Counterspin

On average, about half of any home mortgage payment is interest on money printed by the Federal Reserve. So it deserves to be asked "Upon what basis is it logically justifiable to charge interest on money not comprised of the savings of others?"  The interest payment on loans originated in a time when loans were other people's savings and the interest paid on the loan paid an incentive for a saver to provide their funds and for the bank to take the risk of loaning those funds. Today, the prime rate is so low, almost none of the funds loaned by banks are other people's savings. Anyone with money has it in the stock market and any money loaned by the banks is money printed into existence by the Federal Reserve. If the prime rate is 3%, the consumer pays an interest rate of 4% and the Federal Reserve collects an interest rate of 3%. For what? Printing the money? It's not like they are paying a saver 2% for the use of their savings. I assert that interest payments o

As a male who spent their life in the U.S., I avoided marriage beyond the point that it was particularly relevant. The reason of course is obvious. For the last 50 years, marriage has been an insane proposition for men and still is in most states. Let me see if I have this correct. "Marry me and if for any reason whatsoever I don't feel like you are servile enough or I find a guy with more money, I will take your kids and half of your paychecks for the next 20 years". Because of this insanity, the institution itself has been destroyed. But then, from the moment they instituted no-fault divorce, it was essentially over. As a result, we have entire generations of men and women who are very much worse off and horribly unhappy because of our family court bias against men. With this in mind, allow me to hypothesize on the future of marriage. Anyone desiring to have kids need to find a partner willing to sign on to a Breeding Contract (BC). In this BC, it would be clearly stat

I encourage all conservatives to scream out "hate speech" anytime a leftist screams "racist" or "homophobe" or whatever. The more quickly we can redefine hate speech as any ad hominem attack, the sooner we can force the conversation to our winning side, the issues. Leftists assert that anything they disagree with is 'hate speech'. Probably because it is all t hey have and it has worked so well on people not educated on 'street' wisdom. (i.e privileged white people). However, street wise people know that it is just a hustle, plain and simple. As such, allow me to propose a much more workable definition of hate speech. I propose that 'hate speech' be defined as "the ascription to another person, the insinuation that their point of view is motivated by malicious intention". And of course, all ad hominem attackes are just that and nothing but that. People will always disagree with one another. Heck, even people who agree on

The left believes that CO2 production is a negative consequence of fossil fuel combustion and as such, assert that the solution to this problem is to increase the cost of fossil fuels, thereby leading to a reduction in their use. Accordingly, they advocate carbon taxes and non-nuclear 'green' energy. It could be argued that this is a 'limited' solution to the believed problem of climate change. It is limited in that is proscribes a limited energy production whereby the pie is smaller and everyone gets a smaller slice and the poorest of the poor gets none. The principal unfortunate consequence of this approach is that billions of desperately poor people will simply not be able to afford the luxury of electricity or transportation. Of course, the more well off people will have to pay more and will naturally reduce their consumption. In the end however, the greatest negative impact will be on the already challenged, desperately poor. As someone who actually cares about t

In consideration of Christmas, its tenets, and its topic area, allow me to introduce the 'Perfection Hypothesis'. The Perfection Hypothesis states "Within the context of three constraints, that in any single universe, where everything that exists is the result of directed thought and not a result of random events, and that it is drastically more likely that single consciousness is responsible for this creation as opposed to a collective of consciousness', if a single example of perfection can be found, than by definition, everything single aspect of this universe is perfect" The defense of this hypothesis is that if a single something created a perfect thing, then by definition, it is perfect, and then by definition, everything it created, however seemingly imperfect, must also be perfect. This might be referred to as the transitive property of perfection. The reason this hypothesis is relevant to anyone, much less the holidays, is because it speaks to how we see

Somewhere along the way, we concluded that democracy was the most egalitarian method of governance. We deluded ourselves to think that this way, the people could govern themselves. In fact, all we did was change the game. It has always been about the powerful and the underclass duking it out, but now instead of just buying politicians, the rich  buy the media and sabotage the education system, and then just tell the grossly uneducated population how to vote. I contend that this system cannot stand. I say this because as one of the educated who was not caught in the system, I can conceive of a way to bring down the system and I can imagine how one might justify it. If I can conceive of it, many more can and probably will. I contend that there are enough educated people not in the ruling class who will never be OK with the idea of a ruling elite and will eventually be the next founding fathers who eventually bring down a system built on a ruling elite. The ruling elite may own the googl