Monday, November 26, 2012

Escapes From Voyeurism


Why do so many people get in line hours and hours before the stores open on Black Friday, as well as some other things like the recent crowed that rushed out of an football stadium, tearing down the goal post and hurting thirteen who could not get out of the way when they fell.  The answer as to why people behave like this has little to do with the fact that there is a good deal to be had, or that their team just won.

That we have turned into a nation of voyeurs has!  I understand that less than one percent of us serve in the military.  Fewer yet play professional sports.  Most of us do not drive race cars, race a horse, or act in a movie.  What we do is watch, we watch other do these things.  We are the great audience, we applaud, moan, grown, and cheer, but we do not act.  I do not mean to suggest that our tendency for  voyeurism is any greater today is any greater than it was in the past, just that our opportunity are much greater.  In the past the carnivals and medicine shows were an opportunity to escape from the harshness of a world in which if you had to work from sunrise to sunset.

Today when those who go and camp out to get a good seat at a concert they are participating, being part of the show, but not escaping from drudgery.  This can be said of those who get up early, or stay in front of the stores all night for Black Friday, they are not the audience.  They are out among them, taking their chances, or, playing the game, if you will.  This attitude had also led to the recent innovation of the flash mob as well.

They know that they may get hurt, that they will have to deal with the crazy, and some will go a little crazy themselves.  Now consider the Oklahoma State fans that jumped, ran and pushed their way onto the field and pulled down the goal posts.  Was it joy that led them to do it, or was it the chance to be part of the show?  I maintain that it was the latter.  Being part of the show though diverts into two paths: the differences between going to a public hanging as a spectator, and being the member of a lynch mob, as the people who pulled the goal post down transmogrified.

As a people we come from people who were doer not watchers.  We abandoned safety and security to venture into the unknown.  We fought England to be free, and we fought ourselves to free the slaves.  We went to Europe twice to keep the world free.  These all were events in which large numbers of us were involved, not just one percent.

And now what do we do?  We work; we watch TV and go to movies and plays.  We watch races and games.  We have become the great audience, and pay dearly to be entertained.  Why do you suspect that actors and sports stars get so much money?  They feed out appetite that is why.  But while they appease our craving for excitement their fare is unfulfilling to many of us, and out craving must be satisfied elsewhere.

Some of us take up extreme activities such as scuba diving, sky divine, Martial Arts, horsemanship, reenactments, or any of a multitude of other activities in which we are the actors instead of just the audience.  But then some of us just go shopping or rush out on a football field pushing and shoving. 

Now consider the Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Parties and how they have chosen to act out.  Look at the flash mobs, some are formed to dance or to sing, other to raid a store and steal what they can.  As in all things there are choices, but you reach a point in a mob where you have no choice and you lose your will to the mob's will.  Why some large groups never turn into mobs, as the Tea Party, while other groups like the OWL seems to embrace it?

I do not know the answer; I just know that we have choices.

The point is not the voyeurism, but the attempt to escape from it by being an actor instead of the audience.  The people in the past who went to the public floggings, hangings, etc. we’re escaping from mind numbing labor, not a problem that many of us have today.  No, I do not mean to suggest that the tendency for voyeurism is any greater today is any greater than it was in the past.  In the past the carnivals and medicine shows were an opportunity to escape from the harshness of a world in which if you had to work from sunrise to sunset.  And all through history you either were a warrior or your will was bent to their will which was the will of their Lord.  

Entertainment was a rare thing through most of history for most of the people with the exception of the Greek theaters, the Roman Coliseums, and those were not for everyone, just the select few.  The Roman citizens were placated with their entertainment and bread for their vote (now that does sound like some of what is going on now, minus the Gladiators, i.e., Bread and Circus.  What I am talking about is the differences between going to a public hanging as a spectator, and being the member of a lynch mob, as the people who pulled the goal post down were.

Allegorically in the TV miniseries, The Pillars of the Earth, based on a novel by Ken Follett, at the end the Archbishop of Canterbury had his pet sheriff arrest Jack in order to stop the construction of Philip's cathedral.  He holds a show trial in which the people are invited as an audience to the dispensation of justice.  But his duplicity in the sinking of the sinking of the White Ship is brought to light by the Witch, and the crowd turned from being an audience to being actors, and the Sheriff is hanged in his own noose.  As well the Archbishop fulfills the Witch’s prophecy of climbing up high only to fall. And falls to his death seeking his escape from the audience that had turned into actors.

Now I am not trying to say that the people who push and shove, pepper spray, and walk over other people to get a good deal have the same high motives as did the people in Kingsbridge had when they go from being spectators to participant, what I am saying is that there is a strong drive in up to participate that is pent up, and every now and then something comes along that drives us from being spectators to being actors in the event playing out before us, that is why I ended the peace with the question about the OWL.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Unrequited burning desire


Unrequited burning desire
Kills the hope,
But not the desire.

Wish I had never met her,
But too late for that,
I just have to live with that shit.

She is with another now
No bad feeling for her.
Just me.

By now you would think
That I might have learned
No one owes me a thing.

But no, There I went
Putting my heart
On the line.

Fool that I am, hoping that
Just because I love
That I am loved.

Wishing as I will
Wishing as I might
I wish with all my heart

That you love
Me
Tonight.

©
Rexx

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Why would God order the destruction of men, women, and children?


An atheist friend of mine poises this question:  Why would God order the destruction of men, women, and children?  And cited the following verse to back up his question, "Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

There are two way at looking at this story Christopher The first, most likely the way you interrupt it, and that is it is a story told to justify the Israelites killing any who would resist, remember God told then the same thing at the battle of Jericho, just as Temujin used to tell the cities he was sieging, “Join me or die” on his way to becoming Genghis Khan.  Temujin keeping his promise to each and every city he took lead to many, many more who would not put up a fight and instead joined him and increased his army.

The second is to believe, as I do, that God did order the destruction of men, women, and children in this battle just as he did when He flooded the world, yes I believe that actually happened, and 10th Plagues on Egypt.  But your question is why He did it, not if I believe He did it.  To believe that God flooded the world requires one to believe that God’s scrip does not always run as God wants it to run.  This is tangential to the discussion on predestination and free will but I will not digress.

I believe that God has had a plan from creation to make man first mortal through Adam, and then immortal through Jesus.  God chose Israel to bring this plan into fruition, to discuss that plan is beyond the room or time we have here.  However the Amalekites were the nomads who attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim, Exodus 17:8-10, in the desert of Sinai during their exodus from Egypt: "smiting the hindmost, all that were feeble behind,", and in Numbers 14:43-45, “For the Amalekites and the Canaanites [are] there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.  But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, [even] unto Hormah.

This was what God was referring to when He said, “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel”, and I take it the bitch is that he would not only order the destruction of the men, but both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey?  Remember Num 14:18, “The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”?  You may not agree with God, but God is God, and true to His word.  He is the Potter and we are the clay.

Rom 9:15-23, “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,”  

Amalek was without a doubt a longersuffered vessels of wrath which God had fitted to destruction to make his power known.  There it is, believe it or not God’s will will be done.   But Saul did not do it, even so God's will was done.

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night (1 Sam. 15:9-11).  Leading thus to David's rise.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Hidden Hand



A few years ago my area suffered through a terrible drought.  My hay supply provided a great example of how a free market responds to extremes.  See, here in North Carolina we have been in drought for the last five years or so, and last year the drought was severe, and the drought coupled with a heat wave, lasting over two weeks of 110 degrees or above killed any chance of the local farmers getting in a second or third cutting of hay.  Coming along with the increases price of fuel, a modern farmer does not do a thing that does not require fuel, plowing, planting, fertilizing, cutting, tedding, bailing, and hauling to the barn all requires fuel. Fertilizer had also drastically increased and is still rising.  From these two factors along the cost of hay had gone from $10 a round bail to $20-25 a bail in the past five years or so.  The drought had led to a sharp increase in the cost of hay, if you could find it.  Putting the price of a round bail from $60 to $120 a bail, a 4x4 round bail has about 14 standards squire bails in it, before the drought they were selling for $3 to 5$ a bail, now they are $12 to $18 a bail.

Because of this increase a lot of the local cattle farmers have sold off their stock because of cost of feeding them.  This has led to a decreased price in beef in the stores because of the glut of beef on the market.  A farmer who raises and sell his stock will sell all but his breading stock in times like this, and fall back on whatever reserves and credit he may have to get through the hard times.  Some farmers, either because of poor decisions or bad luck, will go out of business.  Then when the drought is replaced with rain the farmers who are left reap the benefit of the high demand for a shrunken supply of beef for sell.

A horseman, like myself, who only has a few horses for his pleasure his elasticity for hay is limited by his reluctance to sell his horse, which are, in many cases, like a member of the family.  So money he was going to spend on trips to show his horses, go camping, and rides will be spent on hay instead.  So while the people who put on horse shows economy suffers, the people who grow and sell hay in distant areas, as well as the gas stations, oil companies, etc., benefit for out distress.  In truth it is an ill wind that blows no good.

The best price I could find locally was $90 for a round bail, and this was the hay that the State of North Carolina has bought from out of state to, supposedly, help North Carolina farmers out.  Here is the thing, hay was selling in Texas, Alabama, Georgia for $20 to $30 a round bail (was the state price gouging?), but that it the there price, not the here price.  The truckers want $1.50 a mile to haul it, a thousand mile trip for Texas hay adds $1,500 to the cost of 30 bails (what they can out on a truck), bringing the cost of $30 bail to $80 a bail.

At the time I could run my Dodge Ram for $0.25 a mile puling 16 bails, so I make an economic decision to go to George and haul my own hay.  This fuel cost added about $7 to the cost of a bail.  Now 16 bails, at my rate of consumption of ~ 1 bail a week will see me to the spring cutting.  And because we had had  an unusually wet winter there will be a spring cutting, I only needed to make one trip for my own needs.

However, because I have the means of production, i.e., a truck and 18 foot flat trailer, and lot of horse people around here have pick-ups and horse trailers (unsuitable for hauling round bails in), I decided to go into a little capitalist enterprising and make three trips.  Thus acquiring three times what I needed to tied me until spring.

I have placed an advertisement in the Ag News to sell the hay at $75 a bail, which give me profit over the cost of production of $1, 216.00.  How much of this is “surpluses –value”?  What about the risk I took going to get it, the truck could have broken down, and I might not be able to sell it, is that not worth a return on my time and effort? The government passes laws against price gouging (but it is okay if they do it) as they call it, supply and demand I call it.

So, yes, I deny that profit on rent and production is surpluses anything.  Profit is a return upon the capital, time, and risk involved in the operation.  If the owner of the capital were not to risk it there would be no profit.  Now tell me just why it is anyone but me should have a share of the profit from my hay-buying venture?

The reason a planned economy has never, and never will frill its society’s needs is because no planning board, dictator, or any other mechanism can replace this “hidden hand” that you so have so little faith in, is because that “hidden hand” is all these people I was telling you about making the best decisions they could to make their lives as best they can.  To spend money to buy hay, to see you stock, to sell your farm, to go out of town to buy hay, to buy more then you need to resell these are the hidden hand at work, and no other invention can replace it and work anywhere as well.

What would you suggest be put in place to have a stable hay market?  Should the truckers be forced to hall hay in cheaper, should the other state farmers be forced to put their hay on trains and send it to North Carolina?  Should owners of hobby animals, like me, be forced to give up our animals so the farmers could have the hay?  How would you decide the winners and losers in the hay market?

For a while the hay market in NC hay was booming but eventually, because of the high price a bail of hay is fetching, more and more people started hauling and growing their own hay until there is more hay then the buyers are willing to buy at the current prices, and the price have falling to the current $25-30 a round bail., and once again the supply and demand are in equilibrium, the hay market may even fall into a recession because so many people decided to sell hay, and the resulting glut of hay will make people like me happy for a while, until the next drought anyway,e.g. boom and bust cycle.

When the government get involved it get all screwed up, consider our own government and its decision that we would be better off if we sharply increased our production and use of ethanol.  They passed a law, for our own good, because we, the consumer and producers, are too dumb to see the need for it.  The government mandated that by a certain date all gasoline sold had to contain so much ethanol.  This decision of the government has had unforeseen, but so easy to see now, consequences.

Corn farmers, who were selling their corn to cattle, chicken, turkey, etc. farmers started selling their corn to the gasoline makers because of the higher prices they offered.  This forced the price of corn that was going for animal feed to go up, it turn the cost of just about everything had to go up, else the farmers would have to go out of business.  The end of this is not in sight.  A lot of farmers are going to decide which crop will give them a better return on their investment, corn or soybeans or hay, or beets, or lettuce, or just about any crop you can think of, and corn is going to be replacing it in the field in large part because of the higher price that can be realized from corn.

Do you think it could be better managed by forgetting the hidden hand which this is another example, or have the government tell each farmer what and how much he can grow”?  This is the Fascist economy modal, e.g., the individual own the means of production but the government dictates what and how much to produce.

Yes our economy goes through cycles of growth and recession, and some people gain more then others because of good decisions or plain luck.  Some people inherit their riches for the decisions their ancestors made; I would love to be able to leave my children rich.  I have absolutely no problem with some people getting rich; I wish I could become one of them.

However, most of the rich in America today are the novae-rich, the dot comers, the innovators, the sport stars, the move stars, the talk TV and radio stars, the owners of copywrites, etc, etc.  Would you have government tell these people, like Barbara Streisand how much money they can make from a song, how much a Rush Limbaugh can charge for his commercials?

If you take away the individual’s right to decided for himself and reap the rewords for his action why should he do anything he is not forced to do?  And if he is allowed his rewords for success why should he not also suffer the consequences of his failures?  Why should the successful person be requires to support the unsuccessful person by force?  If one person wishes to give to another, then by all means let them do it, our churches are full of examples of people dedicated to make life easer for people, for what ever reason, have fallen on hard times.

To use the government’s monopoly on force to make one his brother’s keeper is theft, pure and simple. Then it is the government who is deciding who is winners and looser.  The government would pick what kind of life we lived in lieu of deciding who gets what.  Who can drive this car, who can have a truck, who can live on a farm, who must live in a city, who must go to college, and who must work on cars.  All these things that are now directed by the hidden hand that are people’s desires and the decisions they make to realize those desires, and how they react to disappointments.
 ~

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

The Public Good



Public good.  We all hear the phrase but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods.  To start with just what is a public good?  Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual's consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual's consumption of that good.”  The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems.  I will get back to these last two in a short while.

A public good is a good from which you cannot exclude anyone the use of, it is also a good that no mater how much one person uses it their use will not diminish what is available for use for other users.  The former is called non-excludability, and the later is referred to as non-rivalness.  Most people readily grasp excludability but rival may need a bit of explaining, in economics, a good is considered either rivalrous (rival) or nonrival. Rival goods are goods whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers. 

Most goods fall into the rival class, things like nails, hammers, cars, houses, apples, etc. are all rival good in that as soon as one is used there is less for other to use, and the supply and demand law applies to their consumption.  Goods like television programming and radio broadcasts are example of non-rival goods.

Now to go back to our understanding of public goods as provided by the government.  National defense has both the non-excludability and non-rivalness components to its aspect.  You cannot deny anyone in the country the benefits of having a strong national defense, nor does an increases in the population reduce the availability of the national defense. The same is true for the police and judicial system, and as well for the prisons systems.  These are goods that provide the same benefit to each citizen regardless to his ability to contribute to the support of the goods being provided.

Economical public goods should not be confuses what people like to call "the public good", this expression contains a collective ethical notion of "the good" used to influence political decision-making.

With this understanding of a public good it is easily seen that there cannot be very many of them, but the attempts of many to broaden the concept is relentless.  It has been long accepted that the highway systems and K-12 education are public goods, and now there is a strong push to include health care as a public good as well.  I will well agree that these things are public benefits but would contest the idea that they can be classified as public goods.  What then, you ask, is a public benefit as opposed to a public good?  A public benefit is public only in that the government provides it to certain classes of citizens at public expense, and is neither non-excludability nor non-rivalness except as government dictate.

First let us consider the highway systems.  They are non-excludable in that anyone with a vehicle can use them, however they do exclude predestines for the most part.  They also exclude anyone not living in the area their use; a person in North Carolina cannot drive on the highways in New York.  They are not non-rival as anyone who tries to drive on almost any major highways during rush hour can attest.  As drivers crowd upon the highway the highway become less and less usable until gridlock is achieved.


Thus the highway system is a benefit provided for local use by public funds taken from all over the nation.  There is no overwhelming need for the roads to be public; they could all be private toll roads and provide the same service at local expense instead of making the people in the lower 48 pay for bridges to no where in Alaska.  An argument could be made for a national defense highway system being a public good, in fact that is how Eisenhower sold the Interstate system, but a national defense highway system does not entail all the state and county roads, which could all be private without impeding the commerce of the nation.

Now let us consider K-12 as a public good.  By law it is non-excludability, and because government expands the government schools as necessary with increasing students they are a non-rival good, but are the goods shared equally by the people of the nation like they are with the national defense?  The answer is an unequivocally no!

The problem with making K-12 a public good is that it puts the government in total control of the primary education of our children.  Now tell me, just how many things does the government do well?   Well education is not one of them.  To start with they put a union of teachers in charge who have their own interest more to heart then the interest of the children.  The government gets to decide on the curriculum regardless of what the parents may think, and if the parents do not go along with the government’s concept of what is right the parents go to jail.

Well then, send you children to private schools and avoid the intrusions of the government, yeah how?  The government regulates private schools and set their basic curriculum as well.  Home schooling is the only way to avoid government’s control over your child’s education, and, as you know from recent California Court decisions, that is under attack by the government.

Going back to the public good of K-12, so what if a child get a good education from a government school? Some do I hear. How does that child’s education provide a good equally shared by the nation and state?  It does not, it provide, at best, a local benefit at state and national expense.  Only if the education of this child results in some great contribution, such as a cure for cancer or a new source of energy, can it be clamed that his education was good for the nation instead of just a good for his hometown.  This is another example of a public benefit paid for by people who will in no way ever benefit from his education. The people who never had children, the people who sent their children to private schools, the people who’s children have long ago grown, as well as thoes living in diferent localities all foot the bill for this child’s education and receive nothing for their effort.

If not a public good, then who’s good is a K-12 education, and who should bear the cost of providing that education?  The child and parents are the primary benefactors, with the local community running a close second.  Until recently these are the one to whom the expense of a K-12 education fell, that was back in the day that education worked a whole lot better then it does now.  Local property taxes paid for the schools, their was no federal money driving school polices, and if a parent wanted a better education for his child he was free to send them to a private school or move into a school district that had better schools. It used to be that the quality of the schools was a major concern for parents when looking for a place to buy a home, but the government screwed that up with forced busing, now you never know where your child may end up going to school even if there is a school right across the street.

Because some parents could afford better schools for their children then other people could this was deemed evil because of the inequality by the courts and new funding schemes were forced upon the states.  A drive to increase the money spend upon educating our children succeed wildly, in my lifetime the average per child expenditure has gone from under a $1000 per child in the class room per year to over $18,000 per child with the main results of teacher salaries going out the roof (how they can still maintain they are under paid is beyond me), and the quality of the education going into the cellar. The dropout rate has increased to nearly 50 percent in many cities, and many graduating with very little ability to read and write, let along do higher math.

This all is my opinion a direct result of the classification of K-12 as a public good and now that we have let the government classify health care as a public good we can expect much of the same for its future.  Anything that is a public good is no longer a private good, and as such no individual is in charge of its well being and often results in what is called Tragedy of the Commons.  This involves a conflict over the finite resources between individual interests and the common good. When you give free access and have unrestricted demand for a finite resource ultimately this will dooms the resource through over-exploitation.

As the K-12 system is now structured we are trying to give every child the same education, but we do not have the capability to do this, our supply of good teachers is limited, the student who want to learn are forced to sit in the same room with the same rowdies who want nothing more then to disrupt the class, and get out as soon as possible, severely limiting the ability of the teachers to educate.  The government’s requirement for test passing requires the teacher to concentrate upon what is necessary to pass the test, thus if it is not on the test it does not get taught.

If K-12 was reassign as a privet good, like a collage education, albeit there is a great drive to convert a collage education from a privet good into a public good, and let the consumers of the education sort it out, letting schools expel children who disrupt classes with no recourse but to find another school or drop out, allow the brighter children to be taught at a different level then the slower ones (I would have fallen in the latter group), let the local systems be paid for by the local users, and the curriculum decided upon locally the system would serve society much better then what we have now.

This post was inspired by D. Lee, and as he would say, "There you have it.
"

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Three-Fifth Person





After supper some while back I was watching O’Rielly when Juan Williams, An NPR transplant to Fox News, said that black folks have justifiable grievances.  One grievant that he mentioned was that at one time black folks were not even considered whole persons.  This was in reference to the three fifth-person compromises in the Constitution.  See, the Northern Liberals did not want to count the Negro at all, only free men. 

The genesis of this disagreement had nothing to do if a slave was a whole or three-fifth of a person; it was to do with how many representatives each state could send to congress, and the distribution of taxes to the states. The Northern Abolitionist wanted to diminish the power of the South, and the three fifth-person compromises was proposed by James Wilson, a Pennsylvania delegate, which was accepted by both sides.

While this was not a complete victory for the Abolitionist, it did weaken the South in Congress to the point that had to accept the Missouri Compromises, and eventual led to their succeeding from the Union, which brought about the Emancipation of all slaves in the U. S. It could well be argued that without the slave being counted as only three-fifth-person for the purpose of representation in the House and Electoral College instead of whole persons that the Lincoln would never have been elected, the War Between the States would never came to pass, and no Emancipation.

Below is a report I wrote some time back called, “3rd NC Mounted Rifles (USA)”


"You caint say nigga cuz you aint black you is white and you great great great grandaddy kept my great great great grandaddy as a slave, so you need to give me yo money, dawg."
We will get to the 3rd NC Mounted Rifles (USA) shortly.

Slavery as an intuition has existed since the dawn of history. In Greece at one time women and children were chattel belonging to the man just as his sheep and oxen. He could beat them, sell them, or even kill them as he saw fit without suffering any condemnation form his fellow citizens.

The very word slave came from the fact that the Roman’s were taking so many Slavs into bondage that they started calling anyone who was put into bondage a slava or slave as the word migrated to. Through most of history most slave were white in the world of white men. It was not until the discovery of the New World that a new source of cheep labor was necessary.

Things like rum, sugar, and fiber (molasses and sugar cane, and cotton) could not be made at a profit without slave labor. At first the Europeans used Native American to meet this requirement, but they did not lend themselves to this very well, they got sick and died to often and they had to fight to get them, so they turned to Africa.

Now what did they do? Did they go off into the interior and capturing the natives and putting them on ships and send them off to the New World. Not by a long shot. They just taped into a ready market. See, for all the blacks complaining that the whites enslaved them and forced them from their homeland the vast majority were caught and sold to the Europeans by blacks. The point of this is there is culpability for the use of black slave in America on both the white and black side of the line.

It is true that the slave trade began long before Europeans reached the New World. Portuguese ships began arriving in the early 1400s on the shores of Africa. They sought after gold and African captives to send over to Lisbon to be sold into slavery, but it did not begin in earnest until after the trade for the New World began.

I can hear you starting to argue now that had the whites not wanted slave the blacks would never have caught and sold them. Well maybe, but before you get to comfortable with this argument please consider what was going on in just Dahomey. In 1650 Wigbaja had declared himself King, his was a cult of human sacrifices in large numbers. Four thousand were Whydahs were sacrificed when Dahomey conquered Whydah in 1772. They not only sacrificed in war, but for pestilence, calamity, and on the death of kings and chiefs, they were also made regularly in the annual custom, which was believed to supply deceased kings with a fresh group of servants.

These killings were normally done by beheading, except for the king’s wives who were buried alive with the king. When the slave trade came into existent the most of the ones who would have been killed were sold into slavery instead. Had they not sold their captives they would have been killed in that ceremony called the Annual Customs. Now just go ask any black in America today and ask him if he had rather his ancestors had been beheaded rather then shipped to America as a slave.

While the Europeans did not run their own slave rades the Arabs did, but like of old their enslaving was not limited to people of certain color, ethnicity, or religion. During the 8th and 9th centuries most of their slaves was Slavic. Between the 16th and 19th century more then a million Europeans was capture by Arabs and sold into slavery. The institution of slavery, while officially against the law still is practiced in many Arabic countries like the Sudan where today you can go to a slave market and buy a slave for any use you deem proper.

Now back to slavery in the United States. For the most part only a few rich land owner owned slave in the U. S. Most of our ancestors never owned anybody. My only ancestors who owned a slave was a Cherokee. We fought the bloodiest war in our history to rid ourselves of slavery. In that war my ancestors lived in Madison County in the mountains of Western North Carolina. They were picked on and killed by the armies of both sides because they would not pick a side in that fight. The ones that did, as far as I can appertain, fought for the North.

My Grandmother on my Father’s side was Lucinda Arrowood; her mother was Lucinda Capps who marred my Great Grandfather Hughey Arrowood. My father and my brother were named after him, Hughey Shelton. In any case Grandpaw Hughey was discharged as a sergeant from the 3rd NC Mounted Rifles (USA). The 3rd participated in the following actions:

13 June 1864 . . . . . .Raid on Camp Vance (Morganton, NC)
Sept, 1864 . . . . . . . .Bull's Gap
29 Dec 1864 . . . . . . Skirmish at Red Banks of Chucky
Feb-Mar 1865 . . . . .Raid on Waynesville, NC
24 Mar 1865 . . . . . . Stoneman's Raid
Go to North Carolina Troops to see the roles.

"On February 13, 1864, Maj. Gen. Schofield authorized Major George W. Kirk, Second North Carolina Mounted Infantry, to raise a regiment of troops in eastern Tennessee and western North Carolina, to be known as the Third Regiment of North Carolina Mounted Infantry. Although the regiment was organized as infantry, Maj. Kirk was authorized to mount the regiment upon private or captured horses. The first company was actually organized on June 11, 1864.

By April of 1864, Kirk, now the colonel of the Third, was operating in the Shelton Laurel area of Madison County, NC. On June 13, 1864 began the Third's best known exploit, the raid on Morganton.
On June 13, 1864, Col. Kirk with about 130 men left Morristown, TN for a raid on Camp Vance, near Morganton, NC. The soldiers traveled on foot through Bull's Gap, Greeneville, and Crab Orchard, TN. They crossed into North Carolina and forded the Toe River about six miles south of the Cranberry Iron Works. The crossed the Linville River on the afternoon of June 26 and crossed Upper Creek at nightfall on June 27. They marched all night and reached Camp Vance at reveille on June 28. Camp Vance was a training camp for conscripts; the reluctant soldiers had not yet been issued rifles. The camp surrendered, and 40 of the conscripts promptly enlisted under Col. Kirk. All except the sick and the medical officers were carried off to Tennessee. The medical officers were paroled, but the sick (approximately 70 men) were set free because the Federal soldiers had no time to parole them. 

One Confederate report implies that the "sick" weren't really ill, but were put on the sick list and admitted into the hospital in a successful effort by the medical officers to prevent their capture. According to one of the Confederate medical officers, "Col. Kirk claimed to be a regular U.S. Officer, carried a U.S. Flag, and his men were all in Federal uniforms." Another Confederate report of this incident says that most of Kirk's men were armed with Spencer repeating rifles. Despite several small skirmishes on the way, Kirk and his men and prisoners returned safely to Tennessee.


In late September of 1864, Col. Kirk and his command were left at Bull's Gap to hold that position while the rest of Gen. Gillem's force drove Confederate forces from Rheatown, Greenville, and Carter's Station across the Watauga River. By late October, 1864, Confederate scouts were reporting that Kirk and his men had returned to Knoxville.

On December 9, 1864, the Third left Knoxville on a scout into upper East Tennessee. On December 29th, they engaged a body of about 400 Confederate infantry and cavalry under the command of Col. James Keith at Red Banks of Chucky near the North Carolina line. (With Keith in command, no doubt a portion of this body was the 64th North Carolina.) Col. Kirk reported 73 Rebels killed and 32 captured, with his own casualties limited to three wounded. 

They returned to Knoxville on January 14, 1865.
Sometime around the end of February, 1865, the Third left Knoxville, moved through Blowing Rock Gap, NC and sacked the town of Waynesville, NC, burning the jail and one house.
On March 24, 1865 Maj. Gen. George H. Stoneman left Morristown, TN for a raid through southwest Virginia and western North Carolina. The primary purpose of this operation was to disrupt the railroads in Virginia and North Carolina to obstruct Lee's expected retreat from Virginia. As part of this operation, the 2nd and 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry under Col. Kirk were sent to Boone, NC to hold Deep and Watauga Gaps, thus keeping open the roads over the mountains to Tennessee to permit the return of Stoneman's force when its mission was completed.

On May 14, 1865, Col. Kirk accepted the surrender of the 80th North Carolina under Major Stephan Whitaker at the Macon County Court House in Franklin, NC. This was the last formal surrender of Confederate forces east of the Mississippi River, and is commemorated by a mural in the courthouse at Franklin, NC.

Sources: Official Records
Barrett, John G. _The Civil War in North Carolina_
Other Books of Interest: Trotter, William R. _Bushwhackers - The Civil War in North Carolina - The Mountains_
Crofts, Daniel W. _Reluctant Confederates - Upper South Unionists in the Secession Crisis_
Current, Richard Nelson _Lincoln's Loyalists - Union Soldiers from the Confederacy_

Paludan, Phillip Shaw _Victims - A True Story of the Civil War_ _
This historical information is here thanks to the research of Cheryl Chasin, and any further information that you may have on the 2nd and 3rd Regiments of North Carolina Mounted Infantry would be greatly appreciated if directed to her at History@thepentagon.com."

The point I am making is slavery was a thing that all races were subjected to at one time or another. True they were 12 million or more blacks sent over in the slave trade, but how many of those would have been left to live had the slave trade not existed. How many of our white ancestors owned slaves? What debt does the black owe the descendants of our white ancestors who bled and died to end the institution? And of our white ancestors who were fighting on the side of the south now many were fighting for slaver, and how many were fighting just to make the North stay out of the South’s business? I do not feel I own anybody 40 acres and a mule!

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Why the Revenue fell in the Bush Years


Now as to why the revenue fell in the Bush years, they were two fold.  First was the attack on the Twin Towers that not only put a hurt on the U.S. economy, but dictated large spending by the government to prosecute the War on Terror.  Now you may argue that the war against Iraq was an unnecessary war, but the Congress at the time did not, and they authorized the funds to fight it.  This is not mentioned Obama’s  campaign, of course not.

The next major thing, and it was mentioned in the video but just barley, and that was the mortgage market collapse.  This was not that long ago, but I doubt if you understand just what brought it about.  It started with the Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed in 1977 and implemented by Federal Reserve Board Regulation BB, revised in 1995, encouraging depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Act requires federal agencies responsible for supervising such institutions to evaluate their compliance periodically and to take their records into account in considering applications for deposit facilities.

While Gerald R. Ford was the President the Democrats ran the Congress with a veto proof 61 Senators and a majority in the House.  What this law did was to force the banks to lend to people who did not have the income to justify their getting a mortgage.  Because of their lack of credit worthiness their loans were deemed Subprime.  Now enters Freddy Mae and Fanny Mac, they bought all the banks’ mortgage, both prim and subprime.  They then put these papers together, sliced they called it, both prim and subprime, into a derivative.  It is/was called a derivative because its value derived from its income stream as the mortgage is paid.  These were sold all over the world, and were allowed to count as a bank’s reserve if they bought them.  AIG got into the act by insuring these investments.

Great idea, worked great, Freddy Mae and Fanny Mac bought the banks’ mortgages which freed up the banks’ to make more mortgages, etc., etc.,…  Whops!  The people who did not have the income to pay their mortgages started to default.  Because the papers were sliced, even the prim mortgages holders making their payment on time could not the Freddy Mae and Fanny Mac’s derivative from becoming worthless.  The income stream guaranteed to investors dried up.  The reserves in the banks’ had to be built back up to meet their requirements, AIG was called upon to make good on the policies they had issued.  Loan dried up not only for mortgages but for everything else as well.  Businesses’ could not expand, and started contraction, leading to layoff.  This led to an increase in government expenditure in form of unemployment insurance and welfare payments.

In the month before the shit hit the fan Charle Rangel  was insisting that Freddy Mae and Fanny Mac were doing just great and was a boon to all the poor people in the USA!  He was one of the big pushers for subprime loans, and led the charge to stop any reform of Freddy Mae and Fanny Mac that Bush had tried to get through Congress.  There is no doubt that this recession was caused by the housing collapse, which in turn was fueled by the Community Reinvestment Act

This melt down led to Bush pushing for and getting TARP, The Troubled Asset Relief Program to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector.  Now I did not agree with this, I thought, and still think, that all these institutions should have been allowed to fail, but Congress, in all its wisdom, decided otherwise.  Of course TARP raised the deficit.  You take these two things, 9/11 and the housing collapse and they well explain why Bush’s spending way out striped his tax revenue. 

Monday, October 29, 2012

Roads




Pot holes and detours, every kind of contours.
Roads are a going thing, all over the world they are laid.
They go up, and they go down, they'll take you all over town.
Thought, like a habit, fearful of the unknown, recycled to redundancy.
Thought, like a bird on the wing, Here and there and back again, filtering, sampling, wondering.

Thought, like a river, Flowing to the end, finding more than it dreamed. Flowing with the roads without end.
Taking the high road, some times the low,
Where ever my thoughs takes me and roads go.
~


©
Rexx

Monday, October 22, 2012

Round Ring: Copper's Third Session: First Ride



Well today (10/22/12) is Copper's third lesson, and today he will be ridden for the first time.  
First we must review the past two session. 
 After a few laps I invite him to join me in the center.
He remembers the saddle, but because there is no bad memories with it he stands while I pick up the brush. 
 He remembers to stand still from yesterday for the brushing.
I get him all over.
 The we have another little conversation.
 I let him sniff the saddle again.  Horse have an inbred instinct to smell strange thing, I imagine that they do this to get it fixed in there mind.
Then I through the saddle on to his back,
and he stands to let me cinch him 
When I sent him around the ring with the saddle he expressed his displeasure about having too ware it.
After a few bucks he runs hard for a few laps. 
I keep him at the trot for longer than he want to run. 
Then I invite him back into the center. 
 Another short conversation.
 The he is bridled for the first time.
He is not happy about it, but does not try to run away, if he had I would have keep him running for several more laps, invited him back to the center, and tried again. 
I had to adjust the straps as he has never worn the head stall before. 
As I go to mount him for the first time he walks away. 
I make him walk around me, 
 and try again.
 But he still will not stand still for mounting, so off he goes around the ring for a few laps.
 He will figure out want I want him to do, it just takes patients and consistency.
Isn't this a neat picture? 
 I invite him back in 
And rebridal him and tied the reins through the pommel. 
 After this I walk away and let him follow.
 I send him back around the ring.
 Let him get used to the idea that if he does not do what I want he will have to work.
 Then I call him back in.
 And lo and behold he stand stil and lets me mount.
 I rest my weigh on him without getting all the way into the saddle for a bit. 
 Dropped to the ground and remounted without him moving, I give him that chance to learn if he moves he will have to run more.
Then I sit down,
 And get my far foot in the strrupt,
And we are riding. 
Around and 
around.
 Showing what the reins are for.
 We do this a lot.
 Back and forth.
 Figure eights,
 large circles
Small circles 
 In both directions.
 A little backing up.
Another conversation. 
As I teach him to mouth rein (direct rein) I am also teaching him to neck rein (indirect rein). 
This is why they called him copper. 
 See how the inside rein is tight on the bit, but the outside rein is against his neck?
 I leave the detraction of the other horses for the green horse to learn that they do not matter when they are under tack. 
More backing up. 
 At this point he got very irritated,
And bucked a few times.  We could not get a picture of it for I regained control rather fast by pulling his head hard and all the way to his left side.   I was hollering, "Easy!  Easy!", 
and as he stopped his acting up I released the pressure on his head.  We had another good long conversation here. 
 And road back into our lesson.
 This is a picture of the indirect rein putting pressure on the left side of his neck to ask him to go right.  The direct rein also has some pressure on it applied by the lower fingers. 
 You can tell that I have started him out with a full cheek snaffle.  I use the full cheek on green horses so if I have to pull hard to the side, like I did when he started bucking, it want come out of their mouths.
We been at this near an hour 
 And it is time
to call it a day. 
I reach over him as I dismount, and rub him every place I can touch. 
 Slide slowly to the ground.
 Have another conversation.
 And lead him back to the tack room.
 Take his saddle off,
Take that blessed helmet off, which I hate. 
Give him one last pet before we go our separatism ways.