and you mock the faith I have in a theory I cannot prove.
Atheist 2: Oh, don’t give us that BS faith thing, reason and faith are not the same thing.
DM: I didn’t say they were, but my reason tells me that since everything we know of has a beginning and an end, and that everything in motion was put in motion, then reason tells me something was there at the beginning capable of both creative power and potency and if you believe in the big bang, then what was the cause of the big bang? Nothing?
Atheist 1: Matter was there.
DM: And the matter was created how?
Atheist 1: It was always there.
DM: And how do you know that?
Atheist 1: Uh…
DM: And what caused the matter to spontaneously fall in on itself and create the density required to trigger the big bang?
Agnostic: Oh, this is getting good…
Atheist 2: Well, I just think there was no ‘beginning’ such as you describe, that you’ve gotten us to accept your premise of a First Cause.
DM: Well, that’s your problem. Do you have an alternative explanation for how everything began and how all things came to be in motion?
Atheist 3: But evolution makes a lot of sense, it explains a lot of things that we seek the answers to.
DM: So does a Creator, but you reject Him and mock those of us who don’t blindly follow your secular faith.
Atheist 1: Oh, here we go with the atheist faith fallacy…
DM: You believe evolution is so superior to God simply because it takes place slowly and started from some primordial soup whose origins you can’t explain. Think about that for a moment.
Agnostic: That’s a good point, did you come up with that?
DM: No, with my 136 IQ I’m an intellectual midget compared to you geniuses who are unburdened by the paranoia I carry around.
Atheist 2: I don’t think you really believe this stuff, you just like polemics.
DM: You have a love affair with facts but fear/ignore the truth.
Atheist 2: What’s that supposed to mean?
DM: You’ve been indoctrinated into empiricism and adhere to said rules like I (occasionally) adhere to the Sacraments but these facts, which are often wrong due to human error or prejudice, don’t really explain anything in terms of truth.
Atheist 2: Okay, I’ll bite; “What is truth”.
DM: Facts are things that can be observed and measured, but in themselves don’t explain things. You may interpret them and reach conclusions which you, given that you are an atheist, naturally believe will be both true and factual and above reproach, but you still have not necessarily found truth. So much of evolutionary theory is based on untested, in fact, untestable theories, but instead is one generation after another of theory which assumes the accuracy of a predecessor’s theories. They can’t test evolution in a lab, all they can attempt is deduction based on the little data they have. Have you ever read the conclusions brilliant scientists have reached merely by looking at drawings on a cave wall? They deduce all sorts of things that cannot be inferred by the drawings but which happen to align with the scientists’ preconception of what a cave man was like.
Agnostic: Can you give me something practical?
DM: Well, take global warming. It has been believed to be true by millions and even now is held to by some people who you would otherwise consider to be intelligent and rational. And yet, the facts have either been faked or wrongly interpreted. Almost nothing the scientists involved have represented is ‘true’. Sure, some temperatures have been rising, and so they concluded this was the result of man-made global warming, but it turns out that an objective review determined those readings to be disproportionately located in areas of substantial urban growth. It would be like taking the temperature of human beings but only those who had just finished exercising in the desert, and then concluding that the average human temperature is about 101. Besides, the earth is actually cooling, and the temperature increases that were authentic started before the industrial revolution, a minor problem if you believe human industrial activity is the cause of global warming.
Agnostic: Interesting.
Atheist 1: Let’s return to this atheist question because if we continue down this path you’ll use your theology to trick us into debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
DM: Don’t you know?
Atheist 1: Sigh.
Agnostic: How many is it, oh great one?
DM: One.
Atheist 1: So, you’ve managed to change the subject but evolution really is proven, we have the missing link.
DM: No you don’t. Where is the animal that was a transition between monkey/chimp/gorilla to man?
Atheist 2: It’s not that simple.
DM: Right. Let me ask this, it’s evolutionary theory that animals (including man) adapt and evolve and develop these genetic traits based on experience and environment, right?
Atheist 3: That’s reasonable.
DM: Well, if I stopped wasting my time drinking in these dive bars and instead was working out at the gym and developed massive muscles, does that mean that when my child is born he will have large muscles?
Agnostic: LOL.
Atheist 2: Of course not, but if your son and his son and so on for many millions of years did this then their children would, over time, become stronger.
DM: Can you prove that?
Atheist 3: Well….how else would you explain things?
DM: Doesn’t it make more sense that through the history of mankind those who were best suited to a particular environment prospered and those who were ill-suited either died off or moved on to a less challenging environment, kind of like what happens in these conversations?
Atheist 1: You’re an a$$hole.
DM: Perhaps, do you think that’s genetic or have I adapted to my environment?
Agnostic: I love it!
Atheist 2: So how do you explain all this genetic and DNA evidence that tends to support evolutionary theory?
DM: I don’t know, maybe there is some evolution in our history, but you all believe scientists are infallible while I think they are human with a propensity to seek answers that will support the conclusions they’ve already reached….
Atheist 1: No, that’s what close minded theists do.
DM: …like Global Warming, which was never anything more than a humanist religion, now known to have been a total fraud. There need be no conflict between faith and reason, but for the secularist, they must be mutually exclusive, because they have decided there is no God and must develop evidence to support this theory, however unlikely or unproven the theory is.
Agnostic: Why didn’t I ever hear any of this in Sunday School?
DM: Because many believers, whether atheist or theist, are comfortable with their presumptions and don’t want them tested. It represents a threat to their core values and the worldview, and they reject information contrary to what they would like to believe.
Atheist 1: I’ve spent a lifetime watching fools of every stripe worship their gods and then steal and murder and lie and cheat and I think you’re a fool for even pretending to believe as they do. It’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen, all these Priests on their altars are no different than the Indians and their witchdoctors. I could never debase myself to accept such foolishness, and I think you’re too smart for it. You possess the ability to reason through things, you should be an atheist.
DM: You mean, like you, with no answers to any questions and a belief in infallible colleagues so long as they share my presumptions?
Atheist 1: You’re awfully arrogant.
DM: It’s only arrogance if you’re wrong.
Rating the Presidents
Posted by: | CommentsEl Blogador is rating Latin American heads of states, and I got a good chuckle reading through the list and realizing how easily I could predict his evaluations based on how closely said leader follows the Communist Manifesto. There were a few surprises, but for predictive purposes this ideological overlay works.
Before you click through, think about which Latin American leader you are most like and then see where El Blogador would rate you.
I’m Hungry
Posted by: | CommentsEl Blogador makes a regular-almost daily-habit of reviewing movies. One topic that recently caught my eye was the movie ‘Food Inc’, not because I’ve seen it, but because I worked on a business plan recently which touched on this topic.
I’m going to skip commentary on the apparently anti-market movie and El Blogador’s anti-American sentiment, since neither their opinions or my response is likely to be of surprise to readers, but the primary topic should be. As I’ve learned in recent years, 98% of the food supply in the US is produced by only 2% of the population, and the bulk of the food is produced and distributed by a few large companies. (If I were a liberal I would say, ‘a few evil multinational corporations’).
Naturally these companies respond to market pressures to produce large quantities of food at low prices. Despite what the poor and uneducated may believe, these companies do not begin with the objective ‘produce low quality food’, but rather, interpret market demands and then seek to satisfy them. In the US, and it would appear around the world, people want lots of good tasting food and don’t want to pay very much for it. Imagine that.
Because the market works more efficiently in the US than in most other countries-and certainly most other large economies due to the relatively low level of governmental interference-the market is getting what it wants, and that means that the food is not very nutritious but it looks/tastes good and is cheap. El Blogador blames this on subsidies, and while there are subsidies (that debate will have to wait), subsidies represent a tiny fraction of the US food production marketplace. I therefore conclude the structure of food prices has more to do with The Invisible Hand than the subsidies, which are really designed to keep domestic production viable when it might otherwise disappear due to foreign government subsidies of their exports.
What does this all mean? Well, the Nutrition Nazis have long favored locally produced organically grown food, mostly for the wrong reasons. They want us to eat mostly vegetables because consuming animal products is wrong, because locally produced food deprives evil multinational agribusiness of revenue, and because organic processes respect the rights of insects and diseases.
The truth, of course, requires a little more discernment and won’t be as satisfying to the partisans. Locally produced food has the great advantage of being fresh and being close to the consumer. Freshness usually translates into higher nutritional density, and a shorter supply line means disruption is less likely and also the cost of delivery is lower. It almost always translates to higher prices, since the small farmer cannot reasonably compete with the large one in terms of price or efficiency. It also means that diversity suffers, since local production is likely to be more specialized. For the libs, this diversity-challenged farming approach really should be a deal-killer.
Organic would seem on the surface to make sense, but one challenge is the loss of efficiency that goes hand in hand with a reduction of fertilizers and pesticides that deter and or prevent plant death and disease. The lower efficacy of organic approaches lead to reduced crop yield, which has two consequences: lower supply and higher prices. The left’s obsession with organic has reached levels similar to the demagoguery that surrounded DDT for most of my life, only to be proven to be largely politically motivated.
There are some good reasons to choose locally produced and organic food. I enjoy knowing that much of the food we now consume here in Guatemala was produced within a short drive from where we live. This means that there are few risks to the food supply and less is spent on distribution and marketing. This, combined with a low cost of labor, is the reason local food is inexpensive. These are market-relevant factors, not politically motivated ideologies that run against market forces.
I enjoy organic food here because I know the people producing the food are concerned with the nutritional value. Those producers who are working to achieve size and beauty in their produce have an incentive to achieve these objectives without regard to the nutritional value. They may be sufficiently motivated even to chemically manipulate their produce in a manner that is unhealthy. Knowing that in the US there is some regulation of the food suggests that the manipulation is measured, whereas here I can have no such confidence. So organic is a reasonable choice-perhaps a gamble-that the nutritional density is greater. Add to this consideration that the organic grower’s concern for nutrition may translate into a more hygienic handling of the product and you have a formula which justifies the substantially higher price.
One final comment-US food prices have remained relatively low for a long time, despite record levels of crop failure and destruction (due to weather), increasing use of corn for alternative fuels (ethanol), and a booming, more affluent population in Asia, which translates into a much higher caloric intake. Were global warming true, this would likely solve the world’s food problem (longer growing seasons and a larger global production area), but as some of us have long suspected it is a total fraud, and in fact the earth is likely entering another little ice age, which spells further trouble for the global food supply, and means higher food prices for you and I.
Guns in Guate
Posted by: | CommentsEvery now and then I hear from someone or meet someone in town who expresses dismay/fear over the prevalence of guns here in Guate. It’s true, they are everywhere, from the water truck, to the coke truck, outside many storefronts, all the banks, and on the hip of the random local.
I grew up in a gun-friendly culture in Phoenix where it wasn’t uncommon to see people wandering the malls with guns on their hips (what is called ‘open carry’), and always felt better knowing that a criminal was less likely to do me harm if lots of other guys were likely to fill him with holes at the first sign of trouble.
One British friend of mine said, “But that’s the whole problem with your gun laws; you have so much crime precisely because everyone has a gun.” I ignored the logical fallacy and raised the question of why banning guns would stop criminals (who by definition ignore/violate the law), from using guns, there was a long silence and then this Brit says, “Well, maybe you should try it”. I explained how it had been tried in Washington, D.C., and the result-not surprisingly-was that DC had one of the highest crime rates in the country.
I understand the presence of the guns here may be a reflection of the incidence of crime in the country. Would anyone really feel better though if you could take all the guns away from all the aforementioned people and hope that the bad guys would similarly give up their guns?
A liberal expat-to-be recently observed that it wasn’t legal for me to own a gun in this country. I pointed out that if true, it wasn’t the first immoral act of a government and that the natural rights of men include the right to self-preservation. (For you Obama disciples, natural rights cannot be legitimately infringed upon by governments). Since I was talking about human life and not owls or seals, the whole concept of the right to life didn’t mean much to her and the conversation deteriorated further when she inquired whether I was one of those ‘global warming deniers’. Hehe. Don’t worry, I went easy on her and told her I’d never heard of it before but would love to talk about it…next time.
I once heard this story about an expat, who we’ll call Matt, who struck up a conversation with some cops. It turns out the cops have to buy their own ammunition, and naturally don’t get much practice because ammunition is expensive. Matt volunteered to buy some ammo if the cops would allow he and his sons to get some time in at the range as well.
When Matt showed up at the shooting range/finca, he found not the two cops he was expecting, but six guys, each of whom had brought his gun and was more than happy to let the gringo and kids practice.
A few thoughts:
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
Colt Peacemaker: The original point and click interface.
Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.
What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand.
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
64,999,987 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
You don’t shoot to kill; You shoot to stay alive.
911 – government sponsored Dial a Prayer.
Assault is a behavior, not a device.
Criminals love gun control – it makes their jobs safer.
If Guns cause Crime, then Matches cause Arson.
Only a government that is afraid of it’s citizens tries to control them.
You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
Too Tough for Their Own Good
Posted by: | CommentsThis post by Katie Ficker reminded me of a little epiphany I had the other day while I was with Santiago discovering an alternate route back from San Lucas through Cerro de la Cruz. I had taken note of the tiny little men, women and children who were climbing the mountain street with huge packs of timber on their backs, held on by straps around their foreheads and thought to myself, “I think these people are too tough for their own good.”
I remember traveling in the hills of Eastern Kentucky and in West Virginia and encountering people who took great pride in how strong and tough they were, how they had endured the worst deprivations and could do it again. The odd thing is, they would almost welcome it. Their physical suffering had given birth to an anti-intellectualism and a hardened contrarianism that actually derived joy-or possibly delusion-from the fact that they lacked the fruits of innovation. I’ll never forget feeling, on the one hand, admiration for how these people had overcome great trials, and alternately the complete confusion that they would so eagerly reject the obvious benefits of technological advancement that leverage man’s productivity and yield a higher standard of living.
Many of you are eager to jump to conclusions about me so let me say that I’ve long been a fan of Russel Kirk and the Agrarian school, and Jefferson is by far my favorite American political theorist, so it’s not that I find no value in these ‘Agrarian’ qualities, but unlike the Amish (whose lifestyle is a byproduct of their belief system rather than the object of it), these living conditions have not been arrived at through an embrace of an ideology or a commitment of a certain way of life; It’s just ‘the way things are’.
I thought about that and wondered why it is that some people consciously reject the benefits offered by innovation. Take the family carrying the wood; why don’t they use a bicycle-powered cart? Are not the benefits of the wheel and the greater cargo carrying space easily apparent? Don’t they realize that they could gather more, transport more, and do it more quickly and easily with even the most rudimentary of devices, something that could be put together from the metal scraps that line the streets? The bicycle cart is pedaled up the hill, and then gravity helps to bring it down, faster and with less labor than hands and feet. One man could do more in a day than his entire family.
Many of the Guatemaltecos that I’ve come to know (and subsequently realize harbor resentment of the US), believe that time/pleasure are more important than merely what you can produce through your labor, and bristle at Gringo suggestions about productivity. I discussed this in GuateTime and GuateGrudge. They condemn, despise, and perhaps pity the first world for having swapped the discomfort of our 19th century lifestyles for the obligations which come with 21st century lifestyles. Ironically, they resent us for having achieved what they envy. Think about that for a moment.
I’m often asked, in an aggressive, questioning tone by locals or Noble Savage Expats, “What are you doing here?”, and I haven’t yet encountered someone who really understood that it would be possible for someone to come here without the intention of raping and pillaging. I want to shake these people and say, “You don’t know anyone who knows anyone who was enslaved by the conquistadors, and you probably don’t know anyone who was actually mistreated by the UFC (substitute your favorite scapegoat of choice); you’re just looking to blame The Man”.
I tried to explain the concept of Leisure, as expressed so eloquently by Josef Pieper, and it falls on deaf ears. Perhaps the lecture would have been more effective had it been delivered by El Blogador, or perhaps the concept does not translate to this culture. (I might add I have friends in the US, who, on the opposite end of the spectrum, see work itself as the ‘end’).
Thoughts and criticisms are welcome.
“This is Guatemala; Speak Spanish”
Posted by: | CommentsAs always, identities have been changed to protect the innocent (and the guilty).
I was at a party recently when I overheard this exchange:
Mature Latina: “Habla espanol?”
Gringa: “Un poco”
And then the Guatemalteca launched into a conversation in rapid-fire Spanish. She was accompanied by her daughter who interrupted her and they had this conversation:
Daughter: “Mom, she just said she only spoke a little Spanish…you know English so speak in English to her.”
Mature Latina: “When I’m in the United States, I speak English, but this is Guatemala and I’m going to speak Spanish.”
I smiled a little listening to the conversation, remembering hearing so often in the US people complain about Mexicans speaking Spanish. Mind you, it was often simply overhearing a conversation in Spanish that bothered them, or listening to a phone menu with options in Spanish that irked them. It wasn’t that often a Mexican would approach a caucasian and would address them directly in Spanish, and if it was, it was usually because they really needed help.
This was the first time in nearly two years in Latin America that I’d heard this actually said out loud. I chuckled, although the Gringa to whom it was addressed didn’t find it all that humorous. Of course it’s Guatemala, and of course the language is Spanish, and if you’re here for any length of time you should make an effort to speak the language. The same holds for foreign visitors to the US.
I know people get all out of joint about this, but it need not be a cultural pride issue, it’s just smart; your opportunities-personal and professional-are greatly expanded by speaking the local language. It’s not my frustrating experiences at the mechanic or the mercado that really make me want to perfect my Spanish, it’s the inability to communicate with businessmen or political leaders in the capital or new Guatemalan friends in their language that frustrates me. In contrast, a friend of mine who is somewhat of a hermit has been here for 25 years and said his spanish is still terrible and he doesn’t care, “I don’t really want to talk to anyone anyway”.
Most people I’ve met here are extremely tolerant of my bad Spanish, and are eager to help me or even attempt their own English to communicate. The women almost uniformly giggle or smile as I slaughter their language and humiliate myself attempting to get the point across. “Feliz Ano” vs “Feliz Año”? Both sound agreeable to me. In contrast, the guys are rarely amused, but they are patient.
What you don’t find here is that same desperate political correctness as you do in the US; all the forms here are in Spanish, all the rules and regulations are in Spanish, nobody is going to print you a drivers license application in 32 different languages (Kekchi perhaps) simply because some guy from Lichenstein wants everything printed in his language. If you can’t read Spanish and think your civil rights are being violated, you’re not going to get anywhere with your complaint here.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s as it should be. If the private sector wants to take the time and expense to offer multi-lingual services, they should, and perhaps it will accrue to their benefit. The public sector should operate on the basis that promoting the common good involves a common language. One of the reasons the US rose to such global dominance in the 20th century was a common language and religion which held the people together. We inherited this model from the British, who demonstrated amply in the preceding generations how a united people can extend an empire when they’re not struggling with vast cultural, language and religious issues at home. We’re both now learning the true costs of cultural relativism, the British having already lost their empire and the US working (unintentionally, perhaps), to rapidly dismantle.
Guatemala is still struggling with divisions between ethnicities, cultures and languages. There are obvious social castes at work as well. I’m grateful so many Guatemalans are tolerant of my poor linguistic abilities and often want to communicate in English but I’m glad to see someone say, “In this country we speak Spanish”, instead of “Oh, poor thing, we need to hire a translator so this person doesn’t have to learn the local language.”
Loading ...