"The virtue of the gentleman is like wind; the virtue of the small man is like grass. Let the wind blow over the grass and it is sure to bend."--Confucius
Interests:Drawing, writing, Politics, God, creation science, politics, history, big dogs, women, lifting weights, and sci fi and Fantasy in general. The order is completely random and in no way indicative of priority.If you are going to debate with me, do not use wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not legitimate or trustworthy, and I will disregard all such links. Expertise:Lecturing Occupation:Wouldn't you like to know. Industry:Other
INTP - "Architect". Greatest precision in thought and language. Can readily discern contradictions and inconsistencies. The world exists primarily to be understood. 3.3% of total population.
I have to say, that I'm not normally to sanguine about Christmas. When I was a kid I would get really excited about Christmas but then for about 13 years my dad decided to harass me about something on Christmas which gradually numbed my attitude towards it. Also I'm not too keen on the pagan origins or all the Santa stuff, but I do like how Christmas is offensive to the liberals. At any rate, this guy has an interesting perspective on Christmas that I can't really argue against:
It has always been my position that evolution is not science. It is a set of extrapolations based on philosophical presupposition rather than empirically verified truth. It is also my position that evolution is anti-science, because the assumptions involved preclude investigation of some areas. Given the following thought process, it is not difficult to see why:
The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "[Evolution] is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is the light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow."
Ayala, Francisco J,. "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky: 1900-1975," Journal of Heredity, vol. 68 (January/February 1977), p. 3
In real science, the facts illuminate the theory either proving it wrong, right, or insufficient, the evolutionary way of thinking is backwards to the scientific approach. To further demonstrate my point, I would like to post and comment on the following article. The article appeared on www.sphere.com and was written by John D. Sutter. My commentary will appear in green:
(Dec. 17) -- Astronomers announced this week they found a water-rich and relatively nearby planet that's similar in size to Earth.
I don't know how they can determine that from this distance, but assuming it does then that is a very important discovery.
While the planet probably has too thick of an atmosphere and is too hot to support life similar to that found on Earth, the discovery is being heralded as a major breakthrough in humanity's search for life on other planets.
"The big excitement is that we have found a watery world orbiting a very nearby and very small star," said David Charbonneau, a Harvard professor of astronomy and lead author of an article on the discovery, which appeared this week in the journal Nature.
The planet, named GJ 1214b, is 2.7 times as large as Earth and orbits a star much smaller and less luminous than our sun. That's significant, Charbonneau said, because for many years, astronomers assumed that planets only would be found orbiting stars that are similar in size to the sun.
An assumption derived from evolution (stellar evolution, big bang). So because they "know" that the theory is true, it eliminates having to investigate certain areas, facts are interpreted within the light of the theory. The result being that they don't even bother to look. The discovery of this planet is one event in a long list of discoveries and facts which should lead them to question their "theory," and if they were logical they would do so.
Because of that assumption, researchers didn't spend much time looking for planets circling small stars, he said. The discovery of this "watery world" helps debunk the notion that Earth-like planets could form only in conditions similar to those in our solar system.
Of course they will not question the theory, and this is why ultimately evolutionism is an unfalsifiable tautology. This is an example of how the facts are interpreted within the light of the theory rather than having theories be subject to facts. A planet cannot just assemble out of space dust or appear out of a star like a baby being born. It is true that planets have gravity which draw smaller objects down towards them assuming they come within a certain range of the planet, but that gravity is being generated by the planet itself. No planet means no gravity, and no gravity means no planet. A cloud of space dust will gradually disperse if there is no gravity well to act on it, and without any planets, or stars, there is no gravity well. A space cloud does not have a center of gravity. There is simply no way a planet can form, yet it is taken for granted that planets exist because they formed from space dust on their own. The reason for this is because evolutionary believers have defined any explanation outside of the universe as non-science, so they are obligated to construct fantastic sequences of how the universe self assembled, regardless of how absurd they are or what natural laws they violate.
"Nature is just far more inventive in making planets than we were imagining," he said.
This statement is obviously a religious one. Denying an external creator only leaves one option, the universe is self existing and self creating, which in effect deifies the universe. Once again, the conclusion they come to is completely wrong because all facts must be made to fit the theory as opposed to making theories that fit the facts.They seem hell bent on believing the notion that the universe created itself. If they are capable of recognizing inventiveness in the structure of the universe, the next logical step ought to be to recognize the inventor. As to why they don't do that the motivation probably varies with the individual. Evolutionism is only a rehashing of pantheism gouged in psuedo-science and jargon. Technically the evolutionists are pantheists not atheists as the notion of the self existing universe simply deifies the universe.
In a way, the newly discovered planet was sitting right in front of astronomers' faces, just waiting for them to look. Instead of using high-powered telescopes attached to satellites, they spotted the planet using an amateur-sized, 16-inch telescope on the ground.
So in other words, it was probably spotted from someone's back yard while they were fooling around. Who knows what else gets by them because their theory precludes certain lines of inquiry?
There were no technological reasons the discovery couldn't have happened long ago, Charbonneau said.
Sad.
The planet is also rather near to our solar system -- only about 40 light-years away.
Planet GJ 1214b is classified as a "super-Earth" because it is between one and 10 times as large as Earth. Scientists have known about the existence of super-Earths for only a couple of years. Most planets discovered by astronomers have been gassy giants that are much more similar to Jupiter than to Earth.
Charbonneau said it's unlikely that any life on the newly discovered planet would be similar to life on Earth, but he didn't discount the idea entirely.
"This planet probably does have liquid water," he said.
Simply put, a tautology is a nonsense statement, or a statement which is inherently self refuting.
For example: It is just an assumption that the laws of physics have always been constant.
Someone really did say that to me, a college science (biology) professor to be specific. The statement is self refuting because a natural law, by definition, is something which is always constant.
In order for something to be unfalsifiable there must be no way it can be investigated. All axioms are technically falsifiable, because in order to arrive at the understanding that something is an axiom, it must first have gone through the process of observation and investigation.
An unfalsifiable tautology is a nonsense statement which is put forth in such a way that there are no conditions under which it can be investigated.
For example: Watermelons are ALWAYS blue on the inside until the skin is punctured, at which point the inside immediately turns red.
You can investigate the chemical components of watermelons, the methods by which they reproduce, the DNA, etc. and come to an understanding how the watermelon works and what it is made of, which is sufficient to prove that the statement of their being blue is pure nonsense as every aspect of the watermelon is designed to produce a red interior. You can eliminate any natural mechanism that would account for a blue interior prior to the melon being punctured. However, the person making the claim might attribute the alleged blueness to fictitious properties which cannot be investigated, and would state that you can never invalidate their theory as any punctured watermelon is always red. People who espouse unfalsifiable tautologies often delude themselves into the notion that their claims are axioms simply because they cannot be empirically falsified. Once an unfalsifiable tautology is arrived at in a debate there is no way the matter can be argued further, however, technically the burden of proof belongs to the individual making the positive or the non-evidence based claim.
Yes I know this is long. I very seldom submit anything but when I do I like to be thorough.
I am going to deal with two topics in this entry, the primary topic being Afrocentrism, with my theories about ancient man as a closely related secondary or subtopic. But first I am going to post a disclaimer, any readers who are like minded to myself should skip directly over the disclaimer, but anyone on the left needs to read my disclaimer before posting comments.
Disclaimer:
Being a white male as I am, at least half of the population in the US and much of the world is automatically going to equate criticism of an idea promulgated by black individuals as racist. Which just goes to show how messed up modern societies can be. My motivations are not racist, I have no problem whatsoever with black people. I do however have a problem with stupidity, and this topic is one which I have ignored for a long time, so it is long overdue for criticism from me. I think racism is foolish because people cannot help what race they are born into any more than they can help what hair color they get, and not every single individual conforms to the racial stereotypes, so hating people because of that is absurd. Also, as a Christian Conservative I believe the Bible cover to cover, which teaches that humanity was created in the image of God, and that we all come from a common ancestor who was human. CREATED, not evolved. So there is no room in my ideology for the notion of racial stratification. As a general rule, I dislike racism, and ignorance. Although I tend to be far more hostile towards stupidly than ignorance because stupidity entails being ignorant on purpose.
Afrocentrism/Black Supremacy:
First of all the term "Afrocentrism" is a misnomer. It carries the implication that all native Africans are black, and that is false. There are Mongoloid and Caucasoid elasticities which have been living in Africa just as long as the Negroid cultures have been. The Amazigh are the native people of the Maghreb (Northwest Africa), and they happen to be a part of the Indo-European group. The Egyptians also happen to be Caucasoid, more on that shortly. The Ethiopians and Tuaregs are mixed race groups which makes sense considering that they occupy transition zones between Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa. The indigenous people of Madagascar are actually Mongoloid, although the indigenous people are not the majority in Madagascar. Surprised? For reference, pictures of the groups in question will be posted at the end of the journal. To suggest that all of the indigenous people of Africa are black is on the level with suggesting that all of the indigenous people of Asia are Mongoloid. Since the term "Afrocentrism" is deliberately exclusionary I am going to refer to it as what it really is, Black Supremacy, which I will abbreviate as BS.
Hebrews:
Some of the people who advocate BS claim that the ancient Hebrews were black. The usual claim here is that the Hebrews were originally black and they became white through racial intermixing. Aside from there being no evidence for that claim the logical question which must follow is why should they be so different from their neighbors? First of all, the Hebrews originated in Mesopotamia which would be in contemporary Iraq, which is why the Hebrew language is closely related to Aramaic and Arabic. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic belong to a language family known as Semitic named after the Biblical patriarch, Shem. There are direct cognates between Arabic and Hebrew, for example: Shalom (Hebrew) and Salaam (Arabic). The only Semitic language in Africa (other than Arabic) is spoken in Ethiopia which was once colonized by a pre-Islamic group of Arabs. One fact about Hebrew society was that they were strongly opposed marrying outside of their culture. Individuals who did so were frequently ostracized and condemned, so the amount of race mixing has been historically low.
I once came into contact with a BS advocate who claimed that King Solomon was black because he married a black woman. The woman described in Song of Solomon does indeed seem to be black, however, that does not make Solomon black. I dated an Asian woman for a year and it never made me Asian, nor did I have to be Asian in the first place in order to find Asian women attractive. King Solomon married lots of women, too many. Much of it was done for diplomatic reasons because under his rule Israel was at the peak of it's power, and as a result it had to interact with more countries than it otherwise would have. Political marriages were often used to cement peace agreements between ancient cultures, but with Solomon it is possible that not all of his marriages were conducted for political reasons. I think that if most men were given the chance to rule over an ancient polygamist society they would have more than one wife, and they would probably try to diversify their wives in order to experience new pleasures. At any rate, Solomon was a product of David and Bathsheba. There is a description available for King David:
12And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he.
13Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward. So Samuel rose up, and went to Ramah.
1st Samuel ch. 16.
There really is no physical description of Bathsheba except that the mention that she was very attractive. However, it can be inferred by the mention that she was "the daughter of Eliam" that Eliam was part of the Hebrew community, whereas no mention of the parents of her husband are mentioned as he was a foriegner. He was "Uriah the Hittite"(see 2nd Samuel ch. 11).
To sum it up, the Hebrews originated in Iraq, they typically shunned intermarriage, and given that individuals with an appearance like David existed that early on in their history there is absolutely no way they could have been black.
Amazigh:
The Amazigh (Berbers) are the indigenous people of Northwest Africa and in pre-Roman times they used to fight with the Egyptians. There are ancient Egyptian depictions of the ancient Amazigh tribe known as the Temehu, the following image comes from the tomb of Seti I.
The four on the left are intended to represent the native Libyans (Amazigh), the next one is intended to represent a Nubian (Modern Sudan), following the Nubian is a Syrian, and the last is an Egyptian. Notice the attention paid to facial features. It is easy to tell that these figures represent different cultures and races. Out of all the groups present in this depiction, the only black culture represented here is Nubian. The BS claim is that originally everyone in Africa was black, but during the Islamic invasion the Arabs colonized and either mixed with black Africans to produce white North Africans or some might contend that they drove the black Africans out. Seti I died in 1279 BC which antedates the Islamic invasion, the Roman invasion, and the Greek invasion under Alexander by a large margin. As to the racial intermixing the Amazigh belong to the Indo-European group, and genetically they have more in common with western Europeans than either Arabs or black Africans.
Carthaginians:
Carthaginians were descended from Phoenician (modern Lebanon) colonists. They actually were not African natives, but I feel the need to address them because they are another group claimed by BS. Part of the problem can be traced to the Budweiser African Kings project which depicts Hanibal as black. The Phoenicians are light skinned and Caucasoid. Persons from Lebanon would not visibly stand out in any modern western country. Also, there are actual depictions of Hannibal which survive.
Hannibal (246-182 BC), name means "Mercy of Baal"
Egyptians:
This is a group which is claimed rather vehemently by BS, the argument being that ancient Egyptians were originally black but became white or Caucasoid following the Islamic invasion. This has led to the false perception that modern Egyptians are somehow intruders and despoilers, which leads to misplaced hostility towards modern Egyptians. First of all, there is a long record of Egyptian art, both paintings and carvings. Egyptians are always depicted with Caucasoid features. In the older art it is quite common to see men depicted with brown skin as compared with the women, but when black individuals are depicted in Egyptian art there is no room for doubt. It should be noted that Egyptian women are often depicted as having ligher skin, sometimes far lighter, than the men. The reason for this is that it was common for ancient civilizations to idealize women with light skin. If a woman had light skin it meant that she did not have to work out in the fields, which was an indication of social status. Minoan culture followed the same pattern in their depiction of men and women. It is true that the noses are missing from some Egyptian statues, but this is not part of some ancient white conspiracy to erase black history. Many of the noses are chipped off of Greek and Roman statues. Chiseling the noses off of statues was a common form of vandalism when invasions occurred in the ancient world. Also, destroying artwork from the previous dynasty sometimes occurred as the result of a regime change. Incidentally there is also Egyptian art from the Roman period, which depicts a population identical to that of contemporary Egypt.
Mixing black and Arab is not going to produce a Caucasoid population. The Arabs did mix with black Africans along the east coast of Africa, and the result was the Zanj region, where Arabic combined with black African languages to produce the Swahili dialects.
Prior to the Islamic conquest of Egypt the majority of people in Egypt spoke Coptic. Coptic is the direct descendant of classical Egyptian.
The term "Copts" is equivalent to the word "Egyptians." It is derived from the Greek "Aigyyptos," which in turns is derived from the ancient Egyptian "Ha-ka-Ptah," i.e. "the house of the spirit Ptah," a most highly revered deity in Egyptian mythology. From the Arab conquest and until today, This term refers to the Christian Egyptians to distinguish them from the native Muslims.
The Copts as the successors of the ancient Egyptians are defined as the modern sons of the Pharaohs. They played an essential role in the whole Christian world, especially during the first five centuries.
Their religious background helped them to accept Christianity with eagerness and to enjoy its depth through their ascetic life, meditation and studying of the Holy Scripture.
Today the majority of Egyptians speak Arabic and follow a form of Islam, but this is a process that took place over time as pressure was exerted upon the native Egyptians to convert to Islam. Following the Islamic invasion the majority of Egyptians were still Coptic. A Coptic minority still exists today, although the Coptic language is now primarily used in liturgies. The essential point here is that a group exists which is unquestionably descended directly from classical Egyptians, so the physical appearance of ancient Egyptians is not a matter open to speculation.
Ancient Man:
Black Africans are indigenous to the sub-Saharan portion of Africa, excluding Madagascar. I reject utterly the Out of Africa theory, which I shall abbreviate as OOA. According to OOA humanity evolved from ape like creatures in sub-Saharan Africa and spread outwards from there to other parts of the world. First of all I reject evolutionism and the subsequent theories of racial stratification, and I also reject sub-Saharan Africa as the origin point for humanity. I believe that the origin point of humanity was somewhere in the Middle East. The Bible does state that humanity started in the Middle East following the flood, but there are other reasons beyond that which indicate the Middle East as a starting point. First of all, it is almost universally agreed upon that the first human civilization existed in Mesopotamia. If humanity started in sub-Saharan Africa the first human civilizations should have been there. While I realize that consensus is not always a sufficient method of confirming truth, if one looks at the diffusion pattern of agriculture the Middle East is indicated as a starting point. It is impossible to have civilization without good agriculture. Civilization cannot exist without specialization of labor. Specialization of labor is when individuals devote their working lives to filling a specific function, such as artist, craftsman, priest, historian, teacher, engineer, farmer, etc. An artisan typically does not spend his time looking for food, he focuses on his craft and sells his skill in exchange for goods or currency with which to purchase goods, including food. Without agriculture (beyond subsistence dirt farming) there can be no specialization of labor because everyone must focus continually on their own survival. In that type of situation a tribal society is what develops.
The existence of civilization is a problem for evolutionists because there has not been one recorded incident of a tribal society becoming civilized on it's own. Tribal societies become civilized through either conquest or diffusion. Sometimes a civilized society conquers an uncivilized one and begins integrating the uncivilized people into it's own society. On the other hand sometimes an uncivilized society conquers a civilized one and adopts the trappings of civilization by learning from the conquered people. On other occasions an uncivilized society adopts methods, practices, and devices from a nearby civilization through peaceful diffusion. Tribal societies completely left to themselves remain stagnate and never advance. Once a society falls into tribalism it tends to stay there until one of the three previously mentioned scenarios occurs. As far as anyone can discern from history, the first civilizations have always been civilized. Their oldest records indicate a well developed level of civilization firmly in place. Some of the earliest writings are dismissed as fact by most scholars on the grounds that they contain religious connotations, however, it should be noted that said dismissal is based on assumption rather than fact.
Ancient Africa:
My theory allows for two possibilities. One being that white and black Africans arrived simultaneously from the Middle East. Another is that the white Africans arrived first. Both theories could be wrong.
It may be that the forerunners to the various African ethnicities arrived simultaneously. If so the white groups may have previously favored a more agrarian lifestyle. They found that North Africa was well suited to agriculture so they settled there and farmed. The black cultures may have been more interested in hunting game, and they found North Africa ill suited for those purposes so they moved on further south and settled the areas below the Sahara. Some did chose a sedentary agrarian lifestyle, such as the Nubians, and settled along the southern Nile which was well suited for their purposes.
The other possibility I am considering is that the white Africans arrived first. They found north Africa well suited for agriculture so they settled there. The black Africans arrived shortly after them, found the white Africans entrenched, and decided to move on. They probably chose to move on rather than fight over it because most of them preferred game hunting. However, some, such as the Nubians, chose an agrarian lifestyle and were able to maintain a high level of civilization as a result.
It may also be that other ancient groups of black Africans maintained a high level of civilization, at least for a while. The Olmecs were the first Mesoamerican civilization, and are considered to be the forreunners of all ensuing Mesoamerican civilizations such as the Aztecs, Mayas, and Teotihuacanos. Unlike the later Mesoamerican civilizations, the Olmecs seem to have been a racially pluralistic group, with depictions of persons with Aquiline, Negroid, and Mongoloid features (including one with facial hair). It should be noted that the depictions of persons with Negroid features come in the form of colossal stone heads sporting headgear which is atypical of that worn by Olmecs. Headgear in all other Olmec depictions is quite large. It is entirely possible that sailors from a black African civilization actually sailed across the Atlantic and met the early Olmecs. In order to earn such large effigies they must have done something to impress the Olmecs, who were quite advanced themselves. Based upon an examination of Olmec art and artifacts (actually photos of it), I have created a reconstruction of the Olmecs and the black sailors.
Ancillary Materials:
Egyptians: Arabic speaking
Modern Amazigh
Amizagh: contemporary Morocco
Coptic Egyptians
Ethiopians
Congo: Central Africa
Madagascar: This guy is actually the current dictator of Madagascar, his name is Andry Rajoelina.
Health Care: Looking at the evidence and drawing absurd conclusions
I get a great deal of my news off of the internet, pretty much all of it except on those rare occasions when I actually listen to the radio in my car. I don't watch TV, at all, and I don't read the newspaper because I do not wish to donate money to a liberal news organization any more than I wish to donate money to the inappropriately named "National Center for Science Education" or Hamas. At any rate, the articles that appear on yahoo come from a variety of liberal sources, but I read them because it's free. The following article is an excellent example of how liberals can look at evidence and draw incorrect conclusions from it.
The article: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/14/democratic-civil-wars-likely-as-left-weighs-primary-challenges-o/
"Democrats are generally discouraged across the board because they don't feel that anything's getting accomplished," says Ben Tribbett, executive director of the Accountability Now Political Action Committee.
They have the majority and they still can't get anything done? They have the majority in Congress and Obama in the White House, and as a result of those two factors they have managed to spend more money than any previous administration, AND they do this in spite of the current economic recession. I wonder how many of them passed economics?
Moving on, basically what the author is saying is that many Democrats are being challenged for re-election in their local districts. The reason she gives is that it is due to their opposition to the "health care" reform agenda. Every survey and poll I have seen thus far shows that the majority of people in the US are opposed to socialized health care. Also, let us not forget the town hall meetings where Democrats attempted to sell their health care reform ideas to local populations, and were shouted at and challenged. Every indication I have seen thus far is that the majority of people in the US are indeed opposed to socialized medical care, although the majority of people in the media are probably not. My analysis is that Democrats are facing new challenges for relection because their new policies are unpopular. Furthermore, the reason Democrats are opposing the health care reforms is probably that they recognize how unpopular it is, and actually wish to be relected, even though it is probably too late for them.
Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, points to a PCCC poll in October that found 56 percent of Arkansas residents support a public option; 49 percent have a negative view of Lincoln; and she barely defeats two potential GOP rivals. She does even worse in a Rasmussen poll and only slightly better in a Daily Kos poll.
For those who may not know, "Progressive" is a new synonym for "liberal." Some of the leftists thought they might dodge the negative connotations associated with the term "liberal" by adopting a new term. So basically, I do not trust a poll produced by an openly liberal activist organization as a source of information any more than I would trust a Hamas as a realistic source of information on Israel. I don't know how the author can expect to be taken seriously given who she relies on as a source of information for her statistics. They are going to call or email whoever they want when taking their poll, and even if it is one of those online polls, the sort of people who frequent that website are going to be predominantly liberal.
So it is true that Democrats will probably have a harder time during the next election, but the reasons the author gives for why are false.
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama implored top bankers Monday to help keep the fragile recovery from faltering by boosting lending to small businesses and getting behind an overhaul of financial regulation. "We rise and fall together," Obama declared.
---and---
Obama's lecture to the bankers was also part of a broader election-season Democratic effort to tie sluggish bank lending to continued high joblessness — and to try to tie the banking industry to Republican efforts against Obama's financial overhaul legislation.
What a horrible idea. Lending money does not generate wealth, and the excessive loaning was a huge factor that contributed to the current recession. If banks had excersized more responsibility in their loaning then the rate of joblessness would certainly not have been so high. Obama has it backwards. What are the banks going to do when they loan money and people can't pay it back? Ask for more money from the Federal Government? All that will do is cause inflation, and inflation is not a good thing during an economic recession, assuming that it is ever a good thing. What that means, is that I will actually lose money because the value of my money that I have in the bank will go down. This sort of policy is going to hurt retired people who are living off of money they have saved while they worked and off of fixed pensions, which do not compensate for inflation.
But they also insisted they are getting conflicting messages from Washington when the do try to make more loans. While the White house presses for more lending, regulators are cracking down on banks to lend more prudently and forcing them to keep larger cushions of capital to protect against future losses. That means there's less money available to lend.
The regulators obviously passed their economics classes while Obama and the Democrats did now. They can only lend money to people who are capable of paying it back, and with the economy being the way it is right now, such individuals are few and far between. When the economy is healthy they can increase their lending, when it is not they have to cut back or go bankrupt.
Obama has complained that, while bankers claim they support financial regulation reform, large banks have been lobbying against portions of overhaul legislation moving through Congress, including a provision to set up a new consumer protection agency to oversee their marketing of credit cards, mortgages and car loans.
Just what we need, more government regulation, because everything the government runs is superior to similar services provided by the private sector, and government programs excell in regards to efficiency (sarcasm). The problem is that the people who run the banks are experts in their field, people in the federal government are not. If the Federal Government had any grasp on fiscal responsibility, they would not be in the collosal debt that they are in.
Using a sports analogy, Obama told the bankers Americans might be more sympathetic to outsize pay if those who got it were in the equivalent of a financial World Series, according to a senior administration official who lacked authorization to speak publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The real issue here is that Obama is afraid they will invest money in over seas accounts making it more difficult for him to tax, even though it would probably help revitalize the US economy because it would generate more revenue for the banks. Obama, like a typical Democrat, is showing how he puts the Government before the citizens. Democrats put the government first, most of them can think no other way. To them, government is what defines a nation.
Lifetime
