Software problems

Well my experiment with hard returns didn't work, the blogger.com software still runs everything together. Therefore I am forced to stop posting here until such time as I can figure out how to fix that. Such a format is way too obnoxious to readers.

(OK, let's try again. The blogger.com software seems to be dropping all hard returns and running everything together when I past from another document. Maybe if I put in those returns manually it will work, I hope.) Theory without empirical evidence is mere speculation. Empirical evidence without theory is simply a collection of facts. Theory supported by empirical evidence is science. How is this for an opportunity? You want to move to a new country but there is a ten to twenty year wait to get a visa. Or you can reach that country by taking an dangerous and unpleasant trip, across rivers and deserts, guided by unsavory characters who will probably demand extra money at the end of the trip, and who think part of their fee is the right to rape any women they are guiding. What is at the end of your journey? Why a country that many claim is not as good as where you are now. Yet millions make that trip. They wait years for visas, or make that dangerous trip, to enter the United States. If our country is so terrible, why do so many want to move here? I have friends who risked everything to reach the United States. Yet many of our so-called elites denigrate our country. They claim that we should copy Europe or other systems. Those elitists want a statist system, similar to what my friends fled. Even some who flee to this country want to make us into a copy of the tyrannies they left. Why? Almost certainly because they accept the nice theories and ignore the evidence. They never ask what makes this country so attractive that people risk their lives to get here. To the credit of my immigrant friends, I've never known even one who would not change his mind when I pointed out his inconsistency. Our native statists, on the other hand, seem immune to such reasoning. They reject the limited government our founders gave us, the standard of freedom that was widely accepted only a few decades ago. Why the difference? The immigrants have seen statism in action. The natives, on the other hand, have only a theoretical idea of what it is like. They pay attention to words, not results. Contrary information bounces off them like a ball off a wall. One notable exception was Eldridge Cleaver who metamorphosed from violent socialist to conservative Republican. He spent time in Cuba, saw what it was really like, then rejected the statist ideology. Of course he realized that the U.S. is not perfect, but he also found that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Not so most native-born statists. They reject freedom, preferring the restrictions of statism, even desiring to strengthen those restrictions. How can people, often smart people, be so blind to the evidence? I attribute it to three factors, three kinds of immunity to information: First, such people seldom see information contrary to their preconceived belief. They get their news only from sources that support the statist ideology. I have friends who refuse to even open a book or web site if they think it will present a viewpoint contrary to their belief system. In this the news media is complicit. Second, when presented with evidence of collectivism's problems, those people deny that it can be that bad. For example, they become justifiably angry about Hitler's atrocities, yet they refuse to believe the truth about Cuba under Castro or Venezuela under Chavez. The information ball bounces off their wall of preconceptions. Third, many fall for a “grass is greener” syndrome. They see the problems we have and assume that other systems will be better. I even had a friend claim that our slums were the world's worst. Anyone who has seen the slums in other countries knows better. Yes we have problems; nobody in his right mind would deny that. However that does not mean that other systems are better. Our salvation, if it comes at all, will come from people who look at results, not just nice-sounding theories. Next time, unless something intervenes, I plan to discuss the biggest pseudo-scientific system of all. (Based on Chapter 4 of my upcoming book, Twenty First Century Serfdom)

Information Immunity

Theory without empirical evidence is mere speculation. Empirical evidence without theory is simply a collection of facts. Theory supported by empirical evidence is science. How is this for an opportunity? You want to move to a new country but there is a ten to twenty year wait to get a visa. Or you can reach that country by taking an dangerous and unpleasant trip, across rivers and deserts, guided by unsavory characters who will probably demand extra money at the end of the trip, and who think part of their fee is the right to rape any women they are guiding. What is at the end of your journey? Why a country that many claim is not as good as where you are now. Yet millions make that trip. They wait years for visas, or make that dangerous trip, to enter the United States. If our country is so terrible, why do so many want to move here? I have friends who risked everything to reach the United States. Yet many of our so-called elites denigrate our country. They claim that we should copy Europe or other systems. Those elitists want a statist system, similar to what my friends fled. Even some who flee to this country want to make us into a copy of the tyrannies they left. Why? Almost certainly because they accept the nice theories and ignore the evidence. They never ask what makes this country so attractive that people risk their lives to get here. To the credit of my immigrant friends, I've never known even one who would not change his mind when I pointed out his inconsistency. Our native statists, on the other hand, seem immune to such reasoning. They reject the limited government our founders gave us, the standard of freedom that was widely accepted only a few decades ago. Why the difference? The immigrants have seen statism in action. The natives, on the other hand, have only a theoretical idea of what it is like. They pay attention to words, not results. Contrary information bounces off them like a ball off a wall. One notable exception was Eldridge Cleaver who metamorphosed from violent socialist to conservative Republican. He spent time in Cuba, saw what it was really like, then rejected the statist ideology. Of course he realized that the U.S. is not perfect, but he also found that the grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence. Not so most native-born statists. They reject freedom, preferring the restrictions of statism, even desiring to strengthen those restrictions. How can people, often smart people, be so blind to the evidence? I attribute it to three factors, three kinds of immunity to information: First, such people seldom see information contrary to their preconceived belief. They get their news only from sources that support the statist ideology. I have friends who refuse to even open a book or web site if they think it will present a viewpoint contrary to their belief system. In this the news media is complicit. Second, when presented with evidence of collectivism's problems, those people deny that it can be that bad. For example, they become justifiably angry about Hitler's atrocities, yet they refuse to believe the truth about Cuba under Castro or Venezuela under Chavez. The information ball bounces off their wall of preconceptions. Third, many fall for a “grass is greener” syndrome. They see the problems we have and assume that other systems will be better. I even had a friend claim that our slums were the world's worst. Anyone who has seen the slums in other countries knows better. Yes we have problems; nobody in his right mind would deny that. However that does not mean that other systems are better. Our salvation, if it comes at all, will come from voters who look at results, not just nice-sounding theories. Next time, unless something intervenes, I plan to discuss the biggest pseudo-scientific system of all. (Based on Chapter 4 of my upcoming book, Twenty First Century Serfdom)

I'm Back, And Book Review Three Felonies a Day

Good news for my loyal readers, both of them. I'm back to posting on my blog. I've been away for other reasons (missionary in Mexico, doing other work etc.) but will try to post once or twice a week for the foreseeable future. I may even post excerpts from a book I'm working on. I'll start with a review of a book that I encountered while doing research for my book which I expect to publish within a few months. Book Review, Silverglate, Harvey A. Three Felonies a Day, How the Feds Target the Innocent, Encounter Books, 2009. “Silvergate believes that we are in danger of becoming a society in which prosecutors alone become judges, juries and executioners because the threat of high sentences makes it too costly for even innocent people to resist the prosecutorial pressure. That is why nearly all criminal defendants [in federal court] today plead guilty to 'reduced' charges rather than risk a trial with draconian sentences in the event of a conviction.” (From the Foreword by Alan M. Dershowitz) This is a frightening book, giving examples of how federal prosecutors pressure witnesses to testify against friends, bosses, even family members. It describes how they “climb the ladder,” starting with low level employees and getting each to agree to testify against those higher on the organizational chart. The problem is that truth in testimony becomes less important than digging up dirt on the ultimate targets. The book presents evidence that prosecutors encouraged perjury, even telling people what to say in their testimony. Companies such as AIG and Arthur Anderson, along with their executives, fell victim to this type of prosecution. Another major tactic is to use vague laws to prosecute people for what most of us would agree is legal. For example, Walter L. Lachman and Maurice H. Subilia, Jr. were charged with selling materials that would help India develop nuclear weapons. The case hinged on the definition of materials “specially designed” for such weapons. The jury convicted, but then lawyers discovered an appellate case that decreed that the materials were not specially designed for nuclear uses. In addition, Commerce Department officials had given seminars where they taught that such materials did not meet the “specially designed” criterion. Judge Douglas P. Woodlock declared a not guilty verdict. The government appealed and that same appellate court that had ruled that the materials were not so designed turned around and said that they were specially designed for nuclear weapons. That court also ruled that, in spite of the same court giving diametrically opposed rulings on the wording, the wording was not unconstitutionally vague. This book is well worth reading – if you can stomach it. I find it sickening that our government would twist our justice system in the manners described. And such legal blackmail can threaten almost any citizen who has a job, especially a job with a large company. Though the major targets are people in fields such as accounting, they could go after anyone who might provide testimony about other company employees.