Review of Return to Prosperity by Laffer and Moore.
As a candidate for public office or a political activist, it is easy to ignore the basics, especially when it comes to economics. This election season, this subject is front and center to the exclusion of almost all else, yet most of us get our understanding from a few scattered news wire stories and the occasional Wall Street Journal article (even then, we probably will not read the whole story).
This book is the cure for all this. Laffer’s knowledge and explanations are clear and easy for even the layman to understand thoroughly. It is easy to have one’s political outlook color one’s view of economics; happily, the author has avoided this pitfall. His explanations are spot on, and powered by actual fact and history, not rhetoric or political belief. Of special is note is the chapter on the Great Depression, and the appendix where the author explains his famous graph.
Yes, it is easy to disagree with some of the author’s political judgments and curative prescriptions (he presents his plan for a flat tax, which is just one of many that has made the rounds in recent years), but one cannot help but be impressed by his knowledge and clear-headed thinking.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Recommended Reading: The True Believer by Eric Hoffer
When I was a teenager, Erik von Daniken was all the rage. He had a theory (Chariots of the Gods) that the pyramids in Egypt were built by aliens from outer space. Stupid, yes; but for several years he garnered a following of fierce, loyal believers. Going to his speeches was sort of like going to a religious revival. The emotional attitude of modern day conservationists reminds me of the followers of von Daniken. The parallels are downright eerie.
This book by Hoffer does a fabulous job of dissecting the psychology of these mass movements. His essay incorporates powerful movements from religion, politics, and nationalism. If you have ever wondered how these fanatics over the millennia changed the world, this is the book you need.
I have no doubt that if a conservative Republican where to absorb the lessons of this book and tap into the psychology of mass movements, he could easily ride a tidal wave all the way to the White House in 2012. Of particular interest are the chapters 89-95 on leadership.
Recommended reading for any candidate or political activist in this rather turbulent political season.
This book by Hoffer does a fabulous job of dissecting the psychology of these mass movements. His essay incorporates powerful movements from religion, politics, and nationalism. If you have ever wondered how these fanatics over the millennia changed the world, this is the book you need.
I have no doubt that if a conservative Republican where to absorb the lessons of this book and tap into the psychology of mass movements, he could easily ride a tidal wave all the way to the White House in 2012. Of particular interest are the chapters 89-95 on leadership.
Recommended reading for any candidate or political activist in this rather turbulent political season.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Thoughts Upon Reading the Qur’an
The behavior of Islamic countries is the driving forcing behind American foreign policy these days. When I was a youngster, it was the Soviet Union. These days, it is the Shia crescent in the Middle East.
As a candidate for national office, I thought it wise to read the Qur’an and become at least a wee bit familiar with Islam. It is an activity that I recommend to others. The view of Islam from the Qur’an is rather different from how it is practiced by radicals or viewed by the West.
A Jarring Disconnect
My reaction upon reading the last page and closing the back cover was nearly identical to my reading of the Bible. What I read in the religious tome had nothing to do with the behavior of churches/mosques of each religion. There was a jarring disconnect from the tome to religious practice.
A forest of interpretive works has grown around each book. Modern day adherents of these 2 religions, more often than not, will base their behavior on the interpretive essay rather than the tome itself.
For Christianity: rigid dogma was not a characteristic of the churches built by Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul.
For Islam: nowhere does it advocate beating women, killing people who create unflattering images of Mohammed, or committing suicide and taking as many nonbelievers with as you can.
Taken Out of Context: Is Islam a Militaristic Religion?
Many smart people, some of whom really should know better, will make this charge. They say that to be a Muslim means that you are automatically at war with Christianity or Judaism. They can, but usually do not, quote something from the Qur’an to prove their point. This may be so, but such attitude does not come from the religious book itself.
They are probably referring to Surah’s 8 and 9, and the latter part of 4. This, however, is taking the Qur’an out of context. These Surahs refer to a strict Muslim code of behavior when part of an Islamic army that is on the battlefield; as such, it represents a more moral code of behavior than was typical of Christian armies of the period.
It is not a template for everyday life. Nevertheless, some will regard it as such.
Likewise for the New Testament: nowhere does it mention homosexuality or black slavery, but there are those who will make it so by quoting from the Bible out of context.
Does the Qur’an Advocate Terrorism?
Not that I can see. Nowhere is suicide condoned, nor is the killing of innocents, even if they are nonbelievers. In fact, at several points, it is made clear that Allah (relax: ‘Allah’ is merely the Arabic word for ‘God’) will punish the nonbelievers on the Day of Resurrection, not the rank and file Muslims.
On this point, see:
3:180
6:137
18:104-106
22:17, 55-57
31:23
39:68-72
Mohammed is only a warner, and therefore not an enforcer. See:
35:23
38:65, 70
42:48
48:8
79:45
Do yourself and your religion (whatever it is) a favor: once you have read these verses, take a deep breath, lean back a little, and read the entire Surah so you can understand the phrase in context.
Of course, the truth has never stopped radicals or extremists, and this applies to religion. This has been true throughout history.
Bibliography
I am fully aware of the dogma that reading the Qur’an in a language other than Arabic is invalid. Anyone who has struggled with variously inaccurate and slanted English Translations of the New Testament will understand the wisdom of this precept. However, since I do not read Hebrew, Koine Greek, or Arabic, I am stuck with English translations of same.
Changing the shade of meaning here and there in key passages can dramatically alter one’s perception of the tome. I read it twice:
**The Meanings of the Illustrious Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali (trans.), Adam Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-7435-153-1.
**The Glorious Qur’an, various (trans.), Asir Media, Why Islam Project, Istanbul, 2009 (tenth edition), (no ISBN).
What Is Islam?
I have no idea. Anyone who pretends to answer this question without having been involved in a Muslim community for an extended period of time is talking through his hat.
However, to get a flavor of the Qur’an, start out by reading the following Surahs:
35-36
39-42
I should note that if you read these Surahs and substitute ‘YHVH’ for ‘Allah’, you could easily be reading something from the Torah.
An Islamic Reformation?
The parallels between Christianity and Islam are too close to ignore. Islam, schematically, is at the same point that Christianity was at just before Martin Luther and the Reformation: rigid and intolerant.
The only reason Christianity is so dominant in today’s world was because of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation: it brought religion from an elitist institution down to the level of the individual. Islam appears to be similarly ripe for a revolution in religious thinking
As a candidate for national office, I thought it wise to read the Qur’an and become at least a wee bit familiar with Islam. It is an activity that I recommend to others. The view of Islam from the Qur’an is rather different from how it is practiced by radicals or viewed by the West.
A Jarring Disconnect
My reaction upon reading the last page and closing the back cover was nearly identical to my reading of the Bible. What I read in the religious tome had nothing to do with the behavior of churches/mosques of each religion. There was a jarring disconnect from the tome to religious practice.
A forest of interpretive works has grown around each book. Modern day adherents of these 2 religions, more often than not, will base their behavior on the interpretive essay rather than the tome itself.
For Christianity: rigid dogma was not a characteristic of the churches built by Jesus, the Disciples, and Paul.
For Islam: nowhere does it advocate beating women, killing people who create unflattering images of Mohammed, or committing suicide and taking as many nonbelievers with as you can.
Taken Out of Context: Is Islam a Militaristic Religion?
Many smart people, some of whom really should know better, will make this charge. They say that to be a Muslim means that you are automatically at war with Christianity or Judaism. They can, but usually do not, quote something from the Qur’an to prove their point. This may be so, but such attitude does not come from the religious book itself.
They are probably referring to Surah’s 8 and 9, and the latter part of 4. This, however, is taking the Qur’an out of context. These Surahs refer to a strict Muslim code of behavior when part of an Islamic army that is on the battlefield; as such, it represents a more moral code of behavior than was typical of Christian armies of the period.
It is not a template for everyday life. Nevertheless, some will regard it as such.
Likewise for the New Testament: nowhere does it mention homosexuality or black slavery, but there are those who will make it so by quoting from the Bible out of context.
Does the Qur’an Advocate Terrorism?
Not that I can see. Nowhere is suicide condoned, nor is the killing of innocents, even if they are nonbelievers. In fact, at several points, it is made clear that Allah (relax: ‘Allah’ is merely the Arabic word for ‘God’) will punish the nonbelievers on the Day of Resurrection, not the rank and file Muslims.
On this point, see:
3:180
6:137
18:104-106
22:17, 55-57
31:23
39:68-72
Mohammed is only a warner, and therefore not an enforcer. See:
35:23
38:65, 70
42:48
48:8
79:45
Do yourself and your religion (whatever it is) a favor: once you have read these verses, take a deep breath, lean back a little, and read the entire Surah so you can understand the phrase in context.
Of course, the truth has never stopped radicals or extremists, and this applies to religion. This has been true throughout history.
Bibliography
I am fully aware of the dogma that reading the Qur’an in a language other than Arabic is invalid. Anyone who has struggled with variously inaccurate and slanted English Translations of the New Testament will understand the wisdom of this precept. However, since I do not read Hebrew, Koine Greek, or Arabic, I am stuck with English translations of same.
Changing the shade of meaning here and there in key passages can dramatically alter one’s perception of the tome. I read it twice:
**The Meanings of the Illustrious Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali (trans.), Adam Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 2006, ISBN 81-7435-153-1.
**The Glorious Qur’an, various (trans.), Asir Media, Why Islam Project, Istanbul, 2009 (tenth edition), (no ISBN).
What Is Islam?
I have no idea. Anyone who pretends to answer this question without having been involved in a Muslim community for an extended period of time is talking through his hat.
However, to get a flavor of the Qur’an, start out by reading the following Surahs:
35-36
39-42
I should note that if you read these Surahs and substitute ‘YHVH’ for ‘Allah’, you could easily be reading something from the Torah.
An Islamic Reformation?
The parallels between Christianity and Islam are too close to ignore. Islam, schematically, is at the same point that Christianity was at just before Martin Luther and the Reformation: rigid and intolerant.
The only reason Christianity is so dominant in today’s world was because of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation: it brought religion from an elitist institution down to the level of the individual. Islam appears to be similarly ripe for a revolution in religious thinking
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Update on My Campaign Strategy
Well, the election is now less than 3 months away, and my campaign strategy is more or less set.
I have discovered that there are 2 ways my candidacy gains currency:
1) personal self promotion
2) a wide web of electronic precincts run by voters and supporters in my district
In order to promote #2, I have endeavored to make my website a primary source of information and thought from the politically conservative point of view.
Well, #1 is the usual sort of campaign activity, of which I am engaging in the usual variety, but I am beginning to realize the limitations of this in the absence of a well financed media buy strategy, even more since I have decided to forgo the usual political fund raising as being unseemly.
I have discovered that there are 2 ways my candidacy gains currency:
1) personal self promotion
2) a wide web of electronic precincts run by voters and supporters in my district
In order to promote #2, I have endeavored to make my website a primary source of information and thought from the politically conservative point of view.
Well, #1 is the usual sort of campaign activity, of which I am engaging in the usual variety, but I am beginning to realize the limitations of this in the absence of a well financed media buy strategy, even more since I have decided to forgo the usual political fund raising as being unseemly.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Thoughts on Karl Marx
I finally read (the relevant parts of) ‘The Marx-Engels Reader (Robert C. Tucker, ed.)’. I found this book to be most illuminating, and recommend it. Why spend so much time on this? If you are going to defeat the enemy, you must first understand his core philosophy.
The introduction was quite useful: the editor gives you Marx’ philosophy in a nutshell. ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’ was also important. Here, you will find his beliefs on free will, the proletariat, private property, communism, and science as god. Strangely, the selections from ‘Capital’ were only marginally useful: Marx attempts, with little success, to rewrite the tenets of capitalism. Going from this work to the ‘Communist Manifesto’ was jarring, inasmuch they seemed to be written by different people (e.g. Engels).
Another point I realized: you have to trace the development of communism. Marx was the solid, German philosopher. Engels was the PR/application arm of this team. Do not confuse this pair with Communism as implemented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, the subsequent changes by Stalin, and further changes by Khrushchev and Brezhnev. The flavor of Communism in China by Mao is different still, and much closer to that of Marx than the Russian variety.
Final word: just because Communism was a practical failure, do not dismiss it so lightly. It has a solid, difficult-to-refute philosophical basis.
The introduction was quite useful: the editor gives you Marx’ philosophy in a nutshell. ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’ was also important. Here, you will find his beliefs on free will, the proletariat, private property, communism, and science as god. Strangely, the selections from ‘Capital’ were only marginally useful: Marx attempts, with little success, to rewrite the tenets of capitalism. Going from this work to the ‘Communist Manifesto’ was jarring, inasmuch they seemed to be written by different people (e.g. Engels).
Another point I realized: you have to trace the development of communism. Marx was the solid, German philosopher. Engels was the PR/application arm of this team. Do not confuse this pair with Communism as implemented by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, the subsequent changes by Stalin, and further changes by Khrushchev and Brezhnev. The flavor of Communism in China by Mao is different still, and much closer to that of Marx than the Russian variety.
Final word: just because Communism was a practical failure, do not dismiss it so lightly. It has a solid, difficult-to-refute philosophical basis.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx - Phooey
Funny: I read ‘The Marx-Engels Reader’ (Robert C. Tucker, ed.) in an attempt to understand the radical left and their Marxist roots. Yet, my epiphany was reading the editor’s introductory explanation, specifically section I of the Introduction on pages xvii-xxii.
According to this, Hegel postulates a movement by mankind from self awareness to a higher plane of existence (God), or whatever he calls it. Feuerbach goes the opposite direction; he goes from God back down to the individual: care, love, and worship (humanism).
Marx makes the key equation: God = political economy = capitalism = accumulation of wealth = private property = man as simple commodity = producer = self estrangement. He then moves from here back down to the individual (socialization and release of the creative powers of the proletariat). He postulates a movement from Man’s self-estrangement back down to his natural state of existence.
Yes, I know: those of you who actually know something about philosophy are probably laughing into your sleeves by now. However, for the first time, I have that warm, fuzzy feeling that I have some inkling of understanding.
As a Buddhist, I view humanity as a dynamic, uncontrollable, and ever changing stream flowing through one of those Zen gardens. Sometimes, a calm, tranquil mirror. Sometimes, a happy, gurgling, babbling brook. Sometimes, a fierce, angry demon destroying everything in its path. Anyone who thinks that they can control this human river is a fool. As such, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx are about as valid as The Great Pumpkin.
According to this, Hegel postulates a movement by mankind from self awareness to a higher plane of existence (God), or whatever he calls it. Feuerbach goes the opposite direction; he goes from God back down to the individual: care, love, and worship (humanism).
Marx makes the key equation: God = political economy = capitalism = accumulation of wealth = private property = man as simple commodity = producer = self estrangement. He then moves from here back down to the individual (socialization and release of the creative powers of the proletariat). He postulates a movement from Man’s self-estrangement back down to his natural state of existence.
Yes, I know: those of you who actually know something about philosophy are probably laughing into your sleeves by now. However, for the first time, I have that warm, fuzzy feeling that I have some inkling of understanding.
As a Buddhist, I view humanity as a dynamic, uncontrollable, and ever changing stream flowing through one of those Zen gardens. Sometimes, a calm, tranquil mirror. Sometimes, a happy, gurgling, babbling brook. Sometimes, a fierce, angry demon destroying everything in its path. Anyone who thinks that they can control this human river is a fool. As such, Hegel, Feuerbach, and Marx are about as valid as The Great Pumpkin.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
About Advertising
There has been a thought buzzing around the empty space between my ears for a while. It has finally landed and I can put words to it.
In the 70’s, consider an industry with several prominent competitors. At that time, a lack of advertising was considered to be a sign that there was real competition between them. The thought being advertising could only be afforded by a competitor who was well ahead of the others, and that they had such a large portion of the market, that they stood to benefit most from the ad. In the absence of advertising, the impression was one of intense competition. None of the competitors could afford ads, nor be assured that they would benefit from any effects of the ad rather than one of its competitors. One possible trick is for a monopoly to never advertise, implying that there is genuine competition in its industry.
It occurred to me that simply refusing to do ads or assorted media buys could, by itself, be a significant statement. Course, it could also be taken to be the actions of a poorly supported campaign. Advertising could be construed to be an act of desperation in a lopsided race.
I do not know if my decision to not do media buys up to this point is correct, but we shall see.
In the 70’s, consider an industry with several prominent competitors. At that time, a lack of advertising was considered to be a sign that there was real competition between them. The thought being advertising could only be afforded by a competitor who was well ahead of the others, and that they had such a large portion of the market, that they stood to benefit most from the ad. In the absence of advertising, the impression was one of intense competition. None of the competitors could afford ads, nor be assured that they would benefit from any effects of the ad rather than one of its competitors. One possible trick is for a monopoly to never advertise, implying that there is genuine competition in its industry.
It occurred to me that simply refusing to do ads or assorted media buys could, by itself, be a significant statement. Course, it could also be taken to be the actions of a poorly supported campaign. Advertising could be construed to be an act of desperation in a lopsided race.
I do not know if my decision to not do media buys up to this point is correct, but we shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)