Live for 150 Years? Goodness, Why Would You Want That?

From Popular Science:

Bill Andrews has spent two decades unlocking the molecular mechanisms of aging. His mission: to extend the human life span to 150 years–or die trying…

…“I want to cure my aging,” Andrews tells me, “my friends’ and family’s aging, my investors’ aging, their friends’ and families’ aging, and make a ton of money. And I want to cure everybody else’s aging too—I put that probably equal to making a ton of money.”…

Andrews is clearly a smart man, and driven by a vision…and, who knows?, maybe he can eventually manage it and get human life spans up to 150.  I hope to be long dead by the time he figures that out.  Andrews is a bit extreme about it, but what he is doing is an apt symbol of our age:  a fear of dying so large that we both never really talk about death, and go about doing everything we can to avoid risk and extend our lives.

In this, I admire my late Uncle Mike – my godfather and a good man.  He was told he could have a surgery which would have extended his life.  His attitude was, “what for?”.  His beloved wife was long deceased, he had no children of his own and he was pushing 80.  He refused the surgery, came ’round to see my father (they got gloriously drunk and sang old songs together in a pub – and that is how you say goodby to those you love, if you get a chance), and then went off to die.  There is a time to live, and there is a time to die…and anyone who hangs too tightly to this world will find that he loses everything, including the next world, for his efforts.

Just the mere thought of living to 150 fills me with dread.  Figuring that I’ll live to my father’s age (general luck and genetics being about the same), I’ll make it until early 2047.   Am I supposed to want to live another 60 0r 7o years after that?  Do I want to live until 2107?  Work, pay taxes, deal with traffic for that long?  For another 96 years be faced with endless temptations to reject God and ruin myself for good?  No, thanks very much…I’ll take my 80 or so and be done with it.  Find me medicines which allow me to keep my eyesight and wits until the end, but don’t try to make me in to someone celebrating his 150th birthday.

And then there’s this – supposed you did find the elixir to make us live to 150 years, what sort of people would we be?  The saints among us wouldn’t avail themselves of it…the people most likely to claw desperately to such expedients are the greedy and the base…cowards and criminals.  Imagine if Stalin had such a medicine…he’d be 133 years old…and still have 17 more left to go under that plan.  Stalinism would still be ruling in Russia…and imagine just how bad that cruel, lunatic man would have become had he been able to live these past 58 years!

We can’t stop people from trying, but we can stand aside and leave them to their own horrors…and hope that wisdom comes to them, including the wisdom which says that, eventually, its time to go.  Don’t stand there forever in the way of those who come after…move on and leave the future to those who will live in it.

Capitalism or Socialism?

Donald Byrne over at Catholic Journal has an excellent look at both our horrid fiscal situation (yes, we really are going bankrupt) and points out that that in our most-desired goals (prosperity and equity), free market capitalism does much better than State socialism.  Essentially, the imposition of socialistic policies in the United States have exacerbated wealth disparities – if Obama’s goal was really to “spread the wealth around”, he’d be reading Hayek and changing course.  Byrne concludes:

…The goals that competitive free market capitalism brings society toward are efficiency and equity on the microeconomic level and high employment and a reasonable degree of price level stability as well as a consensus driven rate of economic growth.  The decisions of the many, NOT the few, dictate what an economy will produce in the way of goods and services, in what manner those goods will be produced and in distribution of income (the reward of the goods and services produced) with maximum freedom to the people as consumers and productive resources.  It is an economic system that is based on the principle of subsidiarity, again, where the decision-making is driven down to the lowest level possible…after all, who knows/understands better than the individual (in most cases) what is best for them?

And there’s that word I keep using – “subsidiarity”.  Remember, in the end all our fights are to secure for us “subsidiarity” – the right of individuals and localities to decide for themselves the best means of living their lives.  It is at the core of American political morality – it is why our Declaration asserts that government’s must rule by consent, and why the 9th and 10th amendments were added to the Constitution.  It is doubtful that many of the Founders had read deeply in to Catholic social teaching, but in this case they didn’t have to….anyone with a bit of wisdom will swiftly understand his inability to dictate to others, and others far away from his own community.

Obama’s crime against Americanism (because that is what is amounts to) is to suppose that he and those in power with him can determine what is best for everyone.  That they can justly “spread the wealth around” and come to a superior outcome than the individuals, themselves, could achieve.  Not only is this wrong philosophically, it is also wrong in strictly practical terms.  The erosion of the middle class, the destruction of America’s ability to make, mine and grow things, the bankrupting of our nation and the moral decline of the populace are directly traceable to socialistic attempts to decree an outcome, rather than allow things two work themselves out through the interplay of free people.

The only quibble I have with Byrne is over the use of the word “capitalism”.  We should more emphasize the term “free market” than the word “capitalism” because capitalism has come to mean in the public mind a collection of Ivy League educated board room trolls, and the government-subsidized crony-capitalist.  Our fight is not to make the world safe for GE; not to make smooth the path of Government Motors…but to free up the market so that average men and women can enter it, using their own means of production, to create wealth for themselves, their families and their communities.

In practical, political terms I think we’d do much better this way.  What we have growing in the United States is a populist revolt against the Ruling Class.  Sickened by the corruption of politics and the economy, the people are demanding that those who have ruined things be tossed out, while those who are willing to work obtain the greatest reward.  We’ll go further – obtain more power to reform, that is – if we hitch ourselves to this popular revolt, and we can best do that by clearly identifying ourselves in complete opposition to what is currently wrong.

As we enter the Great Debate of 2012, we’ll have Obama telling everyone that a victory for free markets means granny being thrown over the cliff.  Allied with Obama will be those crony capitalists who will warn that failure to support “too big to fail” corporations will be a disaster.  We must expose these lies – we must present a vision of America free and prosperous, and explain that all socialist plans (regardless of what label they are given) will lead to poverty, dependence and a divided, dysfunctional America sliding towards tyranny.  Our question must be – who do you trust:  Obama or yourself?  Make that the issue of 2012 and we’ll win so big a victory that liberalism will not trouble us again for 20 years.

Awwww, Poor Little Liberal is Offended

About this:

 

From Knox News:

Breath mints packaged in a tin can poking fun at President Barack Obama have been pulled from the shelves at the University of Tennessee bookstore after local legislator Joe Armstrong told store officials he was offended by the mints.

Armstrong, D-Knoxville, said he got a call from a student who had seen the satirical mints in the bookstore and was bothered by the depiction of the president…

Which can be translated to read:  “fascist toady spies something offensive about Dear Leader, denounces it to fascist, who then leans on the offender, who caves in because a government official like that can cause all sorts of trouble”.

What I’d like to know is – since when to Democrats care about offensive depictions of the President?  For 8, long years back there I seem to recall that Democrats were ok with just about anything insulting to the President.  Heck, books and movies were produced fantasizing about killing President Bush with nary a peep out of Democrats about it. But now we have to be respectful…

 

Global Warming Hoax Update

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided…

How much you want to bet that Obama and his Democrats don’t make much of an issue of global warming next year?  On the glad morn of Obama’s election, he told us that his victory was the signal for the oceans to recede…now, unless it is at an environmentalist fund raiser, I bet he doesn’t even mention it on the campaign trail.

The problem with the theory of global warming was that it was a lie from start to finish – a  scam designed to extract power and wealth from average folks and transfer it to the Ruling Class.  This is not the only such scam we have but it is the largest in dollar terms.  Never has so much been stolen from so many to benefit so few.

It will, unfortunately, die a slow, expensive death. So many people have their hands in the pie that getting rid of the pie will provoke desperate rear-guard actions.  But if we win big next year, we can at least start the process of ending this scam, mostly by transferring the funds to other, more worthy environmental efforts.

Will Taiwan Remain Free?

Asia Times has a bleak report about the ability of Taiwan to fight off an attack from China – the bottom line of it being that by 2020 China may have the capability to force a Taiwanese surrender.

The growth of Chinese military sophistication and China’s continual build up of weapons systems designed to counter American power is increasingly leaving Taiwan in a strategically untenable position.  If Taiwan cannot count on rapid and powerful American support, then resistance to any Chinese attack would be exceptionally difficult, and very likely doomed if China deployed all its power.  In the end, all a really firm resistance by the Taiwanese can accomplish – absent US support – is to make a graveyard of Taiwan (while also killing some hundreds of thousands of Chinese in payment).  So, what does Taiwan do?  And what does America do about it?

It is still some years before China can feel certain that a sea-borne invasion of Taiwan could be carried out in the face of US naval intervention – both in the air and undersea, the Chinese military is not even close to being able to stop us from blocking a move to Taiwan.  They can rain down death and destruction, but that is not what China would prefer to do.  Taiwan is very wealthy and China would like to capture it intact (Taiwan’s 23 million people produce $35,700.00 in GDP per person, China’s 1.3 billion produce $7,300.00 in GDP per person).  Raining down death and destruction (or threatening to) can get Taiwan to make a huge amount of concessions…but only a credible threat to leap across the sea and invade would convince Taiwan’s government to surrender.  That, as I said, is some years away…so Taiwan and the United States have a window of opportunity to make plans to deal with this.

The best way to deal with it, in my view, is to make Taiwan a nuclear-armed power.  Taiwan, un-aided, will forever lack the ability to defend itself in conventional war against China – the population disparities are so great that if China attacks, then Taiwan is ultimately doomed, even if they do put up a spirited fight and make the Chinese pay a usurious blood price for conquest (and, of course, the Chinese government is never chary with the blood of the Chinese people…sacrificing a million of them to gain prestige may be seen as all in a day’s work by the Chinese leadership).  Taiwan, aided by us, wins the war against China.  But can Taiwan really count on US aid?  Suppose we have a flabby President at the time?  Suppose our military has been hollowed out by budget cuts to preserve free birth control?  Suppose China’s cat’s paw in North Korea is ordered to engage us in war there just before China attacks Taiwan?  Counting on us is not something Taiwan can do.  So, self defense – but that is only possible for a small State like Taiwan via nuclear weapons.

Taiwan has the wealth and the technical capacity to build nuclear weapons, install them on missiles and deploy those missiles on submarines.  A force of four or five “Dolphin” class submarines, like those Israel has, armed with nuclear-tipped missiles would be sufficient for Taiwan to retain at sea a credible nuclear deterrent (you need four or five so that you can always have two or three deployed).  Israel would probably even be willing to help out, and we can provide clandestine assistance as well, though Taiwan would have to be on its own as far as nuclear weapons development due to our treaty obligations on non-proliferation.  Taiwan, right now, has just enough time to do this before China becomes powerful enough to enforce a surrender.  Faced with the prospect of a dozen or so nuclear weapons being detonated over Shanghai, Hong Kong and other major Chinese cities, the Chinese government simply would not attack – not ever:  it would never repay the cost (monetary, I mean, not blood…as I said, I doubt much that the Chinese government cares how many people die).

The choice is ultimately Taiwan’s – do they wish to be free?  I, for one, will always back coming to Taiwan’s aid because my view is that the United States can never afford having a free people be conquered by external tyranny.  Even at the cost of World War Three, we should fight China if China ever attacks Taiwan.  But Taiwan simply cannot count on my view holding majority support in the United States…or, even if it does, count on the American government at the time being able and willing to assist.  If Taiwan’s people wish to remain in freedom, then their choice is clear…build nuclear weapons and count on the ability to destroy China as their assurance against Chinese attack.

Poll: “Generic Republican” Bests Obama by Five

From Rasmussen:

…The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows the generic Republican with 47% of the vote, while the president picks up 42% support. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided…

Not the poll numbers of a man who just won a political battle.  Obama is severely damaged political goods.

He can (and likely, will) bounce back from this – and 2012 will be the hardest fought campaign in American history (possibly in world history).  Obama and the liberalism he leads and personifies will not go out without a fight.  No matter how bad things get, they will go after us with all they’ve got.  They will ask and give no quarter.

But, still, anyone who is worried that a robust, conservative message can’t win against Obama is nuts…any coherent alternative can beat him.  Better if its conservative, but the main thing for the 2012 GOP candidate is to not be Obama, just as for the Democrats the prime thing was to not be Bush.

We can beat him and his Democrats – and not just beat them, but crush them down so low that for 20 years they won’t be able to trouble us.  We can win the power necessary to restore American liberty and greatness…all we have to do is fight it out and never quit.

Europe on the Brink

With a slow-motion bank run going on in Greece, this over at CNBC should send some financial shivers down your spine:

Europe is a “train wreck” and on the “brink of a major financial crisis,” Scott Minerd, CIO of the fixed-income firm Guggenheim Partners, told CNBC Tuesday.

“The way Europe is operating right now, it’s what I called recently ‘cognitive dissonance,'” Minerd said, or “basically doing the same thing thinking they’re going to get a different outcome.”

“They keep throwing more and more liquidity at it thinking it’s going to get better and it’s not,” he added. Europe fails to recognize that it has a “structural problem, not a liquidity problem.”…

The structural problems facing Europe are gigantic – aging populations, declining populations, low productivity in many countries (especially those which owe the most), too much welfare/socialism, too much debt…on and on it goes, and it can’t be sustained.

Here’s the bad news – Europe is just a few years ahead of us.  We’ve already got an aging population, we’re just a few years away from having a declining population, our productivity is being hampered (mostly by government regulation), and Obama and his Democrats want to put us all on welfare as they build the United Socialist States of America.  Europe has no way out – they’ll have to go through a really gigantic financial catastrophe in payment for their idiocy.  We still have a few years left to avert that – we’ll still have to pay a pretty steep price, but nothing like what Europe will have to bear.  The choice we make  next year will decide it for us – bad times followed by good, or hideous times followed by a very long, slow climb back to health (if that can be managed, at all).

Think carefully about what you want…

Obamunism! Food Stamp Usage Skyrockets in a Very Strange Way

Hat tip to Zero Hedge, which notes a real oddity about it:

…After last month the data for April food stamp recipients indicated the we may, just may, be reaching an inflection point in the foodstamp participation following a mere 60 thousand jump in those receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), today’s just released data confirmed that the BLS and BEA may have had a hand or two when determining this latest data series. Because the just announced jump in foodstamp usage of over 1.1 million entirely out of the blue…

…But wait, there’s more. Digging into the numbers reveals something pecuiliar: virtually the entire surge in monthly SNAP participation is due to one state alone: Alabama, which saw those living on foodstamps jump from 868K to 1.762MM…

The fact that this many people are on food stamps is bad…but the indication of data manipulation is worse.  I ask the question:  Is the Obama Administration fudging the data to make the economic picture look better, and only correcting the data when it becomes so bad there’s no way around it?

It isn’t just here – almost invariably, each week the previous week’s first time claims for unemployment are revised upwards.  Almost invariably, when new unemployment rate data is released there is a reduction in labor-force participation.  Both of these actions tend to help Obama.  Experts I’ve read indicate that if labor force participation was in line with what we’ve seen over the past ten years, the unemployment rate would be above 11%.  Imagine for a moment what the political picture would look like here in August of 2011 if unemployment was officially at 11% and figured to go higher all through the rest of the year…there would be a stampede for the exits away from Obama.  He’d be a lame duck…Democrats would just be trying to protect themselves, and a genuine (as opposed to fringe) primary challenger to Obama would become possible.

The political facts of life are that even if unemployment is above 7% in November of 2012, it will be hard for Obama to secure re-election.  Every point higher magnifies Obama’s difficulty…and getting above 10% makes it just about impossible for Obama to win, even if we nominated a Paul/Huntsman ticket.  I’m really starting to smell a rat here…a manipulation of data in order to make it appear that things aren’t that bad, thus giving Obama his chance to win.  The data can be adjusted towards reality after the election…and whether Obama has won or lost won’t matter at that point.

Congress should investigate this.  This is what “oversight” is for:  to ensure that the Executive Branch is carrying out its duties in accordance with law. We need to know if we’re being lied to for Obama’s political benefit.

 

Brazilians Smarter Than Americans

From Bloomberg:

Brazil will provide $16 billion in tax breaks and toughen trade barriers to protect manufacturers hurt by a currency rally that’s fueling a surge in imports from China.

The targeted tax breaks and incentives, which amount to 25 billion reais over two years, were announced today by President Dilma Rousseff after a report showed industrial production plunged 1.6 percent in June, the second biggest drop since 2008.

The plan, called “A Bigger Brazil,” will eliminate a 20 percent payroll tax for industries such as shoemakers and software firms hurt by the real’s 48 percent rally since the end of 2008, which has reduced the cost of imports and strengthened decades-old complaints by business about excessive costs…

A bit protectionist, to be sure, but the basic thing is to reduce the cost of creating wealth within Brazil in order to ensure that the free labor of Brazil is not undercut by the slave labor of China.  This is just rational policy.  Free trade is all well and good – but only between people who are mutually free.  Free trade with a tyrannical nation is a contradiction…there will be trade, but it won’t be free:  it will come at a high cost to the free labor of the one and even of the slave labor of the other, as their chains are more securely fastened.

I’ve been saying it for years, and it is another thing I’ll keep saying until everyone agrees with me, because I’m right:  we must ditch “free trade” and turn to “freedom trade”.  The American worker can and will out-compete every other workforce in the world…but he can’t compete with a government which deliberately keeps wages low, allows sub-standard products to be shipped to the United States and connives as the theft of American intellectual property.  As long as China is playing with loaded economic dice, it is asinine for us to allow them to enter our market place.  Let them institute free and fair multi-party elections and then we can trade with them…until that time, keep them out.

Go ahead and try and argue me out of this position, but be warned that you would ultimately be defending a position where US wealth is transferred to a China which is building up a military force for the purpose of challenging us.  Good luck with that.