What if?
ABCinema...
Roabot art...
10 unique plants...
Beautiful book stores...
Global rainbow!
Acapella theme songs...music to my ears...
What 2000 dolphins swimming together looks like...
Bugs are beautiful...
If the church were Christian...
3-D Moon map...
Extreme elevator prank...
Ohhh...that's what fingerboarding is...
There went the sun...
10 reasons to End the Fed...
How long do animals live?
Introducing our newest weapon...the rail gun...
Horror film alphabet...
Champagne supernova in the sky...
Where's the beef?
Heart stop beating...
Foods for a healthy heart...
Anatomically tissue...
The Earth at night...
Astronomy pic of the day...
We are blinded we to science...
Eureka...Europa type lake...Lake Vostok!
Ahhh the power of lemons...
Let color empower your life...
Starburst...
50 controversial films...
Oh what webs they weave...
Abortion in the US...
Creatures of the deep sea...
Underground waterfalls...
Theory of Everything...
Who, what, why and how of chemtrails...
Know your enemy...
The Most Powerful Word
Ahimsa: this word means so much to some people, and so little to others. To me, Ahimsa is the most powerful word in the universe.
Although Ahimsa, a word derived from Sanskrit, means nonviolence when directly translated, it been interpreted to mean many things, including love, forgiveness, sacrifice, truth, the absence of enmity, and strength.
Prescribed by wise sages throughout history as the most effective way to temper the bestial nature in man, taking the vow of Ahimsa means resolving to refrain from causing any harm either by thought, word or action to any living creature. Although one can never truly achieve Ahimsa due to the limitations of the physical existence and our own human nature, ancient teachings state that the pursuit of this divine ideal will be accompanied by the gain of countless virtues.
I have, as I assume most others have, often contemplated the reason for existence. Especially baffling to me is the reason for humans to exist. This one species has managed to destroy and degrade the four billion year old Earth in just a few thousand years. I do not mean to say that humans are bad by nature, simply that we have an unfortunately large tendency for cruelty. And some of us are less skilled at suppressing that tendency than others. The intense vastness of this cruelty is so great, that when I try to think of something meaningful to do with my life, I become lost trying to figure out how to bring to others the peace I believe we all desperately need.
Through my internal quest, young as it is, I have come to the conclusion that no matter what I may end up doing in my life, I must strive to grow as close to Ahimsa as I can, so that I may attempt to spread to others love in its truest form. I do not intend to imply that I have succeeded; I am so far from this goal it often psychosomatically hurts my heart. I have done very few things correctly in my life. However, I find comfort in believing that there is one thing that I can do right; strive for Ahimsa, nonviolence, in all ways.
My lack of confidence in social situations impedes my success in spreading love to my fellow humans. However, I have recently embraced Ahimsa through veganism, and it has given me a hint of faith in myself. Although it may be hard for some people to recognize the difference that is made by one person becoming vegan, I feel like it is a step on my path to finding my place in the world. I am blessed with the gift of life, and I have no right to deprive any other living being on this planet of that same gift. I may not be able to do something wonderful with my life, but at least I can try to cause as little harm as possible.
Although Ahimsa, a word derived from Sanskrit, means nonviolence when directly translated, it been interpreted to mean many things, including love, forgiveness, sacrifice, truth, the absence of enmity, and strength.
Prescribed by wise sages throughout history as the most effective way to temper the bestial nature in man, taking the vow of Ahimsa means resolving to refrain from causing any harm either by thought, word or action to any living creature. Although one can never truly achieve Ahimsa due to the limitations of the physical existence and our own human nature, ancient teachings state that the pursuit of this divine ideal will be accompanied by the gain of countless virtues.
I have, as I assume most others have, often contemplated the reason for existence. Especially baffling to me is the reason for humans to exist. This one species has managed to destroy and degrade the four billion year old Earth in just a few thousand years. I do not mean to say that humans are bad by nature, simply that we have an unfortunately large tendency for cruelty. And some of us are less skilled at suppressing that tendency than others. The intense vastness of this cruelty is so great, that when I try to think of something meaningful to do with my life, I become lost trying to figure out how to bring to others the peace I believe we all desperately need.
Through my internal quest, young as it is, I have come to the conclusion that no matter what I may end up doing in my life, I must strive to grow as close to Ahimsa as I can, so that I may attempt to spread to others love in its truest form. I do not intend to imply that I have succeeded; I am so far from this goal it often psychosomatically hurts my heart. I have done very few things correctly in my life. However, I find comfort in believing that there is one thing that I can do right; strive for Ahimsa, nonviolence, in all ways.
My lack of confidence in social situations impedes my success in spreading love to my fellow humans. However, I have recently embraced Ahimsa through veganism, and it has given me a hint of faith in myself. Although it may be hard for some people to recognize the difference that is made by one person becoming vegan, I feel like it is a step on my path to finding my place in the world. I am blessed with the gift of life, and I have no right to deprive any other living being on this planet of that same gift. I may not be able to do something wonderful with my life, but at least I can try to cause as little harm as possible.
A thermoelectric device that converts body heat into an electrical current could soon make a medical difference. Developed by researchers in the Center for Nanotechnology and Molecular Materials at Wake Forest University, the Power Felt device is comprised of tiny carbon nanotubes locked up in flexible plastic fibers and made to feel like fabric. The technology uses temperature differences–room temperature versus body temperature, for instance – to create a charge. Can You Ever Get Too Much Omega-3?
Is there ever a danger of getting too much Omega-3 in your diet?
With the onslaught of different daily recommended amounts, percent daily value, and articles outlining FDA regulations and recommendations, it feels like you need a cheat sheet just to grab a handful of nuts for a snack! Let’s take a look:
Omega-3s are fatty acids that actually help our bodies soothe inflammation, boosting heart health and possibly helping to decrease cancer risks. They’ve also been linked to helping our minds, combating both stress and depression. All good things, right?
These fatty acids are grouped into two categories: the alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), which is found in plant sources like soybeans, canola, and flaxseed, and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), which are found in fatty fish.
The only risk of experiencing too much of a good thing is that the omega-3 sources are largely from fats. Albeit they are all good-for-you fats that you need to get from your diet, you want to be careful of layering on these good fats too thick. While there is no such thing as an omega-3 overdose from food, there is such a thing as gaining weight from eating too much!
That being said, omega-3 fatty acids are healthy fats you want to be eating. As long as you’re keeping your portions in check, you shouldn’t have any problems associated with incorporating walnut oils and nuts into your daily diet. Go for it!
To meet your omega-3 needs, try choosing two food items per day that are good sources. Some of my favorites include:
1. Salmon – this pink fish is definitely one of my favorite omega-3 sources. Salmon gives you about 1.48 grams of omega-3s per 3 ounce serving, and contains EPA and DHA omega-3s that improve our blood flow and helps cut down on inflammation around our joints.
2. Flaxseed oil – If fish just isn’t your thing, try flaxseeds. The oil is very high in omega-3s, and is a great source of the fatty acids. Try drizzling the oil on your salads to add a nutty flavor.
3. Chia seeds – these little seeds pack in omega-3s, and are
a fun new ingredient to try mixed into your morning oatmeal or sprinkled on your salad at lunch. And don’t worry – a chia pet won’t start growing in your stomach!
4. Walnuts – Walnuts are a great midday snack, when you want just a little something to tide you over until dinner. The omega-3s associated with walnuts have even been shown to be protective against memory loss – keeping you sharp through the afternoon slump. Try a small handful, about 7 halves, for your 3 PM snack.
5. Canned Tuna – This is probably one of the least expensive ways to sneak in some omega-3s. The fish source provides EPA, the fatty acids that help prevent cardiovascular diseases, and is super easy to pack for lunch in a sandwich or on a salad!
Whiskey and Gunpowder
by Jeffrey Tucker
February 3, 2012
Auburn, Alabama, U.S.A.
99 Years of Evil
Today is the 99th anniversary of the signing of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It enshrined into law an idea that stands in total contradiction to the driving force behind the American Revolution and the whole idea of freedom itself.The great "old right" commentator Frank Chodorov once described the income tax as the root of all evil. His target was not the tax itself, but the principle behind it. Since its implementation in 1913, he wrote, "The government says to the citizen: ‘Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide.'"
He really does have a point. That's evil. When Congress ratified the 16th Amendment on Feb. 3, 1913, there was a sense in which all private income in the U.S. was nationalized. What was not taxed from then on was a favor granted unto us, and continues to be so.
This is implied in the text of the amendment itself: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Where are the limits? There weren't any. There was some discussion about putting a limit on the tax, but it seemed unnecessary. Only 1% of the income earners would end up paying about 1% to the government. Everyone else was initially untouched. Who really cares that the rich have to pay a bit more, right? They can afford it.
This perspective totally misunderstand the true nature of government, which always wants more money and more power and will stop at nothing to get both. The 16th Amendment was more than a modern additive to an antique document. It was a new philosophy of the fiscal life of the entire country.
Today, the ruling elite no longer bother with things like amendments. But back in those days, it was different. The amendment was made necessary because of previous court decisions that stated what was once considered a bottom-line presumption of the free society: Government cannot tax personal property. What you make is your own. You get to keep the product of your labors. Government can tax sales, perhaps, or raise money through tariffs on goods coming in and out of the country. But your bank account is off-limits.
The amendment changed that idea. In the beginning, it applied to very few people. This was one reason it passed. It was pitched as a replacement tax, not a new money raiser. After all the havoc caused by the divisive tariffs of the 19th century, this sounded like a great deal to many people, particularly Southerners and Westerners fed up with paying such high prices for manufactured goods while seeing their trading relations with foreign consumers disrupted.
People who supported it -- and they were not so much the left but the right-wing populists of the time -- imagined that the tax would hit the robber baron class of industrialists in the North. And that it did. Their fortunes began to dwindle, and their confidence in their ability to amass and retain intergenerational fortunes began to wane.
We all know the stories of how the grandchildren of the Gilded Age tycoons squandered their family heritage in the 1920s and failed to carry on the tradition. Well, it is hardly surprising. The government put a timetable and limit on accumulation. Private families and individuals would no longer be permitted to exist except in subjugation to the taxing state. The kids left their private estates to live in the cities, put off marriage, stopped bothering with all that hearth and home stuff. Time horizons shortened, and the Jazz Age began.
Class warfare was part of the deal from the beginning. The income tax turned the social fabric of the country into a giant lifetime boat, with everyone arguing about who had to be thrown overboard so that others might live.
The demon in the beginning was the rich. That remained true until the 1930s, when FDR changed the deal. Suddenly, the income would be collected, but taxed in a different way. It would be taken from everyone, but a portion would be given back late in life as a permanent income stream. Thus was the payroll tax born. This tax today is far more significant than the income tax.
The class warfare unleashed 99 years ago continues today. One side wants to tax the rich. The other side finds it appalling that the percentage of people who pay no income tax has risen from 30% to nearly 50% in this period of economic downturn. Now we see the appalling spectacle of Republicans regarding this as a disgrace that must change. They have joined the political classes that seek advancement by hurting people.
It's extremely strange that the payroll tax is rarely considered in this debate. The poor, the middle class and the rich are all being hammered by payroll taxes that fund failed programs that provide no security and few benefits at all.
It's impossible to take seriously the claims that the income tax doesn't harm wealth creation. When Congress wants to discourage something -- smoking, imports, selling stocks or whatever -- they know what to do: Tax it. Tax income, and on the margin, you discourage people from earning it.
Tax debates are always about "reform" -- which always means a slight shift in who pays what, with an eye to raising ever more money for the government. A far better solution would be to forget the whole thing and return to the original idea of a free society: You get to keep what you earn or inherent. That means nothing short of abolishing the great mistake of 1913. Forget the flat tax. The only just solution is no tax on incomes ever.
But let's say that one day we actually become safe from the income tax collectors and something like blessed peace arrives. There is still another problem that emerged in 1913. Congress created the Federal Reserve, which eventually developed the power to create -- on its own -- all the money that government would ever need, even without taxing.
For the practical running of the affairs of the state, the Fed is far worse than the income tax. It creates the more-insidious tax of inflation. In a strange way, it has made all the debates about taxation superfluous. Denying the government revenue does nothing to curb its appetites for our liberties and property. The Fed has managed to make it impossible to starve the beast.
Chodorov was correct about the evil of the income tax. Its passage signaled the beginning of a century of despotism. Our property is no longer safe. Our income is not our own. We are legally obligated to turn over whatever our masters say we owe them. You can fudge this point: None of this is compatible with the old liberal idea of freedom.
You doubt it? Listen to Thomas Jefferson from his inaugural address of 1801. What he said then remains true today:
"...what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one more thing, fellow citizens -- a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned."
| The Daily Reckoning Presents | ||
| What the Greek Rescue is Really About | ||
That conclusion is simple: what’s going on Europe has nothing to do with solving a debt crisis and everything to do with preserving a corrupt system based on limitless debt and growing government power. The sooner you understand that fact, the sooner you’ll be able to prepare for what happens next. There are two options for what happens next, and we’ll get to those shortly. First, though, doesn’t it strike you as strange that all of Europe can be brought to its knees by tiny little Greece? Greek GDP is just 2.4% of Europe’s GDP. In economic terms, Greece doesn’t matter. Its lack of growth or economic competitiveness shouldn’t be factors that can destroy Europe’s 13-year single currency experiment. Yet, Greece obviously does matter; otherwise the European financial markets wouldn’t be celebrating the latest €130 billion bailout that’s on its way to Athens. So here’s our question: Why do Greek finances matter to anyone outside of Greece? If you rule out the obvious things that don’t matter, that leaves everything else. Or as Sherlock Holmes was fond of saying, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” First, let’s see why the possible explanations for Greece’s importance to the world are actually impossible. Take the issue of debt reduction. As we wrote last week, the deal before Europe would reduce Greek debt to 120% of GDP by 2020. The IMF says that level is sustainable. Back in a universe where common sense prevails, you can see that the plan is a joke, at least in terms of debt reduction. A plan to reduce Greek’s debt to 120% of GDP...EIGHT YEARS FROM NOW...is not a serious plan about debt. Therefore, the plan cannot be about debt reduction. Will the plan make Greece more competitive in the long run? Well, probably not. In order to get more money by March 20th, the Greek Parliament had to agree to certain structural reforms. Some of those reforms might even be a good idea. But cutting the minimum wage isn’t going to be popular. And with Greek GDP shrinking by 7% in the fourth quarter, years of austerity won’t make Greece more competitive. The lifestyle of the Greeks will be destroyed and the debt will remain. Therefore, the plan cannot be about making Greece more competitive. Does saving Greece save the euro? Not at all. The euro would be better off without Greece and Greece would be better off without the euro. The Germans are even planning for a euro that doesn’t include Greece. With its own currency, Greece could default, devalue, inflate and start over. Argentina did it in the last 10 years. It’s not rocket science. Therefore, saving Greece is not about saving the euro. If saving Greece is not about saving the euro, and if it’s not about reducing Greek debt, and if it’s not about making Greece a more competitive economy...then just what IS it about? Well, now that we’ve rule out what’s impossible, let’s look at what’s left. Saving Greece means preventing a technical default...even though Greece has already defaulted in a real-world sense. So why is avoiding a technical default so important to the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)? The current plan certainly looks like a default. Under the plan, €100 billion worth of Greek debt would disappear, thanks to a debt swap agreement with private sector investors. The ECB has twisted enough arms to get creditors to accept a 70% haircut on their current Greek debt without actually calling it a default. And yet, bizarrely, Greece’s creditors could be forced to accept this not-a-default default losses recourse to the credit default insurance they purchased. That’s right; they might lose 70% of their capital and still be denied a payout on the default insurance they purchased. That would be like an insurance company refusing to honor a fire insurance policy because only 70% of your house burned to the ground. It gets kind of wonky here. But really, it’s about who gets to make the rules. To you and me and everyone else in the universe where common sense prevails, a non-voluntary 70% loss on your government bonds is a default. But you and I don’t get to decide what constitutes a credit default. That honour belongs to the International Swaps Derivatives Association (ISDA). The important thing to keep in mind here is that the ISDA is a trade group made up of banks and financial firms. Those are the firms that have the most to lose if Greek bonds default. It’s in the interest of the members of the ISDA that a non-voluntary credit event in Greece NOT be called a default. It gets even murkier here. The ISDA essentially represents the global banking system. In Europe, the banking system is full of government bonds. Those bonds are nominally assets. If Greece defaults, it sets a precedent for how other countries might deal with unsustainable debt levels. This imperils the collateral of Europe’s entire banking system. If you want to put it in simpler terms, let’s say that Europe’s banking system is full of rotting meat. Some investors bought that meat thinking they were going to get prime rib. But they can smell the stink of the meat from a mile away. They want to be compensated for the bad meat. The ISDA, which owns the freezer in which the meat went bad, says, “Well, we’ve decided the meat isn’t bad after all. And you have less of it than you thought anyway, as of now.” This is a crude analogy. But this is exactly what happened last week. A “determinations committee” of the ISDA ruled that Greece’s default is not a default. The committee determined that “no credit event has yet occurred” for holders of credit default protection on Greece. You can see the basic problem: everyone else knows that if Greece defaults (officially), the value of other government bonds in Spain and Italy and Portugal will plummet too. A Greek default wouldn’t be important because of the size of the default (although French and German banks would stand to lose a fair bit). It would be important because it would begin the process of blowing up bank balance sheets all over Europe. When you realize that the ISDA and the ECB and the EU are in league to save their financial skins, you realize that the Greek rescue plans is about preventing other countries from realizing that default is an option. In fact, it’s not even about preventing the realization. It’s about making it impossible for a country to default on its obligations...even if it means erasing the word “default” from the English language. If the centralized European Welfare State model is to survive, banks must not take losses on their government bond holdings. Individual and private investors, on the other hand, will be forced to take losses through a “collective action clause.” This clause allows your securities to be revalued without your consent if a majority of other bondholders agree to it. Now we’re coming to the real nuts and bolts of what’s at stake. The technocrats in Europe are at war with private investors. The members of the ISDA are in league with the technocrats to preserve their system. That part is easy to understand. The technocrats are employed by government and get to spend your money. This system is good for them. It’s good for the members of the ISDA too. Loaning money to the government is good business. Collecting rent off the expansion of credit is easy money. They want the system to last as well. Who is the system not good for? Everybody else who’s on the outside looking in. Investors who want their capital to be productive are out of luck. And taxpayers who question the value of austerity measures and debt reduction plans that don’t really reduce debt are also out of luck. No wonder they are angry. We’ve come a long way, then. Greece isn’t about saving Greece. The only reason something so small and insignificant could matter so much is that it matters in a way no one is willing to say. It’s about the subversion of sovereignty and democratic processes by removing decisions from people and giving them to trans-national financial elites. It’s about preserving a global system that’s based on the accumulation of debt and growing government power because there are two groups of people who benefit tremendously from that system, even if most people don’t. This is simply the latest example of corrupt government operatives colluding with the financial elite to steal money, liberty and big chunks of “the pursuit of happiness” from “we, the people.” |
What if?
What If Democracy Is Bunk?
by Andrew Napolitano
What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn’t make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if “one person, one vote” is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance? What if democracy is dangerous to personal freedom? What if democracy erodes the people’s understanding of natural rights and the foundations of government, and instead turns elections into beauty contests?
What if democracy allows the government to do anything it wants, as long as more people bother to show up at the voting booth to support it than to oppose it? What if the purpose of democracy is to convince people that they could prosper not through the creation of wealth but through theft from others? What if the only moral way to acquire wealth — aside from inheritance — is through voluntary economic activity? What if the government persuaded you that you could acquire wealth through political activity? What if economic activity included all the productive and peaceful things we do? What if political activity included all the parasitical and destructive things the government does?
What if governments were originally established to protect people’s freedom, but always turn into political and imperialist enterprises that seek to expand their power, increase their territory and heighten their control of the population? What if the idea that we need a government to take care of us is actually a fiction? What if our strength as individuals and durability as a culture are contingent not on the strength of the government but on the amount of freedom we have from the government?
What if we’re seeing civil unrest around the world precisely because government is out of control? What if the cocktail of big government and democracy brings dependence and destruction? What if big government destroys people’s motivations and democracy convinces them that the only motivation they need is to vote and go along with whatever the government does?
What if the Republican primaries we’re seeing unfold aren’t actually as democratic as they may appear to be? What if the results you have seen from the states that have voted thus far don’t match the composition of the delegates those states send to the Tampa convention this summer because the polls aren’t what counts, but what counts are the secret meetings that come after the voting? What if Joe Stalin was right when he said the most powerful person in the world is the guy who counts the votes?
What if the greatest tyrant in history lives among us? What if that tyrant always gets its way, no matter what the laws are or what the Constitution says? What if that tyrant is the majority of voters? What if the tyranny of the majority in a democracy recognizes no limits on its power?
What if the government misinforms voters so as to justify anything the government wants to do? What if the government bribes people with the money it prints? What if it gives entitlements to the poor, tax breaks to the middle class and bailouts to the rich just to keep all of us dependent upon it? What if a vibrant republic requires not just the democratic process of voting, but also informed and engaged voters who understand first principles of limited government and free-market economics, and the divine origin of natural rights?
What if we could free ourselves from the yoke of big government through a campaign of education and information and personal courage that leads to a revolutionary return to first principles? What if the establishment doesn’t want this? What if the government remains the same no matter who wins elections?
What if because of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, because he isn’t campaigning just for votes as his competition is, because he is educating the population and winning the hearts and minds of a once free people and inspiring them to fight for their freedom once more, freedom wins? What if we can be free again? What will it take to make that happen?
Peace, love and happiness...until next time...
Posts
