Think about this.

You answer questions that science currently cannot with “God did it!” But then in the next breath you go on to describe God Herself as being “beyond human understanding,” or anything akin. Can you really not readily realize this confidence trick? Having installed God in the middle of everything, you arrive at exactly the same place you would’ve without Her help: “I’m not sure,” or, “I don’t know,” or “It’s beyond human understanding.” You’ve simply personified the unknown, and then made friends with it. Nothing has been gained. Further, matter of factly, “God did it” throws away any potential for advancement. In science, “I don’t know” is the only answer actually available in quite a lot of domains. Still, this sort of uncertainty maintains room for the ending echo “…yet.” How did DNA coding come to be? “I don’t know…yet.” By what process does the clump of cells that result from a sperm and egg hanging out for a minute come alive and obtain perspective, what we sometimes call a ‘spirit’ or ‘ego’? “I don’t know…yet.” And so forth. Essentially what’s said in all such cases of science is, “We aren’t sure, but we’re working on it.” In the case of God, however, you offer a heavenly rewording of “I don’t know,” and then stamp the situation, case closed. Why have the physical constants that facilitate our kind of life assumed the values that they have? “God did it. Done. Next question.” This variety of nonsense leaves no room for progress. Not only have you absolutely failed to provide any functional demonstration or explanation of anything; you’ve called your bullshit the final word. On what grounds does this work for you? I sincerely motion that scientifically conceding, “I’m not sure yet,” in the first place is of much more intellectual honesty and use than boasting, “God did it.” Because in either case nothing has been actually moved forward, and in the latter you’ve imagined quite a lot more to be explained, quite a lot that by definition can never be explained, and then told everybody else to stop worrying about it.

What about it?

Against the steel cold rails of a balcony, it’s higher up here than usual. But don’t worry about me, as I glance down.

Down.

Down.

Sounds and every kind of traffic, a view from this height spoils anybody’s delusional illusion of unique purpose. A view from this height is a reflecting and neverending commonality you want to avoid. From up here, there aren’t faces. From up here, there aren’t even people. Each person isn’t one, only their contribution to whatever this bigger whole, a component of some kind of system. Hundreds of feet down is where I’m looking, some intricately woven ant farm of super highways and too many lights, actually clotted veins of a confused complexity trying to do just one thing: sustain. And even that’s going all wrong. These people if you like to call them that, all of them have a place to be, and it’s really completely the same place to be. Whatever contributing function they chose to be forced into: mother, doctor, student; their role essentially is that they are oriented and mobile, capable and eager serve. They and we really are all one. Not in a good way anymore.

December is it’s cold outside. I’m not up here as much.

Further, if you do in fact maintain that our world is so complex as to necessitate a designer, does it not follow that such a designer would by definition be even more complex, and thus require another, still better designer of Her own? Really. If complexity is a criterion by which you decide whether something has a designer, why haven’t you decided that God, too, should have one? On what grounds is it sensible to dismiss this requisite in talks of God? Because, nonbelief in God allows for the notion, not that something can come out of nothing, but that the complex comes from the simple (the theory of evolution by natural selection being a fantastic example of this premise). In the case for belief, though, what’s endorsed is that something complex comes from something even more complex, that for some unavailable reason is capable of selfsustaining its complexity. In this way, the creationist worldview is internally inconsistent to the point of self-destruction.

If you aren’t already familiar with it, CARS is a government program designed to entice drivers to trade in their “clunker” (e.g. vehicle that’s newer than 1983, drivable, and has been insured and registered by the same owner for at least one year) for a newer, more fuel efficient vehicle.

The initial $1 billion allocated to this program is diminishing rapidly, and Barack Obama, our Big Spender-in-Chief, aims to inject an extending $2 billion into it.

“Fuck it.”
– Barack Obama

More bureaucracy, more distorting intervention; here’s why every bit of ‘Cash for Clunkers,’ in-line with seemingly every other of our government’s recent efforts, is entirely lunatic. Dig this…

To start off with, funds being dedicated to CARS are not being pulled from some budgeted pool. There exists no storage hold of government money, which is carefully monitored and rationed. In a simple sentence: This is not money that is already available. The United States Government does not have money that is already available. Period. What goes on is, the Federal Reserve (a NON-governmental, privately owned banking cartel) prints and loans money to our government, at their mutual and corrupt whims. This money isn’t founded on or anchored by anything. At all. It is backed by nothing. It is called fiat money, and it holds value only because our government says it does, and it holds value only to the extent that our government says it does. The Federal Reserve — I cannot stress this enough: a non-governmental banking cartel — prints money, and then loans it to our government at interest, at a rate which is also determined by, of course, the Federal Reserve. And this scheme is not hard to get a handle on: If the Federal Reserve provides the entirety of the United States’ money, and loans it to our government with immediate debt attached to it (e.g. at interest), where could the money to pay back the debt possibly come from? If our government doesn’t acquire new money other than from Federal Reserve loans, from where comes the money to pay back the debt that the Federal Reserve loans carry? It doesn’t come. At best we borrow money from China, which also comes with debt and is of the exact same principle. Our monetary policy is one of perpetually increasing debt. The United States Government sinks deeper into the red every time they borrow money in this way (e.g. every time they acquire new money), and thus, so do we as its citizens, since all governmental monetary burdens are necessarily passed down to its citizens. Next time you learn of some instigating government program like TARP, or some automotive bailout — anything which you think you might benefit from, or can see some good in — before the crotch of your pants is made wet, please recognize that that program implies one (or both) of two things: (A) You are going to be quickly and directly taxed in order to fund the program, or (B) Our government has borrowed the money to fund the program, and thus inherited a new debt which will unavoidably be passed on to you. I’ll reiterate: Anytime our government takes on a new debt, YOU take on a new debt; anytime our government spends money, YOU spend money. Believe me when I say it: the drones on Capitol Hill are not working side jobs at 7-11 to earn money to spend on us.

And surely by now you’re gaining some insight as to why our government does such an awful job spending money (and it does): As was overly aforementioned, it isn’t their money that’s being spent; it is our money, being spent on our behalf. And this further carries with it the implication that our government has no vested interest in what the money is being spent on, since the money is being spent on us and not them. Our government spends our money on us; they have nothing at stake on either end of it. They have nothing on the line.

Again narrowing the focus to the CARS program particularly, here are some reasons why this idea is yet another terrible one:

Probably most obnoxious is, most of the used “clunker” automobiles being traded in for new models are being scrapped. Crushed up, engines disabled, and so forth. These are running vehicles (as I said before, they have to be running in order to qualify for the program in the first place) being deliberately destroyed. The reality of this is that the CARS program is actually harming the people which it allegedly primarily seeks to benefit: poor people. Because, a poor person who might’ve purchased one of these used “clunkers” submitted to a dealership doesn’t get a chance to; the dealers are simply crushing these cars up. Somebody looking to spend within the brackets of a sound budget and get a used car, they don’t have any of these “clunker” cars to pick from. There are other used cares available, certainly, but this nevertheless is a real missed opportunity to expand upon the market realistically available to poor people. John Doe’s used car would’ve been put out on a lot when he traded it in for a new one, and likely later purchased by a poorer person who could still do good with it. Under the pretense of CARS, however, John Doe’s used car is instead being scrapped. Junked. The government is encouraging the destruction of assets with real value, which people can still really benefit from.

Another trouble of this program is that it attracts people to buy new cars — obviously one of the main points of the program to begin with — that they cannot afford. People are trading in fully functioning automobiles, for new automobiles, and new debt. The government is effectively encouraging people to go into debt, and take on car payments that they probably shouldn’t be trying to make. And this manifests as two problems, the first of which being that it hugely contributes to one of the main reasons we’re currently in an economic recession: we have an economy that is founded on consumer credit, and wealth which doesn’t actually exist. Consumers spend, spend, spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need, and are then completely fucked when it comes time to actually pay the bills. Credit card debts, defaulting mortgages, and so forth; you’re already fully aware of any of the things I might mention. Secondly, given their new car payments, consumers now have less money to spend at other businesses. People are acquiring new car payments, and are then necessarily reducing their budgets in other areas: spending less on groceries, less on cosmetics and clothes, less on local services like salons and lawn care. Legitimate businesses are losing and will continue to lose customers and money, because would-be customers suddenly have new car payments to make. All sorts of businesses are losing money, in the interest of propping up unsound automakers that have conveyed an inability to function in the marketplace. Take from the capable and give to the failing, Robin Hood.

Lastly, quite a lot of the people that are utilizing CARS are trading in their automobiles for foreign ones. Another of the stipulations of CARS is that the new car you obtain has to be what the government designates as being “fuel efficient,” and this includes foreign automobiles. Fuck whatever Chevy is boasting about the efficiency of their 2010 lineup; Toyotas and Hondas are absolutely the sorts of cars being most looked at, in perspectives of improving gas mileage. The United States Government is infusing money that is ultimately going to overseas automakers. Awesome. Just awesome.

CARS, Cash for Clunkers; whatever: This program is founded on money that isn’t on hand, and is thus instigating all sorts of debt; it is inciting the destruction of valuable assets; is encouraging consumers who can’t realistically afford new cars to try to anyway; is abandoning funds to foreign markets; is…exactly the variety of effort I’ve come to expect from the maniacs running our show.

“Do you hear all of what I say through the earpiece of a physician, a psychologist? What I talk to you about here: do you receive it always as being the words of a disease that needs to be treated, or do you sometimes empathize, and hear me just as another person? What am I to you?”

After three years at a university, Mike decided three years at a university is enough, and stopped going. That was five years ago, and he was an economics major with a minor in philosophy. I cannot say for sure what Mike’s study habits were like, how his grades were, or anything along those lines, but can absolutely say that at economics and philosophy both, Mike is completely brilliant.

Mike used to use his economics in ways that you’d expect. The kind of stuff you see on CNN or MSNBC, about the housing market and stocks. Whatever. I’d often come home and Mike would be arguing at whoever was on TV. “The strength of our dollar should be defined by it’s purchasing power, not how it compares to other failing currencies,” I think I heard him say once. I don’t know.

I live with Mike.

Mike has black and thick hair, broad shoulders, and blue eyes that are the same color blue as the cleaning stuff that comes in spray bottles. Sometimes the spray bottle says window cleaner on it, sometimes it’s for your car’s interior, or it can be all-purpose bathroom. But it’s always that same color blue. So no matter what you’re cleaning, Mike’s blue eyes are making sure you don’t miss a spot. Mike’s perfect, everybody that’s met him thinks. Except for his beard. Mike has a beard like a 17-year-old that hasn’t finished puberty, the yard that somebody fucked up on while spreading grass seed: patchy and weak and, “maybe it’ll be thicker next year.” Except Mike is running out of “next years” faster than most people.

Mike was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia two years ago.

Lymphocytic leukemia means that Mike’s white blood cells can’t fight infections, and get in the way of the healthy blood cells that can. Sometimes he feels really tired all of a sudden. Mike told me that lymphocytic leukemia is very similar to lymphoma, except he probably won’t grow a tumor. Mike hasn’t told anybody else about his leukemia…and that he probably won’t grow a tumor. “In the case of any life-shortening illness,” said Mike, “the tendency is to try for a new perspective, to try from then on to ‘live life to the fullest’ or whatever. What’s funny is that everybody else’s distracting and nonstop pity and sympathy completely prevent you from doing that. You get cancer and consider new things like, ‘Maybe I’ll call my grandma more,’ except every time you call grandma, you’re reminded of your cancer when she asks about it and how you’re doing.

“Living life to the fullest means keeping your problems to yourself.”

Mike still talks about economics all the time, but not like before. Like, there’s a stack of envelopes next to the mattress that he sleeps on: bills, account cancelings, default notices, follow-up default notices, the unmarked white envelopes that arrive when you ignore the follow-up default notices. I asked Mike before if he’s ever going to respond to any of those, or even open the envelopes. “No.” Why not? “Because I don’t have any way to pay off any of that stuff.” Isn’t this a problem? “Maybe. And when you have a problem, there are two ways to get rid of it: undergo the processes and steps required to actually solve it, or just pretend that it doesn’t exist. Ignoring all that shit is much simpler than actually doing something about it. It’s basic economics, man.”

Mike has his half of the rent every month. I don’t much care to know where that money comes from. Even if Mike didn’t have his half of the rent every month, I probably wouldn’t ask him to leave, because then there would be nobody.

Some huge truth exists at the face value of Mr. Schiff’s words as-is, but I think this goes deeper, and I’ll take a step back to do you one further: Why are kindergarteners running companies to begin with? Any immediate interpretation of Mr. Schiff’s analogy likely leaves this question unanswered, thus allowing the rebuttal, “The problem is that the people who run companies are acting like kindergarteners!” I have heard this argument and equivalents of it — not only in the context of a response to Mr. Schiff’s point; certainly the thought, “Greedy business managers are to blame!!” exists regardless — and yes, it’s true that business owners and managers sometimes can and should be pointed at with blaming fingers. But I do believe that quite a lot of the blame that they usually receive actually belongs with — sing it with me — the Federal Reserve. That is to say, not only is the Fed responsible for distributing candy and soda (or in their case, unsound money and easy credit); it is also very responsible for spreading the reprehensibly infantile mindset that abuses these treats and makes a mess.

Read on.

In literal instances of kindergarteners and candy, the tendency would be to blame the teacher for providing the means (pixie sticks and soda) for the students to make a mess, certainly. However, it wouldn’t necessarily follow, or even likely follow, that the teacher would also be blamed for the mindset of the young students, whatever inspired them to make a mess with the provided treats. One might attribute this to the kids’ parents not bringing them up properly, or more likely, the fact that the kids are young and naïve and “didn’t know any better.” Whatever. The point is, this blame would probably and justifiably be associated away from the teacher. Furthermore, any decent teacher would explain to their students, upon returning to such a mess, “What you did is wrong…I now realize I shouldn’t have left you alone with candy and soda pop…we both learned something today…let’s not let this happen again.” With the Fed, however, the opposite is the case: a destructive mindset is actively promoted, any retrospect after the fact is minimized and justified, and the exact same efforts and strategies are applied again. Lather, rinse, repeat. Chairman Ben Bernanke, for example, justifying printing trillions of dollars and buying up toxic assets, and then telling everybody, “Be confident; our efforts will restore market stability,” as though money that is printed at whim is finally capable of anything other than self-destruction (hint: it isn’t). Only more mess can result, and Ben Bernanke is preaching the contrary and fully aware of what he’s doing. This is a state of mind, and vocalization of it, that is morally akin to that of the school teacher who not only passes out candy to all of the kids in class, but also sticks around to instigate the sugary mess. A kindergarten teacher, standing in front of the chalkboard and shouting, “Throw it around! Smear it all over your faces!! This will all work out!” and then excuses or ignores the ramifications (e.g. the fucking mess) of providing the treats and accompanying bad advice, and does it all over again. …And again, and again.

We are now observing manifestations of such thinking that are messier than ever: a still weakening dollar, falling stocks, depleting bank accounts, closing companies and lost jobs…and the Fed’s cries and cheers are louder than ever: “We are going to print more money! TARP! Bailouts and stimulus packages! Shake your soda even harder before opening it, kids!” as though a reckless monetary policy isn’t a huge part of why this mess exists in the first place (hint: it is), as though the best way to repair a failed system is to reinforce the fundamentally unsound principles on which it is founded (hint: …well, you already know).

Any sane person would warrant such a teacher unfit for their duty, being in charge of a kindergarten class, yet this sort of nonsense and damaging thinking is allowed to go on at a central bank, where entire nation’s economies are dictated and decided, not just one group of kids’ manners, not just whether one group of kids gets cavities.

This won’t do at all.

Just as this kind of destructive mentality is unfit to teach kindergarten, it is unfit to regulate an economy. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say that there exists no place at all for this kind of abuse, and extreme and repetitive incompetence.

It’s time to grow up and wake up, and this Federal Reserve bullshit.

CLICK HERE to support HR 1207: Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Federal Reserve