A Point in Time?

It grates like fingernails on a blackboard every time I hear someone use that term to indicate now, or some event. Time isn't a physical entity, it is an arbitrary reference to physical events that happened to a later happening. The term sounds Einsteinian perhaps but instead of showing mental ability it just shows just how dumb they are. Its like the term "where is it at?"--fortunately I unlearned the term when a friend kept saying "its behind the at". Perhaps the "point of time" is on the end of their nose? Time can't be pointed to. It does not have a position in space. Its reference can only be used by reference between one event and another; such as tick to toc. Or the moment you fell in a lake when you were 16 years 30 days 10 hours 5 minutes 23 seconds old. Even defining it that close leaves split seconds open to finding a point. So when someone voices the phrase "at this point in time" or similar have them define the point "exactly".

Oil--The Monster Under the Bed?

Despite our economic downturn the economic "experts" still talk of a possible recession as being part of a normal economic circumstance--but what if it isn't, that possibly it is something relatively new? Humans tend to think in linear terms--straight line upward trends; or something happened in the past it will happen a similar way in the future. There are, however, non-linear events that raise their ugly heads--we see it all the time in die-offs, asteroids causing extinctions, over grazing, over consumption of natural resources. There are no turning back the clock on these kinds of events and all too often the results were predictable; as they are now. Oil is a dwindling resource from which there is no turning back the clock possible.
If there was an abundance of oil from many sources around the world there would be no $100 per barrel oil, or $3 plus per gallon gasoline. These prices are not going down in the long term but up!
And soon, sometime in the future, it will become harder to come by and much more expensive. A Recession would be the least of our worries.
We are beginning to see just the tip of the iceberg, exacerbated by institutional greed. I've written before that where there is money stashed someone will find a way to "steal" it--and they did. Legislatures always create loopholes for the crooks to wiggle the money through.
Pre-WWII Germany comes to mind, when everyone's pensions plans disappeared due to run-a-way inflation and the governments collapse. I look at all of those 401K plans people have and think, "What a great opportunity for someone to make a killing on".
So far inflation hasn't raised its ugly head--mostly because the Corporations have kept wages low and have chosen to import rather than manufacture goods. My rule is: there are no inexpensive goods, you just pay the price later; usually in a more painful way.
But back to oil, or should say, the lack of it. If we were to discover an asteroid on a trajectory that would impact Earth sometime in the near future the whole world would join in an effort to avoid it. We all are in peril of something just as dangerous--running out of energy, mostly represented by the term oil. Our oil production is now peaking. We've reached our maximum production capacity worldwide. Most oil reserves are on the negative side of the production curve; i.e. they have reached maximum production capacity and are now producing less and less and having to resort to steam or water injection in order to force oil out. Production costs are going up at the same time that production is lagging. In a nutshell this means that the price of oil is going to skyrocket at the same time it becomes more scarce. That means less goods, higher prices, and lost jobs. All the while Bush fiddles while Washington burns.
What needs to be done is that our leaders clearly define the problem and propose a clear cut strategy, with a time table, that would begin to solve the problem. So far our leaders have been more concerned about their friends losing money or power than the over all good of the people and the nation. Nothing has been done about limiting consumption of gasoline and diesel. Very little has been done on alternatives, such as bio-diesel and ethanol, or making gasoline out of coal. Nothing has been done to illuminate the problem. Everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for the problem to become critical before it is noticed. This is everyones problem, worldwide. The famines now taking place are nothing compared to those coming if something isn't fairly soon. The stampede for energy in the future will be disastrous. Nothing will be able to stand in its way. The mighty will trod all over the weak, the Four Horsemen will ride supreme.

The "Humane" Part of Illegal Immigration

Listening to the many proponents of Amnesty I hear the "Humane Appeal" being made to justify their position on the issue. Lets break the "argument" down into its components.
1. Being "humane" in this case means allowing 12 million or more illegal aliens "legal status" in our country--whether or not they are engaged in otherwise useful pursuits; i.e. employed in agriculture, car washes, motels, hotels, restaurants etc. For all anyone specifically knows they could be engaged in drug trafficking, making drugs, gang activities, serial killers, rapists, etc.
2. Being "humane" allows 12 million or more a pathway to citizenship; when they may not otherwise be considered for citizenship; because of lack of education, age, diseases, or whatever other usual disqualifiers that the government uses.
3. Being "humane" is not specifically defined. Where is the "inhumanity" in following common sense, existing laws, and in protecting the publics welfare? Being "humane" implies that there is some harm being done to an individual or group. Protecting the general welfare, sovereignty of the country, and promoting order does not usually imply, when laws and procedures are followed, that inhumane treatment is being meted out.
4. Being "humane" does not usually mean that carte blanch preferential treatment be given indiscriminately to an ethnic group. Are they being discriminated against in their own countries, persecuted, or otherwise neglected? Is their plight our obligation to remedy by giving them citizenship?
"Humane" is one of those thoughtless emotional appeals that no one questions out of fear of being labeled "heartless" and "mean spirited". It would seem in reality that those using the humane slogan are the ones being "mean spirited"; for they are being dishonest, arrogant, and thoughtless in their pursuit of gaining amnesty for millions of aliens who don't belong here in the first place.
Are American citizens obligated to give anyone that asks citizenship? If so where are the boundaries, criterion, benefits to us? A lot of emotional appeals have been put forward in promoting illegal immigration but few facts.

America For Americans

I was going to title this blog as "Prescription For Disaster". I have been scrutinizing our potential Presidential candidates and all I see is a train wreck about to happen. Some offer no change to our present course; in fact they are worse. Others such as Hillary and Obama want to give away America to 12 to 20 million squatters, and many more who will certainly be encouraged to follow. Their logic I fail to see. It would seem that Americans would value their sovereignty and citizenship and not give it away so cavalierly as both the Democrats and Republicans seem to want to do. Thirty pieces of silver comes to mind.
No commentator, debate host, pundit has asked them the basis for their arguments favoring amnesty. They are ignoring existing laws, they are trivializing the economic and political ramifications of giving citizenship to so many foreign nationals, and again there is more fragmenting of American traditions and values. It is said that 38% of the American population is foreign born. Even now our political system is being threatened by foreign nationalism; i.e., the Latino vote in the West and other States favoring Amnesty for illegal Latinos. Do we want to have Latinos in our face for years to come and become a satellite of Mexico?
The concept of foreign nationals breaking our laws and then flaunting that fact in our faces doesn't seem to bother Hillary, Obama, and both Johns. They embrace them in fact with open arms, despite what the majority of Americans wish. In fact Hillary has gone on to say there is no such thing as an "illegal woman", or "illegal man": and she is a lawyer and Presidential hopeful? A person who would swear to uphold the Constitution and our laws! Yeah, sure.

Politicians--Trying To Serve Two Masters

Politicians now vying for Candidacy for Presidential are; out of one side of their mouths claim that they will "represent" those of the Middle Class and, on the other side of their mouths, support "comprehensive immigration reform": a euphemism for amnesty of millions of illegal aliens now in the U.S., and for millions more who will be encouraged to enter the U.S. in years to come.
They cannot serve two masters at the same time for to do so will destabilize our society, as well as our institutions, such as Social Security and Medicare, and our relatively homogeneous American culture. Even now the traveler can see a breakdown of American culture and the Latinization occurring in the Southwest and Middle America. That would not really be a problem except for the fact that these new members of our society, legal or otherwise, are becoming radicalized and seeking political power for other than beneficial reasons. Raza comes to mind--racial aspirations perhaps, to the detriment of the larger mix. Hostility towards the greater culture is very open.
Our politicians must make a choice--represent us--or them; they cannot serve both.