Organizing My Neighbors

Good Day my SUFA Friends! Good news (I think), this will not be my typical G-Man article that all of you love and hope for (sarc).   Over the last couple years, there has been much said and talked about how to change our government from the 1000 pound gorilla it has become, to something much smaller and far less intrusive.  Most would agree that it should start at the lowest levels of government, beginning with our local governments and work it’s  way up.   This thought process has been churning around in my crazy mind for quite some time now.  By now, everyone who knows me, understands what I think when it comes to the division of our nations citizens.

With all this in mind, I am developing a plan under the same pretense of the Neighborhood Watch programs that are scattered through out our nation.  While still in the development stages, I’m hoping for your input to finalize this project.  Once finalized and launched, it could provide a far reaching method of bringing our nation back together, provide for a more secure community, and become a political force based on what is in the nations best interests, not what’s in the best interests of the big banks and our corrupt political machine.

First, let me begin by saying that everything that I present today is open for discussion and change, even the name itself.  My goal is to achieve a solid plan, formulated by all the great minds here at SUFA. Everyone’s security in their homes should be a high priority issue.  When a large number of your community becomes part of that security, we can all have a better “peace of mind”. This plan must also be flexible, to meet the different needs and ideologies of each community. Welcome to the beginning of the American Community Safety Cooperative!

The idea behind my plan is based on my military days when I spent my whole career on perpetual “mobility recall”.  I’m just taking one aspect of that for this program, known as the phone tree.  For those not familiar, a phone tree is circular first and branches out once the circle is complete.  Example:  there are fifty phone numbers in one group, number 25 has a security issue.  Number 25 would call number 26 and quickly explain the problem, number 26 then calls number 24.  The numbers are based on proximity, so the phone tree would work outwards.  26 would call 27, 27 calls 28 ect.  24 calls 23, 23 calls 22 ect.  When the circle is complete, the last person in the circle will get two calls.  That person then extends a branch to the closest group, and the cycle continues.   This, however, is not to replace one’s personal defense responsibilities, but to supplement it in a non-violent way, because there is power in numbers.

While everbody’s demographics varies, flexibility in building a phone tree is easy.  What’s not easy, is the organizing part.  I’m not a community organizer by any stretch, but where I live affords me some good opportunities to start with.  Our local sportsmans club hosts over 2500 members, many of which also belong to various veteran clubs throughout the region.  My hope is to begin with the leaders of the local sportsman club.  If they will sponsor this program, it will provide a platform to organize and bring in more business for them as well.  One of the selling points is that there is no financial costs associated with being a member, and it is very family oriented.  Here’s my initial plan.

Organizing: The first thing is establishing a coordination center.  A sportsmans club, veterans club, church club or community center in your neighborhood.  The size and scope could be just ten people in a small neighborhood to hundreds in a large rural community.  Next is to develop an informational pamphlet or paper with many copies located at the coordination center.  They can also be passed out to your neighbors.  In the informational paper, include the name of the co-op, the purpose and goal, member requirements (name, address and phone # ) and have several informational meetings scheduled.  In the initial meeting, explain how the program works, how it will help the community and why your organizing it.  Also ask the initial members to pass out the informational paper to their neighbors not in attendance.  Remember to remind them that there is no cost.

Goal: The primary purpose of the American Community Safety Cooperative (AX for short) is to loosely organize the community through the use of communications to deter crime and provide a swift response to a neighbor in need of aid.  The phone tree being the primary source of communications, other forms will be established, up to and including CB radio.  In a loosely organized community, of any size, communication is the number one key to success.  A phone tree, as explained above, is something that can be tested and improved on as time goes on.  This is also where the family comes into play.  All adults and children old enough to understand can be taught to use the system.  A teenager caring for her younger siblings would get a much faster response to an intruder from her closest neighbors, as our police response times could be as long as 20 minutes.

As you can see, there is much to discuss and change.  This idea is not old, as urban neighborhood watch programs are in most cities today.  At some point in time, as this gets organized, I would also ask all the local LE leaders to attend, or, ask for a face to face to brief them on the program.  The numbers of LE could be diminishing as municipalities, counties, and states make budget cuts.  I’m anxious to get your opinions and suggestions to perfect this idea into an action plan so I can move forward with the best possible product.  Let’s get with it!

I HAVE THE ATTITUDE

Live Free!

G!

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Mornin G-Man,

    I don’t get it. Would you still involve the cops? What kind of problem would start the phone chain? Where do you set the bar? Robbery, domestic assault, a fire, falling from a tree :). How many people need to be called? Some things will still have to involve police or fire rescue. Are you assuming this will happen during a minor snafu or during some social unrest situation like what going on in the ME and Africa?

    • Morning Anita 🙂

      My idea spawned from reading about the numerous cities and counties who are losing much of their law enforcement due to major budget cuts, but yes, whatever is left would be included. Our fire and ambulance companies are mostly volunteer, so they would be part of it as well, if they chose.

      The parameters? That would depend on the situation. Helping the elderly is a big concern of mine. Would that necessarily require a whole tree being enacted, noy likely. But bringing the neighbors closer together, where help is close by, can’t be a bad thing. If enough people volunteer for this, it could also play a big part in local politics, hint, hint.

    • So, you don’t listen to BF…

      So listen to Jim Rogers

      ….. There is going to be more social unrest worldwide including the US. More governments will fall. More countries will fail

      ….Well it appears that America does seem to understand, at least on paper, that there are staggering problems. We still haven’t seen much action. I haven’t seen anybody cut any spending in a serious way. We are still bankrupt and the situation is getting worse, not better. Now, usually when you have this kind of situation it usually leads to social unrest and more political backlash, I suspect it will this time too

      ….The situation continues to be bleak, in the US especially. The politicians continue to dole out staggering amounts of money and the people who receive that money think they’re better off. But the overall situation is worse. America’s debt continues to skyrocket; the money train continues at a high rate, leading to more inflation and higher prices, and to eventually to more currency turmoil and eventually higher interest rates.

      …..Somebody is going to have to take some losses, just as in Europe. The idea that the solution for too much debt and consumption is more debt and more consumption is ludicrous. It’s embarrassing.

      …… It’s already happening; prices are going higher. Now the blame game starts and the government will blame it on draught or crop failure or whatever. Politicians will do and say anything to avoid explaining that inflation is a monetary problem. Their reactions are always the same and it’s always astonishing to me. As President Ford said, “there is no problem” – and even if there is, it’s not his problem. Well there are always people who are in denial; then the problem gets worse not better.

      ….There will be many different governments and many different political parties and unfortunately more destruction from civil wars and outright wars. The world will still be in a state of turmoil and perhaps it will be much worse. I could be wrong but you should at least examine the possibility that I might be right.

      What I would encourage everybody to do is to figure out ways to protect themselves. Most people have insurance policies, like fire insurance, car insurance, health insurance and you hope you never have to use them. But I would hope that everybody takes out some kind of insurance policy for their money, in case I might be right and hope that I am dead wrong and then it’s unused money. But if I am right, at least it’s some protection.

      If you analyze his comments, you will find full agreement with mine.

      BF Part Quad, coming soon.

      • No. The Pols will not blame it on crop failure or drought BF.

        The Dems will blame the Repubs. AND The Repubs will blame the Dems. The President will blame everybody including the people, for not listening to his Utopian plan to begin with.

        Other than that I agree with you completely.

      • missingtexas says:

        …would hope that everybody takes out some kind of insurance policy for their money….
        BF, I have been reading and following along for almost 2 years now, and I don’t understand this statement. An insurance policy for money????

        • missingtexas

          It means to invest in “inflation proof” things like gold, silver, real estate, commodities,etc.

          Real estate poses a special problem as a traditional inflation hedge. The over supply of houses for sale could keep sale values and rental rates depressed. Reducing the inflation hedge affect. That leaves the others.

        • Missingtexas,

          Sorry, but the explanation is a bit long and detailed.

          For the short version, JAC is right. But why JAC maybe right is rather important and detailed – and important, because if you do not know why he may be right, you may still make a serious mistake.

          Gold cannot be printed. It cannot be manufactured out of thin air.

          As such, it serves as a “brake” on monetary expansion. You can’t spend what you don’t have – and that “Law” of economics applies to government.

          Thus, governments have always -in all history- hated gold.

          Gold has constrained government action – they can’t pay for their wars.

          So they have tried all sorts of counterfeiting. Indeed, they invented it…called “fiat” currency.

          By 1973, the world government’s finally rid themselves of the constraint of gold – and the world’s currency became based on a relative scale with each other – currency exchange.

          Gold is NOT money today. Government fiat currency is money today.

          Gold -itself- cannot buy anything. Take a gold coin to the grocery store and see what they will give you for it … (nothing).

          Gold does not earn interest.

          So, holding gold seems to be …. not worth much.

          But it is the largest traded commodity on earth – more is traded in value in a month than the 2nd most traded commodity – oil.

          Gold – today – is a barometer of government trust.

          So, when gold goes up (which means people are exchanging government currency for gold) it is a vote AGAINST government and a statement of distrust of government and its money.

          When people sell gold – they want money to buy or invest – which means they trust the money – hence, trust government.

          But in all cases, governments have always abused their ability to create currency and its value.

          That is why gold has never disappeared as a value.

          And that is why today, as nearly every government on earth has abused its money, gold is going through the roof.

          • Arg…
            “…than the 2nd most traded commodity – oil…. IN A YEAR…”

            Gold is by far the most traded commodity on earth.

            This fact is most unknown. Most would have said “oil” – but it is a distant second.

  2. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    This is a bit off-topic for today, but as you all know I have a habit of doing that anyway 🙂

    There once was a boy who made $2.00 per week in allowance for providing some “services” around the house. However, his mom and dad and his “rich uncle” spoiled the little boy and let him “borrow” money quite frequently. As such, the boy generally spent about $3.60 per week. Also he had already racked up over $14.00 in “debt” between his parents and his “rich uncle”. In addition, he also had about $110 in weekly expenses (such as food, clothing, shelter, medical, etc.) which he sort of knew about, but only vaguely acknowledged, so he didn’t really count that stuff in his reckoning.

    Recently, his dad started having the rumblings of some “economic problems” of his own, but he didn’t really want people to know about it, so he tried to keep it quiet. Also, the mom suddenly had some totally unexpected major medical problems for which the family was totally unprepared.

    Meanwhile, the “rich uncle” turned out to not really be all that rich, but he did still have lots and lots of pretty paper objects that many people found fascinating and at least of some value, so he could still pretend to be quite well off.

    The kid thought he knew what was up, so very smartly, he decided to cut his weekly spending from $3.60 per week down to $3.56 per week to help out… of course, he was still only getting a $2.00 per week allowance, but in his mind, any spending cut was going to certainly help the family out, so he figured he was doing his part!

    In case you had not guessed, Dad = China, Mom = Japan, the “Rich Uncle” = the Fed, and the kid = the US “government”.

    Multiply all numbers by a factor of $1 Trillion for the real story. I just thought I would put it in a way that all of you could understand, so you could all easily see that $38 Billion dollars is almost exactly equal to 4 cents.

    • I do love how both sides of the aisle are pretending that the “cuts” they made are anything more than a fart in the wind. They could have cut 10x as much and it still wouldn’t have mattered much.

      But the Republicans insisted on targeting the red meat (PP and NPR, etc) instead of targeting where the money really is (SS and DOD, etc). Meanwhile, the Democrats took umbrage and protected their pet projects. And in the end? Nothing.

      It’s all show. Nothing more.

      Nothing changes.

      • Mathius

        It was only the first skirmish. A real battle is coming soon over the debt limit.

        Did you notice how the Administration was claiming this as a 70 billion cut over the weekend?

        • Skirmish, skirmish, skirmish.

          But the D’s won.

          They won because the D’s were fighting for the side the R’s wanted to win.

          So a battle is brewing, you think, that’s fine, but who is going to fight for the fiscal conservative side? The Tea Party? The T’s become R’s the second they’re elected with maybe a handful of holdouts. Those holdouts are either corrupted into R’s or are marginalized.

          So how do you think there’s going to be a battle between the “Spend-but-don’t-pay-for-it” R’s and the “Tax-and-spend” D’s over spending? They both want the same thing.

          Did you notice how the Administration was claiming this as a 70 billion cut over the weekend? I did not, but I’m surprised they didn’t claim more. A trillion dollars in savings over the next 57 years.. why not? It’s all bluster anyway. As The Man once said: “fuzzy numbers.”

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          It was a joke really – and a bad one at that. That 40% you guys just took from my bonus and my wife’s bonus? That is money we cannot invest or spend. Period.

          And this PP thing? So put aside the abortion business they’re in for a moment.

          From Wiki:

          “Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.”

          So I do understand that these are services that many a liberal would call as untouchable. Imagine the horrors that would result in eliminating these services! In my mind – if you’re going to take my money and spend it on other people, I need to see at minimum that there is (a) measured benefit and (b) the same result cannot be achieved through other means that does not involve my hard earned money. That doesn’t mean I cannot contribute to local charity that helps fund certain orgs/services for those who cannot afford them – or are too dumb to realize the consequences of unprotected sex.

          And I do realize that the $$$ spent on PP is a pimple on the ass of a flea in the grand scheme of things – but because we don’t even try to objectively assess and scrutinize even the smallest spend; we end up never touching the bigger stuff.

          As George Will has said – (paraphrasing) – every dollar spent by Government is, in some way, discretionary.

          • How about this thought: Poor people are going to screw. If you deprive them of subsidized contraceptives, they will screw without contraceptives.

            If they do this, they will get pregnant.

            If you take away their ability to have an abortion, they will have children they cannot afford and, in many cases, do not want.

            These children will go on welfare.

            If you take away welfare, many (though certainly not all) will become criminals.

            If you catch them and lock them up, you will have to pay for jails (approx 80k/yr/prisoner).

            Any way you slice and dice it, you’ll have to pay for them.

            So why not just do it upfront and save yourself the hassle?

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              Ok – so subtract first the prostitutes that get free rubbers from PP. Now – subtract college kids and those who otherwise know better and/or can afford rubbers. Do we assume the net of what is remaining are poor people who will trek to the nearest PP to get their weekly supply of rubbers? How many of these poor actually do use the rubbers they get for free?

              More importantly, is there another means that does not use my tax money to fund rubbers for poor people?

              This becomes a bigger pimple when more and more of the entangling social net is replaced by my social trampoline. Its like the rich spoiled kid who never learns the value of money or hard work as mommy and daddy give them money and possessions for free – they develop an entitlement mentality much the same as those on welfare have over the years. They become conditioned to accepting what is available rather than looking for a different means to change their own lives. We’ve completely hosed their pain/pleasure scales.

              • Sure. I’d add that, in addition to rubbers, they also do the pill.

                I have known a few people who used PP. Several, in fact, were girls back in high school who didn’t want their parents to know they were having sex, so they went to PP in order to be able to afford them. If PP weren’t around, would they have told their parents? Doubtful, but maybe. Would they have abstained? Almost certainly not. Would they have gotten pregnant? Coin flip? And would they have gotten an abortion? Probably.

                Now, does this make it right that they would choose to use tax-payer subsidized services to avoid embarassment? No. It does not. But the alternative, in my view, is worse.

                I understand what you’re saying, I do, but I think the cost (pimple on a flea’s ass) is so minute relative to the benefits of making birth control widely and cheaply available (hundreds of thousands of avoided pregnancies).

                And that’s to say nothing of the societal benefits of STD screenings and treatments.

              • Matt,

                Since you’re handing out free condoms and pills I’d like some free food and a free vehicle and free clothing..why not..it’s just me..just a drop in the bucket.

              • Excellent, if sarcastic, point, Anita!

                Where to draw the line is tough. For me, it’s a question of broad strokes – this helps a lot of people, but it also avoids MAKING NEW PEOPLE, many of whom will be either unwanted or on the dole or both. If I don’t feed you, you may feed yourself or you may die. If I don’t help poor people avoid making babies, they WILL make babies and then I will have to pay (one way or another) for those children.

                It’s an ounce of prevention saving us a pound of cure.

              • Mathius,

                So these girls you knew had no other alternative to getting condoms for their own use? They couldn’t go into the drug store and buy them? There was no other community health program – funded without tax monies – that they could have turned to for access to them? They couldn’t make their prospective partners buy them?

                The ONLY place to turn was PP? Or was it just the easiest place to turn to?

              • Well that’s sort of the point, isn’t it?

                People. Are. Lazy.

                And teenagers, especially, are not just lazy but terrible at evaluating the consequences of their actions. And many (though certainly not all) poor people aren’t poor because they lost the life-lottery (though some are) – they’re poor because they’re lazy, dumb, or not good at evaluating the consequences of their actions, or controlling themselves well enough to act in their own best interests.

                There are always other options than PP, but they took this approach. How many of them would have gone without contraceptives if it weren’t easily available? Let’s be charitable.. how many unwanted pregnancies would that be? Let’s say 10,000 on the very low side per year? How many abortions (which many here consider murder) would that be? 1,000? 5,000?

                How many welfare babies would that be? 5,000? 7,500?

                How many girls would wind up dropping out of school and never achieving their potential? 1,000? 2,000? What is the economic drain of this, to say nothing of the human cost?

                Pay now or pay later, you’re going to pay.

                It’s cheaper to pay now.

              • Matt..It’s ridiculous to have to pay for the new babies also. When did it become our problem to finance bad decisions?

              • What did the baby ever do to deserve it’s fate?

                You preach that abortion is murder, but life doesn’t end at birth. An innocent child should never have to go hungry or lack proper medical care.

                Say what you will about adults, they made their choices and (one could argue) deserve what they get, but a child never asked to be born.

                I have a hard time reconciling the belief that abortion is murder and should be banned with the belief that we shouldn’t have to pay to help provide for children whose parents cannot provide for them.

              • Mathius,

                cheaper to pay now

                Prove it.

                You do not know this.

                The evaluation of time preference can only be done on an individual level – some people prefer immediacy, and some prefer delay for more in of stuff in the future.

                Seizing other people’s money to pay for YOUR time preference makes a massive mess of society.

              • Well said, Mr. Flag, TVM is a difficult question.

                Fortunately, my world view does not require unanimity.

          • pimple on the ass of a flea in the grand scheme of thing

            Well said!

            • anoninnc says:

              This whole argument that so obviously assumes that the value of human life is an economic issue grieves me.

            • anoninnc,

              This whole argument that so obviously assumes that the value of human life is an economic issue grieves me.

              But it is.
              Economics is HUMAN ACTION, and life is part of that.

              Answer this question to yourself.

              How much of YOUR money would you spend to save someone else’s life?

              • anoninnc says:

                “No greater love has anyone than this . . . that he would lay down his life for a friend.”

  3. 😐 for comments

  4. It is a good idea G. Bringing the community together to handle things on their own accomplishes many things.

    1) Decreases dependency on government.

    2) Gets people used to helping themselves, preparing them for when they will have to.

    3) Increases social interaction and therefore opportunities to teach.

    4) Lets people know who they can count on and that they are not alone.

    Good stuff.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Well put Jon – agree 100%

    • Any suggestions on how to improve this plan?

      • G-Man,

        Yes.
        This is an excellent tactic to engage as part of the BF Plan, being laid out in the series of articles here on SUFA.

        I will refer to your post here in a later article.

        Good job!

      • I would add that reinstating a “meet the neighbors” tradition, welcoming newcomers and even periodically visiting neighbors is a good thing. It will help bring new people into the tree that might not be part of your existing club or circle of friends. Sometimes people are not in any of the existing circles.

  5. G!

    I think I’m already there, but in a informal way. Small neighborhood with just over a dozen homes, everybody know each other. The elderly know who to call first of the core group that can and will provide any help needed.

    Family also, since I became public about concealed carry, has become more aware of each others abilities. I was the first to have a generator, now five others have one. I don’t look at it as gloom and doom, just the more self-sufficient and prepared you are, the better you can deal with when nature strikes.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    The laughable part about the battle over federal funding of planned parenthood is that planned parenthood was something like 232 million in the black this past year which included something like 70 million in federal funding.

    If the organization was 232 million in the black, they would have been 162 million in the black sans federal funding, no?

    Please explain to me why federal funding is necessary?

    Also, as I pointed out a while back, the American Lung Association gets something in the neighborhood of 30 million in federal funding through the EPA, which the ALA then uses to sue the EPA because the EPA rules/regulations “are not stringent enough to project human health”.

    So basically the EPA is in effect paying to sue itself so that it can have more regulatory power.

    • I can’t justify that. Source?

      “So basically the EPA is in effect paying to sue itself so that it can have more regulatory power.” Isn’t this what the Republicans did in Idaho? Source.

    • Claim: Without funding for PPFA, women will lack access to mammograms, primary health care, and other necessary services

      In truth, Planned Parenthood clinics provide no mammograms. They offer only referrals to health centers, doctors, hospitals and labs for mammograms. PPFA breast exams are done by manual palpation, similar to a breast self-exam. But as a National Institutes of Health MedlinePlus fact sheet states: “There is no evidence that doing breast self exams saves lives from breast cancer.” For that, mammography is needed.

      As for primary health care services, PPFA clinics performed fewer than 20,000 such services in its last reporting year, an insignificant part of the total of 11.4 million services nationwide. Through state and federal Medicaid programs, low-income women already have access to contraception, as well as needed health care services-including testing and treatment for sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs), Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammograms-at countless hospitals, doctors’ offices, and over 1,000 federally-funded community health centers.

      Claim: “Planned Parenthood cannot survive without federal funds”

      So states Jonathan Alter. Really? PPFA has almost one billion dollars in net assets ($994,700,000), and in its most recent filing reported $737 million in revenues for the year, not counting the $363 million from taxpayers (see page 29). Any untaxed corporation should be able to scrape by on $737 million in revenues.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/things_planned_parenthoods_tru.html

  7. 8)

  8. Down here Mathius.

    Which also begs the question of how many teenagers still have unprotected sex even with the access to condoms from PP?

    And for the record, if they government is going to hand over tax monies to PP I’d rather they use it to buy and supply condoms than be allowed to use it for abortions (though I think PP doesn’t need a dime of public monies to run their business – all aspects of it).

    • If they don’t, then I agree. I haven’t seen any data either way, but I have seen this claim repeatedly (that they don’t need fed funds).

      If they’re solvent, I don’t feel the need to subsidize them.

    • link above to American Thinker

      Claim: “Without funding, PPFA won’t be able to provide contraceptive services that prevent more than 612,000 unintended pregnancies every year”

      Mr. Alter and many others repeat the “pregnancies averted” figure[6] to justify funding PPFA. This claim remains one of the more imaginative “statistics” devised by abortion advocates. Equally creative is the claim that widespread access to emergency contraception (EC) would cut abortions by half, when a definitive meta-analysis of 23 studies in 2007 showed that EC has had “null” effect on abortion rates.[7]

      The “pregnancies averted” figure depends on two assumptions, neither of which has been demonstrated empirically: first, that contraceptive use reduces abortion rates overall; second, that young people are inherently “unable” to control their sexual behavior, and will therefore engage in sex to the same extent whether or not they have access to contraception.

      Reality: Access to contraception does NOT reduce abortion rates

      Anyone who finds that statement shocking has not been paying attention. A study published earlier this year found that a 63 percent increase in the use of contraceptives in Spain over a ten-year period was accompanied by a 108 percent increase in the rate of elective abortions.[8] This counter-intuitive reality has also been documented in peer-reviewed journals in the U.S. and Western Europe. Studies by Peter Arcidiacono in the U.S., K. Edgardh in Sweden, and David Paton and Sourafel Girma as well as M. Wiggins et al. in the U.K., are reviewed in a USCCB fact sheet “Greater Access to Contraception Does Not Reduce Abortions.”

      Planned Parenthood leaders have known for a half century that when access to contraception increases, abortion rates can rise or, at least, remain unchanged.[9] The correlation between contraceptive use and recourse to abortion was noted in a 1932 article in the British Medical Journal, by a PPFA doctor in 1936, in a study done by the Margaret Sanger Clinical Research Bureau in 1940 (finding 41 percent of pregnancies of contracepting women terminated in illegal abortion, while only 3.5 percent of the pregnancies of non-contracepting women did), and by Malcolm Potts, MD, then medical director of International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1981.[10]

      • Claim: “Without funding, PPFA won’t be able to provide contraceptive services that prevent more than 612,000 unintended pregnancies every year”

        How’d they get that number I wonder? Is that the number of free condoms they handed out which means (to them) they were used and prevented a pregnancy?

        lol…I think they just used creative math to get a number that sounded good.

  9. Mathius,

    An innocent child should never have to go hungry or lack proper medical care

    What the Universe has provided to that child is NOT the fault of any person.

    To force OTHER PEOPLE to pay for what the Universe has determined is the evil.

    • The universe has determined nothing. The universe doesn’t care.

      And you, I know, think the government shouldn’t have a roll in anything, so I address this in terms of people who wish to outlaw abortion only:

      If you are ok with using the power of the government to prevent abortions, how can you square that with refusing to allow the government to help with providing for needy children?

      • Easy..I don’t advocate the gov’t providing abortions or providing for (irresponsible adults’) needy children.

        Typical left talking points. Quit spending our money!

      • Mathius,

        The universe has determined nothing. The universe doesn’t care.

        Incorrect. The Universe IS DETERMINISTIC. We call that “reality”.

        It has no care.

        If you are ok with using the power of the government to prevent abortions,

        I am not “ok” with anything of government – PERIOD.

  10. “To force OTHER PEOPLE to pay for what the Universe has determined is the evil.”

    The nebulous universe therefore decrees that the innocent child born into poverty die of starvation is there is no one to give it charity? Serious question.

    This is where my muddle mind gets REALLY confused. One day your claiming that it is the desire of persons living in poverty to continue doing so (i.e., the generations of Ozark families in poverty mentioned the other day); thereby it is their desire to live in poverty.

    Another day you’re claiming the government created slavery. Was it slaves desire to be slaves (since they did little about it)?

    Is it individuals themselves who are to blame for being poverty stricken or the government … or can we just blame it all on the universe, go home and watch what is left of Glen Beck?

    • Charlie

      The nebulous universe therefore decrees that the innocent child born into poverty die of starvation is there is no one to give it charity? Serious question.

      Serious answer.

      Have you ever heard of charity?

      You know Americans give more to charity than the US government, right?

      But you don’t seem to know that, because you never acknowledge that, and otherwise always demand force and violence to solve the Universe’s suffering.

      Another day you’re claiming the government created slavery. Was it slaves desire to be slaves (since they did little about it)?

      Nope. A bunch of evil men under license by government did this.

    • Charlie,

      it is the desire of persons living in poverty to continue doing so

      That is NOT what I said.

      I said that every problem has trade offs. To have “THIS THING” means you cannot have “THAT THING”.

      They want “THIS THING”, and will make other choices to get it or keep it, which EXCLUDES getting “THAT THING”.

      I have no right to debate their choice. Their choices leads to their consequences.

      • BF: “Have you ever heard of charity? You know Americans give more to charity than the US government, right? But you don’t seem to know that, because you never acknowledge that, and otherwise always demand force and violence to solve the Universe’s suffering.”

        CS: We donate to charities … none of them having to do with right wing causes, of course.

        BF: “That is NOT what I said.” (regarding generations of poverty in the ozarks).

        Perhaps it is not what you meant (or how I understood you, but it was what you said; the fact that generations of people live in poverty in the Ozarks means they must want to be there or they wouldn’t be. I believe I called your statement the ultimate in arrogance that there are no other factors at play in why people remain in poverty generation after generation. The fact you cannot find any fault with the capitalist system for this is equally perplexing, since you so often claim that not everyone has the same talents, skills, etc. (i.e., it isn’t necessarily by choice that one person succeeds and another fails and while capitalism doesn’t guarantee equality per se, the fact there is an inherent uneven playing field (those born into advantage) diminishes the argument regarding freedom; how free is a person is they are handicapped at birth, whether physically, financially, emotionally, etc.)? Add to that the usual advantages of those who succeed over and over vs. those who never get the chance and your assumptions are further weakened.

  11. Why hasn’t inflation exploded?

    When it does how bad will it be?

    Review this graph: this is where all the newly created money is going – into the excess reserves of the banks. …. $1.4 trillion+

    Note that the historical line – flat – for decades. This is the norm. The peak -one day- will go to norm. Then we will have inflation …. major inflation

    http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?&id=EXCRESNS&scale=Left&range=Max&cosd=1959-01-01&coed=2011-03-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=1&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2011-04-11&revision_date=2011-04-11

  12. Charlie

    CS: We donate to charities … none of them having to do with right wing causes, of course.

    Well done.

    But you discount charities in your econ-political viewpoint. Why?

    Perhaps it is not what you meant (or how I understood you, but it was what you said; the fact that generations of people live in poverty in the Ozarks means they must want to be there or they wouldn’t be.

    The fact of trade offs: you cannot have everything.

    I said:
    OBVIOUSLY what they want by staying is worth more to them then leaving, or else they’d leave.

    I don’t know what it maybe -roots, heritage, land, friends, family … (shrug) I don’t care, because it doesn’t matter.

    The exists a reason, and from their action (that is, not moving) means they “value” (economic-speak) what they have more than what they gain somewhere else (and losing what they have now).

    I believe I called your statement the ultimate in arrogance that there are no other factors at play in why people remain in poverty generation after generation.

    It is TRADE OFFS. They want to stay. Where they are staying they live poor. They can move to where there is more wealth, but they will lose what they value from where they are.

    They cannot have both.

    So they have chosen to stay.

    The fact you cannot find any fault with the capitalist system

    Ah, good ol’ Charlie – so quick to JUDGE other men – you must find FAULT.

    FREE MEN in non-violent action cannot be judged by any other man! You may hold your opinion of them, but you cannot judge.

    “Judge not, least ye be judged!” … is a great wisdom.

    Who are you to judge them? Who gave you the right?

    So, yes, the only “fault” a free man can do is to initiate his violence upon another man.

    • “Judge not, least ye be judged!” is not great wisdom.

      It is a rationalization for not using one’s mind. It is at its core the rationalization of the irrational.

      We ALL have not only a right but a responsibility to judge the world around us, including other men and women. Without such judgment we would have to act in complete ignorance. We would in fact have to ignore reality itself.

      • JAC,

        Hold whatever your opinion you may, who cares…. not I.

        JUDGE means you ACT upon others of whom you declare a RIGHT to do so. (Judge->Justice->Right of action)

        You better be more than damn careful on doing that, – for as the saying goes – that will be exactly the same justification used against you, too.

        • BF: I happen to like you..I have made my judgement about you and decided I like you. If i don’t use judgement to decide that then I can’t have any feelings. What’s up with that. Same thing happens if I didn’t like you.

          • JAC: We would in fact have to ignore reality itself.

            Bingo. That is the core of BF’s explanation for generations living in poverty; the “assumption” (once again) that because they live in poverty, he can only “assume” it’s what they want.

            Putting it simply: What a crock.

            What a convenient way to ignore fact/reality; assumptions of what people should do (without having to judge them?).

            Please … charity itself requires judgment, BF. You judge who to donate to (or why not give it to everyone equally?).

            • Charlie

              Charity, like sympathy, is all to often wasted on those who have not earned it.

            • Charlie

              On the poverty question itself.

              His “assumption” or “opinion” that they have chosen to stay due to their belief of greater value to them is NO MORE ARBITRARY, or a “crock” in your words, than your assumption they are there due to circumstances over which they have no control.

              And before you start lecturing me on the condition of poor people you need to realize that I lived in a house with dirt floors and sod walls. Then we moved upscale and lived in an old box car converted to a house.

            • Charlie,

              Bingo. That is the core of BF’s explanation for generations living in poverty; the “assumption” (once again) that because they live in poverty, he can only “assume” it’s what they want.

              I make no assumptions, Charlie. It is YOU who are making them based on your ego.

              They have choices. They cannot have everything they want, so they choose what they want over that which they do not value as much.

              I worked and lived in the Caribbean, earning 5 to 10 times what I could earn elsewhere. I offered jobs to others for more money a month then they could earn else where in a year.

              But they had to leave where they were to come where I was.

              Most didn’t. They did not want to leave family and friends and other things.

              That is TRADE OFF.

              They could not have their family AND 10x the income. They had to choose.

              Same here.

              They are not in chains. They have feet. They can go if they want. But they do not. There are reasons – their reasons.

              And to justify stealing from other people in an attempt to give the people BOTH desires is evil.

          • Anita,

            Disingenuous comment.

            The parable SPECIFICALLY addressed a group of people about to kill another person because THEY JUDGED HER.

            That is precisely this here too.

            The word games that you and JAC want to play have no merit with me.

            Judgment – here – specifically is to justify ACTS upon others.

        • TexasChem says:

          Well I don’t know about you BF but if I were being robbed or my home invaded or any of my childrens health/welfare were being placed in harms way etc… I would be judge, jury and executer of some form of action. I would also do the same for my neighbor.
          Of course I wouldn’t mind being judged in the same manner simply because I would never perform any of those acts. So you see I wouldn’t mind the same justification used to judge me. Simple logic using analytical thinking to arrive upon a judgement. Utilizing knowledge learned from pulling ingrained values, morals and ethics from my BASE STANDARD allows one to judge accordingly ehh? Don’t ya think?
          The old saying “I have standards you know!” can be viewed in an entirely different light can it not?

      • TexasChem says:

        Bravo JaC!
        I agree 100% entirely with you!

  13. anoninnc

    down his life for a friend.”

    …. at the cost of devastating your wife and kids?

    • anoninnc says:

      I respect you greatly, you (and Mathius and others of differing viewpoints as well) but we come from entirely different world views.

      Academic argument (even at your level of IQ) is a distraction away from the real issue to which I responded . . .

      I do not mean to insult you, nor do I claim to have an answer to incredibly difficult circumstances.

      But, it remains, reducing the value of human life to the level of economic argument grieves me.

      And reducing the value of human life to economic argument will never suffice to bring us to true resolution of our complicated circumstances.

      But, it does make for engaging debate, even while it devalues human life.

      • In fact, reducing human life to a purely economic discussion is exactly the argument made by those who’s view is that the sacrifice of an individual is worth it, if it the benefits to society are deemed worthy.

      • Anon, There are many people out there who want to limit the world population to 500 million. We are at 6+billion. These people should concern you greatly, most are very wealthy.

      • anoninnc

        Academic argument (even at your level of IQ) is a distraction away from the real issue to which I responded .

        .

        …as mine as well. You posited that human life is not a economic calculation – yet, I provided exactly a situation in which SUCH A CALCULATION must be made.

        People often proclaim “you can’t put a money value on human life” yet spend a few hundred bucks on a night in a bar where in another part of the world, that is a year’s worth of income for a family on the edge of starvation.

        Do they think “gee, I should give my money to that family?”. Nope.

        …or as you posted, “I’d give my life for my friend…” … oh? really? and leave your wife a widow and your kids orphaned?

        These are all economic calculations – where or not you realize it

        I do not mean to insult you,

        You have not insulted me in anyway.

        nor do I claim to have an answer to incredibly difficult circumstances.

        It is in difficult questions that the truth is made clearer.

        In easy questions, there are many different solutions from fairly bad to brilliant – but the difference is rarely meaningful. So what if you brush your teeth and THEN brush your hair or the other way around?

        But in difficult questions – order and application is VITAL – life and death may tilt in the balance.

        But, it remains, reducing the value of human life to the level of economic argument grieves me.

        In this, I do not understand – since this is what you do all the time – as does everyone else on earth and in all history.

        Let me help you understand.

        You grieve that some people place a LOWER VALUE on human life then you do.

        But do not make a mistake in believing you do not place some economic value on human life or its end.

        • anoninnc says:

          Just for the record, I refrained from identifying the source of the “life” quote, since “religiious” talk is quickly dismissed in our discussions. (And I understand that.)

          The fact that all of us throw away money all of the time (whether at a bar or at some other frivilous event of our choosing), the fact that few of us really care about those we can not see who live in poverty, the fact that we are more self-centered than we will ever admit, the fact that we would rather console our consciences with government action instead of personal action, and the fact that each of us has placed ourselves at the center of the universe . . . does not change my original grief statement.

          And, just to be clear, the person I quoted is the person whose Resurrection some will celebrate in a couple of weeks. It is true that I will hesitate to lay down my life for someone else; but my hesitation only proves my need for what he accomplished when he laid down his life for me.

          AS I said a few daysago, i do not comment much anymore . . .but I still read, and I still pray . . .

  14. ” hic “

  15. Charlie,

    you judge who to donate to (or why not give it to everyone equally?

    Let’s not play word games.

    I am VERY discerning on who I give my money to, no matter the circumstance.

    ….whether it is buying an apple or giving a street person my fast-food breakfast…..or giving money to an organization…. I am VERY discerning.

    I measure value for value, including charity.

    It is worse than pointless to give money to those that cannot apply the gift properly. It rewards their negative behavior and they go deeper into the darkness.

    It is VITAL to discern, or else you create more of what you wish to avoid.

    This is the fallacy of socialism and its programs – it cannot discern.

  16. WTH? I skip town for a couple days and now we’re all yelling at each other? Civility SUFA!

    GMan – great thought provoking article and gets me thinking about my subdivision and how I might get something like this going.

    ? – Do I have to include the household around the corner that has signs “Recall Walker” “Thank you Fab 14” and other idiotic signs in their yard? I feel their blindness/denial/ignorance is their own problem and would rather just leave them a pamphlet that tells them to “Enjoy the ride over the cliff” type of thing.

  17. Anoninnc,
    What grieves me is that people have stopped thinking and using reason so much that they believe they can ignore economics and other aspects of reality and not hurt people. It is not that human life has a price, it is that helping someone has a price. Help right now is great, but if it means that you cannot help many more later, is it a caring decision? You cannot look at the world with feelings alone and really do any good, in fact, you will likely hurt far more than you help. You have to count the costs, ALL of the costs, before you engage in anything. Emotion and caring are good things, noble things. They are not, however, able to stand alone, the require guidance by reason.

    • Well said. Kudos to you Jon.

    • anoninnc says:

      I do not disagree with you at all; however, my reverence for life above economic principle is not the result of “looking at the world with feelings alone.”

      • Anoninnc,

        Your “reverence for life” IS an economic principle.

        • anoninnc says:

          we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          • Anoninnc

            It merely means you do not understand economics.

            • anoninnc says:

              wow. That sentiment is why I read more and contribute less. It is one thing to disagree because of differing worldviews and differing perspectives. It is another to stereotype from an elevated view.

              BF, you are a very gifted individual, but my reverence for life is not an economic issue. Said another way, economics is subordinate to my belief system, and not the other way around.

              Again, we just need to agree to disagree.

  18. anoninnc
    …and that is why it IS an economic issue, as well as an example of why people are always so baffled by economics.

    They do not understand it at all because they cannot recognize it – even when they swim in it.

    wow. That sentiment is why I read more and contribute less. It is one thing to disagree because of differing worldviews and differing perspectives.

    It is not a different perspective.

    It is the difference between being correct or in error.

    You are in error with your understanding. Your error compounds other intellectual mistakes – then you make incorrect conclusions which leads to serious errors in action.

    Said another way, economics is subordinate to my belief system, and not the other way around.

    Economics is a consequence of the action of men.

    Your belief system causes you to act in some way.

    The consequence of the action is economic.

    • GRRRRRR! Yes BF there is always an economic outcome from any action taken. But the economic outcome is not the only factor we look at. If it was we would all be uncaring robots. If I run into hard times -one could look at economics and determine that the best course is to kill off some of my family to lesson my expenses-but to do so is insane. One can say that aborting unwanted children is a good economic answer to poverty and it probably is-but it is still evil.

      • V.H.

        GRRRRRR! Yes BF there is always an economic outcome from any action taken. But the economic outcome is not the only factor we look at.

        *sigh*

        It IS the only factor you look at.

        You are confused about the concept of VALUE
        You are confused about the concept of TRADE OFFS

        If it was we would all be uncaring robots.

        No one (well, not included the seriously brain damaged) are “uncaring robots”.

        THEY SIMPLY CARE ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS THEN YOU!

        • How I determine value, may fit into your definition of economic theory-but how I determine value in many cases does not depend on what is the best economic outcome-in terms of money. And that is what your statement conveys.
          So what is your point? Because even with all mans faults-life and death is not just an issue of economic success.

          • V.H.

            How I determine value, may fit into your definition of economic theory-but how I determine value in many cases does not depend on what is the best economic outcome-in terms of money.

            The other way around:

            I do not care HOW you determine YOUR values. They are yours and yours only, justified by you to you and no one else and by no one else.

            MONEY is JUST ANOTHER ECONOMIC GOOD, just like anything else.

            You tend to MEASURE your goods (a valuation) in TERMS of money.

            But you can MEASURE your goods (a valuation) in TERMS of any other good, as well. Money is just another good, and you can use it or not at your whim.

            Money is CONVENIENT because most everyone else uses Money to measure their value, and thus you can achieve some RELATIVE value between DISSIMILAR things.

            But using money or not does NOT change economics, nor influence OTHER people’s valuations.

            And that is what your statement conveys.
            So what is your point? Because even with all mans faults-life and death is not just an issue of economic success

            What do you think “economic success” means?

            • What I think is that it is convenient and in many cases useful to include ones values in economic calculations to determine what one will or should do. But it is also used to devalue man’s values as nothing more than a part of a mathematical equation.

              • V.H.

                You are merely angry about someone else who does not value things you do.

                Why do you believe your values are superior to another person’s?

              • I am not angry at anyone-I’m simply stating that man does not base all his decisions on the almighty dollar and using an economic theory to devalue man’s principals into nothing more than a calculation of economics-devalues people.

            • Actually, I would say they had to include value’s and tradeoffs into the economic theory because they Know that man’s actions are not solely based on material success.

              • V.H.

                Economic theory cannot allocate any theory to YOUR values determinations.

                What objective measure exists to know if your values are the same value for everyone?

                What can be said is that you value some things more than other things.

                Therefore, your last statement is true; however you derived it incorrectly.

              • If I understand any of your posting BF-it is that economic theory may not be able to determine what my value’s are-but they certainly acknowledge that values are a part of the determination. And I realize that those values have to be individual in nature. But that isn’t the point. The point is that values are what we base our decisions on-in some cases our values determine that we are going to use the mathematical to calculate what we should do. The whole point is that economics is the tool-our values are the starting point. So I do not see where I got it wrong.

  19. V.H.

    but they certainly acknowledge that values are a part of the determination.

    Determination of …. what?

    Economics explains and predicates CONSEQUENCES.

    It cannot MEASURE value, though it provides a means to measure value.

    In other words, it is a yard stick.
    The yard stick does not know how tall you are.
    It can tell you how tall you are.

    It can tell you that if a door is 4 feet tall, and you are 5 feet tall, you will need to duck to walk through that door.

    It cannot tell anyone whether you will actually want to walk through that door or not.

    But that isn’t the point. The point is that values are what we base our decisions on-in some cases our values determine that we are going to use the mathematical to calculate what we should do.

    One more time:
    Economics does not care HOW you determine your values.

    You can roll dice if you want – it is as meaningful, economically, than any other methodology.

    The whole point is that economics is the tool

    Economics is not a tool, just like physics is not a tool. It is an UNDERSTANDING.

    Physics tells us that “this physical action” will cause “this physical consequence”

    Economics tells us that “this human action” will cause “this human consequence”

    Engineering, based on the knowledge of Physics, can make tools.

    Human REASON, based on economics, can help humans to make fruitful decisions.

    -our values are the starting point.

    Values are the whole point.
    And that’s the point.

    Because you value things, you are engaging in economics.

    To have this thing, you have to spend this thing — called a “Trade off”.

    To live another day, you have to sell your house.
    To keep your house, you cannot have the surgery.

    You will value one thing over the other thing. It is not an automatic choice. The house may be necessary for your family. You will toss your family into the street so to live another day. You will value one thing over the other, and choose.

    Economics merely understands this. It will explain the consequence of doing one thing vs. doing the other thing.

    It will not choose for you.

  20. anoninnc says:

    I value life because I value the giver of life, and his principles.

    So, I value life not from an “under the sun” (economic) perspective but from an eternal perspective.

    That is why it is necessary for us to agree to disagree.

    • Anoninnc,

      You merely value because you are a man.

      You act on that valuation – that is economic.

      • anoninnc says:

        whatever.

        Economics is temporary.

        • 🙂

        • Anoninnc

          As long as there are humans, there is economics.

          Economics is as temporary as the human race is temporary.

          • anoninnc says:

            We finally agree.

            I view life and destiny in light of eternity, a term to which economics is subordinate in my view.

            And, as has been shown consistently in other conversations, eternal language is not as welcome here as economic dialogue.

            I am merely sharing my worldview that makes economics and economy subordinate to my reverence for life.

            Hence, my original comment that the reduction of the value of human life to economic principle . . . grieves me.

            Please do not tell me I am in error; simpy agree that we do not agree.

  21. Anoninnc,

    I view life and destiny in light of eternity, a term to which economics is subordinate in my view.

    No, it is not subordinate. As soon as YOU value – which you did, you made an economic choice.

    After you die, you have no more choices, economics -for you- ends.

    And, as has been shown consistently in other conversations, eternal language is not as welcome here as economic dialogue.

    It most certainly is welcome. Again, WHY you decide to do “this” instead of “that” matters not one wit to economics.

    Economics simply tells you “to do that, you cannot do this”.

    I am merely sharing my worldview that makes economics and economy subordinate to my reverence for life.

    Your reverence for life implores you to act in a particular way.

    You act in a way that gains you benefit in some ways, and excludes you from other benefits.

    Just because you have not used Federal Reserve notes to measure your value does not mean you do not value something more than other things.

    You simply have used a different economic reference.

    It is still an economic reference.

    Hence, my original comment that the reduction of the value of human life to economic principle . . . grieves me.

    All human life is an economic value.
    You value your life more than a stranger.
    You may value your kids life more than your own.

    These are ALL ECONOMIC CALCULATIONS.

    Your complaint:
    Some people do not value what you value.

    Please do not tell me I am in error; simpy agree that we do not agree.

    You error in the understanding of economics.
    This error is probably not fatal to you.

    • anoninnc says:

      I am not going to reply any more in this stream.

      We operate on different planets, apparently, and on yours, my gifted friend, you are always right and you always have the last word . . .

      I prefer my planet where the truth of the Gospel trumps the highest thoughts and ideals of mankind. and where life is considered an unequivocal and priceless gift.

      And, in light of our differences, let me say again: reducing the value of human life to an economic decision grieves me.

      God bless you, BF, there is so much more to life and value and worth than economic principle.

      History says you will say that I am in error and then give me more definitions of economic principle and application.

      So do go ahead, but we need to agree to disagree.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Interesting debate. After reading everything, your both right. THe value of human life is an individual decision, that is intertwined with economics. But it really comes down to what the individual is wiiling to give his/her life for. THat value can only be determined by the individual, and it’s rarely an economic choice.

        However, economics do play a big role in life, as many have commited murder and suicide because of econmics (money). Butt, in my humble opinion, the value of human life is what each person choses it to be, and economics will always be a part, intended or not. 🙂

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Crap, Mathius has me yelling and mispelling! Damn liberals could F$%k up a wet dream. 😆

%d bloggers like this: