I drive right-wing trolls crazy: Here’s why they still don’t understand anti-capitalism arguments - By Jesse Myerson

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

---------------------------

I commented on his previous article here. That missive was rife with half-formed arguments, misdirections, and straw men. Let's see if he can straighten things out. Read on:
---------------------------

Having previously attracted the ire of conservatives in my role as a publicly self-identified communist who advocates for collective ownership of property, I should have seen it coming. Knowing how giddy my critics would be, I shouldn’t have tweeted when my backpack, containing my computer, was recently stolen from a friend’s car. When I did, conservative Twitter had such a ball taunting me with Extremely Hilarious variations on the same “liberating property” line that they made a whole entire Twitchy out of the affair (my apologies if this is the first you are learning of that site). Now, don’t get me wrong, crowing over the misfortunes of one’s political opponents is good fun and a natural right, but for best results the taunts should be both witty and coherent. On the matter of wit I’ll defer to you, but in the coherence division this late episode was sorely lacking.

Specifically, the barbs confused possessions with property, a long-acknowledged dichotomy I have attempted to articulate on television, social media and here at Salon, evidently in vain. So, once again: When I advocate collectivizing property, I am talking about financial assets (land deeds, stocks, bonds, patents and other intellectual property monopolies, and so forth), not personal possessions that human beings use on an ongoing basis, like computers or backpacks or clothes or cars or whatever. The latter are for use, the former for making money. If the occasional blurriness of these categories is reflected in dictionary definitions, that does not eliminate the obvious conceptual distinction. ("Obvious conceptual distinction?" Hardly. It is a contrived, artificial distinction, the primary purpose of which is to reassure us that we'll get to keep our stuff when government comes to confiscate everything else. On what basis he is able to claim this is unknown, because the ability of government to follow "the rules" has never been demonstrated in a free society, let alone a communistic one.)

Nor, despite charming insinuations to the contrary, does the distinction alone undermine pro-capitalist arguments. It is perfectly possible to differentiate between property – known by some as “the means of production” or “capital” – and personal possessions – known by some as “the fruits of production” or “stuff” – and still make the case that property is better owned privately than publicly, but right-wing Twitter declined to make this case, preferring instead to pretend, ears finger-plugged, “la la la” gleefully ringing from each freedom-loving throat, that there is no difference between a stock and a sweater. (Sweaters and other use-commodities can also be collectivized in lending libraries, as some communities do with bikes, cars, tools, toys and, obviously, books – but this is not crucial for ending capitalism.) (Yes, it is possible to differentiate between property and possessions. It is also possible there is a utopian world with pink unicorns and rainbows. What the author seems unable to comprehend is that the "means of production" he so earnestly wants government to confiscate is still someone's stuff. He only wants to draw a line between some stuff and other stuff.)

Conservatives just don't understand

Conservatives just don't understand. Rich people are evil. They want to throw the poor into the street, the sick to die, and the rest of us to drink dirty water and breathe polluted air. They got their wealth by stealing it. They are what's wrong with this country.

They hate government, but government is good, because it takes that money from the rich and gives it to the people who really deserve it. So, government should have as much power as possible, because its power must be brought to bear on society to cure its evils. The rich must pay government their fair share, because they are hoarding it and keeping it from doing the most good. Government must have that money, and those greedy conservatives are keeping their money from us. 

Everything wrong with this country is because of conservatives. If only they would shut up, we would have justice. Hateful and intolerant, conservatives believe the way you do because they are bigots with low IQ. They just don't see the nuance and shades of gray. They are unenlightened. They hate science. They fear progress and resist change. In fact, they want to return us to a time when blacks were property and women were barefoot and pregnant. 

Conservatives, don't bother denying it. A denial is proof that I'm right. And all the evidence you present is invalid, because its faked by shadowy moneyed interests, doubtless provided by people who are on the payroll of Big Oil. Either that, or your evidence should be ignored. Better still, your evidence will be thrown back at you, properly interpreted by people who are clearly smarter than you. 

If you had two brain cells to rub together, you would simply agree with my superior wisdom and insight. But you won't, because you just don't get it: Government is the answer to every problem.

Judge rules Wisconsin abortion law unconstitutional - By Daniel Bice and Cary Spivak

Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------

It continually amazes me how judges think they have the power to unilaterally overturn duly-passed laws and constitutional provisions. The reason they continue to do so is because no one makes them answer for their actions. 

Judges serve at the pleasure of legislatures, and can be impeached for various reasons. But the typical response of people is to appeal the ruling [which cedes its legitimacy], or simply abide by it.

However, if a judge can face consequences for racist emails, surely judges can experience the same for flouting the law, ignoring the constitution, or overturning long-established precedent on a whim. 

Here's yet another judge that deserves censure. He overturned a perfectly reasonable law that enhanced the quality of services performed and/or the medical professionals that preform them, and his reasoning was strictly political: He was political attributing motives to those who favored the law, and overturned it based on those assumed motives. 

Read on:

Wittich’s behavior cruel, dismissive - letter by Martha Collins

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------------
First Ms. Collins' letter:

I cannot express enough my dismay and disappointment at Rep. Art Wittich’s cruel and dismissive maneuver on HB 249. He clearly did not listen to the people of Montana or to his constituents here in Gallatin Valley. Wittich a hypocrite in the fact that he has state health care coverage but would openly deny any coverage for 70,000 working Montanans under Medicaid Expansion.

Wittich is clearly representing other entities that are not from Montana. I am appalled and disgusted.

Martha Collins, Bozeman

------------------------------

Claims like these appear frequently in the Chronicle's opinion pages. They are talking points, probably regurgitated from leftist websites. They become inviolate truth in the eyes of those who parrot them and take on a life of their own, and no amount of realtalk can counter them.

In the Soviet Union, Capitalism triumphed over communism, In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy. - By Mark Karlin

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------------

This post first appeared at Truthout.



In the Soviet Union, capitalism triumphed over communism. In this country, capitalism triumphed over democracy. (As I continually point out, America is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. And as you will discover later, the author's complaint is not about capitalism.)

Perhaps one can argue that there is still hope for democracy, the kind of faint pulse that an experienced paramedic detects when others have declared a person found lying in the street dead. Perhaps there is the chance that defibrillation or emergency surgery can yet resurrect an actual robust democracy and not just the appearance of one. In short, the last rites haven’t yet been given to democracy in the US, but the priest is hovering near the body.

Lebowitz’s quotation suggests the fundamentally overarching reality that a global oligarchical system has, at an accelerated pace, been steering democracies to achieve plutocratic goals. (Well, no. The statement was about capitalism, not plutocracy.) 

They are an unaccountable force deciding the future of the world’s economy – and within that framework – its political direction. Plutocrats, the likes of those whom meet at Davos every year and those whom the World Bank and IMF represents, are the new superseding political force in the world. The plethora of trade agreements give corporations, for example, sovereign powers over certain areas. More significantly, economic issues favoring the ultra-wealthy and corporations are the key focus of governmental entities such as the G-8 and G-20. (This nearly impenetrable paragraph, which characterizes the entire article, drips with marxist doctrine. Marxists are all about the rise of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie.)   

The Libertarian Delusion - by Robert Kuttner

Our comments in bold.
----------------------------------

We would venture to say that most, if not all, refutations and critiques of conservative/libertarian thought are based on ignorance of what they believe. Sometimes it's deliberate, because the Left wants to maintain and accumulate power. Rarely, it is due to honest misunderstanding. We think the below very long presentation is the former.
----------------------------------

This article appears in the Winter 2015 issue of The American Prospect magazine.

The stubborn appeal of the libertarian idea persists, despite mountains of evidence that the free market is neither efficient, nor fair, nor free from periodic catastrophe. (Interesting in that the alternative, government intervention and central planning, is orders of magnitude worse. 

We suspect the author is using words like "efficient" and "fair" in a different sense than the typical person, let alone how a libertarian might use them.) 

In an Adam Smith world, the interplay of supply and demand yields a price that signals producers what to make and investors where to put their capital. The more that government interferes with this sublime discipline, the more bureaucrats deflect the market from its true path.

But in the world where we actually live, markets do not produce the “right” price. (The author seems to expect perfection, that is, each transaction gets it exactly right according to his particular criteria. This is an unreasonable standard, a standard to which the author does not hold for his own preferred economic mechanism.

Interesting, though, is the fact that it is the fairytale utopian economics of central planning that defines our present system, where we in fact have a "world where we actually live" manifestation of what the author prefers. What a disaster this has been! How many times does the Left get to perpetrate their hairbrained schemes on us? How many failures do we have to endure? When do we get relief from big government advocates so that we can actually try a libertarian theory or two?)

Affordable housing issue has a simple solution - letter by Steve Kirchhoff

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes, My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Mr. Kirchoff is a doctrinaire Leftist, committed to the idea that government solutions are the default choice for any problem. In a somewhat surprising departure, in this letter he calls for a more limited government approach. I think.

Read on:
----------------------------

When it comes to facing problems, the simplest solution is often the best. (Will he propose the simplest solution, that is, will he tell the City to sit this one out? Well, no.)

Yet when it comes to solving Bozeman’s affordable housing problem, solutions from the City Commission over the years have been far from simple. I know, because I was involved in drafting the complicated and unwieldy ordinance that the current commission threw into the trash can of history — without it ever having produced a single unit of affordable housing. (A refreshing admission. The results matter to this man, which is a rare statement from a Leftist.)

Today, watching from the sidelines, I am more convinced than ever that the Bozeman City Commission would be best served by crafting a simple solution to the affordable housing problem. (He assumes there is a problem, and that problem is actionable by government. But I would not concede that. There is no right to own a home, nor is there a right to own that home in Bozeman, no matter how interested government might be in trumpeting such an outcome. Just by virtue of identifying some houses as "affordable" and others not, inserts an imbalance into the equation that cannot be reconciled. The ripple effects are manifold and uncontrollable. 

That is why the City failed in its earlier attempts. This is not a case of a good idea being improperly executed. It is simply a bad idea, period.) 

BASIC BIBLE DOCTRINE? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------

Mr. Finnell has made frequent appearances in our blog, usually when he publishes a missive that contains new assertions. New assertions are relatively infrequent, however. His blog is replete with post after post making identical claims. He's nearly a one-note samba.

Also noteworthy is Mr. Finnell's unwavering militant confidence, coupled with a complete unwillingness to engage his commenters. So he is at once supremely sure of himself yet completely disengaged from any give-and-take dialogue. 

The below article is no exception. He presents for us an encapsulation of all he believes to be doctrinally true in a take-it-or-leave-it format. No room is given for the Great Debates of the past centuries, where topics of faith and doctrine have been discussed, studied, and examined by the great Christian thinkers of history. These men of principle and godliness have come to varying conclusions about many of these issues, offering thoughtful explanations and insights into why they came to those conclusions. 

But Mr. Finnell will have none of this. He knows the single correct answer to all these "basic" questions of faith and doctrine with a breezy ease, pretending there is no divergence of opinion. He apparently has surpassed the intellect and credentials of every man who has ever offered analysis. 

So, you either agree or disagree with Mr. Finnell. And, if you disagree, you are not on the side of truth. You have diverged from the correct faith. 

Read on:
-----------------------------

Do most churches teach or preach basic Bible doctrine in the two hours of preaching and teaching on Sunday morning? No, they do not. Why is that? 1. Most church leaders do not understand basic Biblical concepts. 2. Many church leaders who do understand basic Bible teaching refrain from teaching the truth for fear that they might lose their leadership positions. 3. Others honestly believe they will lose church members if they teach Biblical facts. [The truth is most people will not accept the truth. Is that a valid reason for not preaching God's word?]

How would the members of your church congregation answer questions concerning basic Bible doctrine and Biblical concepts?

The War of Ignorance versus Faith - John C. Wright

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. This is good stuff.

-------------------------

Hmph. I just came across another antieducated sophophobe who declared there to be a war between science and faith, especially the Roman Catholic Church.

I asked him to name the Papal Bull or Encyclical, or any other official document of the Church prohibiting or condemning the practice of scientific inquiry. He did not know what a ‘bull’ was.

I asked him if he knew anything about science and the history of science, and he said yes. I asked him for the evidence of any Catholic interference, or even lack of enthusiastic support, for any scientific inquiry of any kind, in any time or place?

He mentioned Galileo. I asked him if he knew the circumstances of Galileo’s trial, or what Galileo was accused of? He said no. I asked him if he knew who Cardinal Bellarmine was. He said no.

I asked him if he had read Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences? He did not even know what the book was, much less who the characters in it were, or what positions in the contemporary debates they represented.

(Do I need to mention that I read this book in school? I went to a good school, where the education is what mathematicians call a ‘positive sum game’ that is, I ended up more educated than when I went in. His school left him with less education than when he went in.)

Deficit spending not evil GOP portrays - letter by Jay Moor

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------------
Jay Moor has found his way to my blog once again, and as is typical for him, brings much heat and little light.

-------------------------------

Montana’s conservative legislators have more ways than a Ninja to throttle our government. The latest is a joint resolution asking for a convention to write a balanced budget amendment to the national Constitution (SJR4) — “for the good of the American people.” Twenty four other, mostly conservative, state legislatures have already submitted similar requests to Washington. When the total hits 34, a drafting convention is called.

Government borrowing (deficit spending) is trading on future income — not a bad thing, especially in bad times. (Actually, he means to say, "Not a bad thing, especially in bad times and good times." Because according to the Left, there is never a good time to reign in spending and get the government's fiscal house in order. Mr. Moor will later attempt to credit deficit spending for the recovery. We need to spend money when the economy is bad, but now the economy is supposedly recovered, we apparently still need to spend even more money, on infrastructure, expanding Medicaid, and increasing funding for our crumbling public schools. In other words, deficit spending is always good.) 

Government debt is the accumulation of annual deficits. SJR4 aims at stopping deficit spending and to limit the national debt, except in some undefined emergency.

If you are picturing Mom and Pop totting up their income (revenue), comparing that with their bills (expenditures) and then burning their credit cards, this is what the resolution’s sponsor wants you to imagine.(Except that Mom and Pop actually pay off their debt, little by little. Their mortgage is smaller every year. They pay their credit card balance and car loan. But the government doesn't. Government adds debt on top of debt. It hasn't reduced the national debt since 1957. There is no comparison to Mom and Pop.)  

It’s understandable and sounds like common sense. But, like Mom and Pop, we must have the ability to borrow money responsibly. (No one is opposing "responsibly" utilizing deficit spending. This isn't the conversation. $18 trillion of debt has nothing to do with being responsible. $18 trillion of debt isn't a result of responsible spending in order to benefit the economy. There is nothing responsible about it. That money went down a rat hole and we have nothing to show for it. It's about time someone stepped up and put a stop to the destruction of this country by irresponsible government spending.)

Deficit spending brought us out of the Great Depression (It did no such thing. The Great Depression is the longest on record, prolonged by wasteful spending, inept governance, and reliance on economic stimuli that did absolutely nothing.) 

when the federal government sold bonds to itself and to the American people to finance huge infrastructure projects that brought water, electricity, highways, schools, libraries and other public works to an economically moribund country. These public works, and a similarly funded (good) war, kick-started American industry and undoubtedly saved the world’s bacon. ("Undoubtedly?" I don't think so. There is no possible way that this is an example of government spending improving the results of an economic downturn. It is quite clear to any reasonable observer that government intervention into the economy during the 1930s prolonged the depression well past any reasonable limit.)

Government deficits managed to keep many American industries afloat during the recent Great Recession. (Um, no. Chrysler and GM both declared bankruptcy AFTER receiving bailouts. And the all these companies that took bailouts largely wasted the money. No, these bailouts simply padded the bank accounts of the rich and powerful. 

By the way, there is no evidence that would suggest that saving a company is beneficial, even assuming it were possible.)

This is Keynesian economics and its benefits are immeasurable. (If by "immeasurable" Mr. Moor means "can't be measured because there's nothing to measure," then he is quite correct. All the evidence suggests that that the more that government intervenes in the economy, the longer a downturn lasts. Our current downturn is now in its seventh year. Keynesian economics is clearly, inescapably, and totally a failure. There isn't a single documented example of it succeeding by any measure anywhere.) 

It ceases to work, however, when Congress lacks the fiscal discipline to decelerate spending when the crisis has passed. (Which contradicts most Leftist economists, who want to spend even more.) 

But, to take away the government’s ability to catch a stumbling economy and not offer a rational mechanism ("Rational?" Whaaa? On what planet does one have to live on to consider the failed recovery mechanisms offered by Keynesian economists to be successful by any measure?) 


in its place — maybe a running, 10-year budget smoothing formula — could be very bad for the American people. (Because all the previous legislation designed to lessen economic downturns has worked so well, we need even more?)

Jay Moor Bozeman

About Church Vision

Church Vision Statement:

1)    to foster holy relationship with God as individuals, with each other in the local body, and with  the Body of Christ at large.

2)    to add to the number daily of those who are being saved, so as to see God’s Kingdom come on  Earth, His glory to be revealed, that as many people as possible would be ushered into the  Kingdom.

3)    to be a church for the city, ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit to meet the spiritual and  temporal needs of our community.

About vision:

1)      Vision is not our slogans or what we’ve written down.   Vision is what we see by the Spirit.

2)      The elders and deacons certainly need to be people with   vision. So also the prayer team.

3)      The Church’s purpose is to help bring people to maturity   so they can see for themselves.

4)      The church can then be people of vision.

The New Compassionate Conservatism and Trickle-Down Economics - Robert Reich

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------

Dr. Reich is profoundly myopic regarding what impacts the country's economic performance. This man holds a doctorate, he was a Rhodes scholar. Yet as we read we will discover that he attributes the economic performance of the country to a single factor, the political party occupying the White House, and from there infers an entire economic framework. As if the hundreds of other factors, like tax policy, business regulation, wars, the political composition of Congress, labor laws, technology, and court rulings somehow don't come to bear. Read on:
---------------------------------------

Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney are zeroing in on inequality as America’s fundamental economic problem. (Unfortunately, it isn't the fundamental problem. Government profligacy is.)

Marxism – Deconstructed By Ronald Cherry, MD

Found here. A lot of good information.

-----------------------------------

In its essence Marxism, the core ideology of modern Socialism, is an irrational, utopian and coercive perversion of human equality. Marxism seeks equality where equality does not exist, demanding legal enforcement of equal social outcomes, including those related to economics, higher education, athletics, religion and human sexuality. This ideology even extends to international relationships whereby no nation is allowed to excessively prosper or achieve greatness, i.e.: all nations must be “equal.” Never mind that when people are free their human nature leads to inequality of outcomes – some are hard-working and some are lazy – some are more intelligent and some are less intelligent – some are stronger and some are weaker – some are tall and some are short. Unequal results occur naturally without force when people possess rightful liberty. Based on their degree of truly Free Enterprise nations similarly divide themselves unequally into various degrees of prosperity or depravity.

Under the guiding hand of intellectuals and massmedia Marxist ideas are slowly and silently transforming the mental attitudes of Americas. For example, we fail to recognize Marxist equality at work when elementary schools do not keep score during athletic events – we must not hurt little Johnny’s feelings when another team scores more goals or points – that is inequality. Never mind that athletic competition results in a form of natural and healthy inequality which leads to an appreciation for success and an acknowledgement of failure.Collegiate Title IX rules are a form of Cultural Marxism since equal numbers of men’s and women’s athletic programs are unnaturally enforced instead of a natural program of equal liberty for men and women students to create athletic teams. This form of Marxist thinking is called “gender equity,” but Marxist thinking is dysfunctional in the real world, frustrating the natural liberty and the equal rights of students to freely pursue athletic recreation. Under a natural system of equal rights men and women would take turns forming teams until the athletic budget was exhausted. Let’s say the women at a certain university ended up creating ten athletic programs, and taking turns the men also created ten. Let’s say there was still sufficient money in the university’s athletic budget for two more athletic programs, and since the men wanted two more programs but the women didn’t, the men would end up with twelve athletic programs and the women ten. This inequality of result would occur naturally under an equality of rights, but under the cultural Marxism of Title IX, despite the unequal demand, there will be ten and ten – the natural desire for the guys to have two more athletic programs must be crushed – equal rights sacrificed on the altar of equal outcome. Of course it could turn out the other way around, where the women ended up with twelve programs and the men ten – who cares as long as equal rights is the rule? Marxists care – they aim to unnaturally force equal outcome in every aspect of life – because they are attracted to the use of force – because they crave an animal-like “will to power” over others – wrongful liberty “to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor.”

New Year’s resolution for a living wage - By MARY ANN DUNWELL

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------------

This New Year rings in another 15 cents. On January 1, Montana’s minimum wage goes up from $7.90 to $8.05 an hour. I propose a toast however, not to 15 cents, but to a 15-dollar-an-hour minimum wage in Montana.

A "Fight for 15" movement is spreading across the country. It’s a campaign to pay folks a living wage. It means paying full-time workers enough to afford basic necessities, like food, shelter and health care, and maybe even a little to put aside for that unforeseen, often inevitable emergency. (No, it does not pay workers enough "to afford basic necessities." $15 is an arbitrary number, selected so as to sound reasonable and compassionate, but not excessive. It's a number selected for its marketability and image. It has nothing to do with a "living wage," because the cost of living varies greatly depending on where you live. 

That alone tells you all you need to know about the level of intellectual sophistication in the living wage movement.) 

Performance Chevy LS Engine Comparison - LS Motors Decoded - by Stephen Kim

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-----------------------------

Some hot rodders are reluctant to embrace the indisputable virtues of technology. Let's call them traditionalists. Others would rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy. Let's call them victims of brand loyalty. Then there are those who are more impressed by the number of valves an engine has, and the rpm it turns, than the tally it posts in the hp column. Now they're just out of their mind. In just a little over a decade, GM's LS engine platform has converted hoards of traditionalists and even Ford loyalists alike. These days, Gen III and IV small-blocks are popping up in everything from Chevelles to Mustangs, to BMWs, to Mazdas, to Jaguars, to Hondas, to Datsuns, and even Porsches. Staggering power, low mass, compact external dimensions, and excellent fuel mileage have made the Gen III/IV small-block the new King of engine swaps. Perhaps the most significant factor is the sheer number of LS motors now piling up in boneyards-which translates to cheap cores-and the constant influx of affordable aftermarket parts. Some of the cheapest and most potent hardware of all comes straight from the factory, as GM has continually updated the platform since its inception. There are now more than two dozen Gen III and IV variants in existence, so we've set up this guide to explain the differences between them to help you decide which is most appealing for your project car.

Much like the Gen I and II small-blocks, almost all the hardware amongst the different LS variants are interchangeable. In fact, except for the smallest (4.8L) and largest (7.0L) motors in the LS lineup, all share the same 3.622-inch stroke. In most instances, the cylinder heads, camshafts, crankshafts, and intake manifolds can all be mixed between different LS motors. Furthermore, while Gen III and IV truck motors are usually labeled "Vortec," they share the exact same architecture and many of the same parts as their "LS" designated counterparts. Vortecs were once distinguishable by their iron blocks and heads, but that's no longer the case since many trucks now come equipped with all-aluminum engines. Interestingly, only minor differences distinguish Gen III from Gen IV small-blocks. Gen IVs feature provisions for variable valve timing, active cylinder deactivation, and a revised camshaft position sensor location. Otherwise, both generations of motors are very similar.

The engines outlined in this guide represent every Gen III and IV small-block ever installed by GM in a production car or truck. Whenever possible, or relevant, we've included cam specs. At the current rate of LS engine development, it's quite possible that we'll need to add an appendix to this story in a couple of years. Happy swapping!

Quick Notes
What We Did
Compile descriptions and vital stats of every production Gen III/IV small-block in existence

Bottom Line
LS motors are cheaper, more plentiful, and more powerful than ever

Cost (APPROX)
$500-$22,000 here.

LS1

Although the one that started it all is already considered relatively old, no one could have predicted the impact the original Gen III LS1 would have on the hot rodding public. The LS1's greatest asset is its revolutionary 15-degree cylinder heads, which are capable of flowing over 320 cfm in the hands of a skilled porter. So good were these castings, in fact, that it took the aftermarket over five years to even attempt to top the factory design. Simply massaging the stock heads and swapping in a larger cam had LS1s easily approaching the 550hp mark in no time. Furthermore, bone stock LS1s routinely pushed F-bodies into the 12s. While LS1 F-bodies were rated at 40 hp less than their Corvette-spec brethren, they essentially produced the same power despite minute differences in cam specs. Likewise, all '01-04 LS1s were upgraded from the factory with the same valvesprings and high-flow intake manifold as found in the LS6. One of the biggest drawbacks of the LS1 are its thin iron cylinder liners that can only be bored about 0.010 over. Anything larger requires re-sleeving the block with aftermarket liners, which isn't cheap, but doing so enables displacement figures well in excess of 400 ci. Likewise, the standard 3.900-inch bore isn't compatible with the latest and greatest GM L92 cylinder heads. Nonetheless, the original LS1 provides more than enough power potential for the vast majority of hot rods, and there are still a ton of them available in salvage yards ready for plucking.

Time is overdue to repeal the Second Amendment - by Tom H. Hastings

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------
This is embarrassingly immature writing from a supposed professional. Here's a man who clearly did no research, who gave no thought to presentation or a logical procession of ideas, who seems content to simply engage in verbal diarrhea. He doesn't even get the most basic of concepts right. Read on:
--------------------------------

What country fetishizes, lionizes, valorizes, idolizes, and sacralizes guns as much as does our United States? OK, possibly Mozambique — the only country with an AK47 on its flag, but really, it's long past time to end this obsessive "My Precious" attachment of Americans to instruments of death. (Sir, the attachment is with liberty, which is a founding principle of this country. No other country has ever been premised on the idea that government ought to be restrained, limited, and diffuse, and that the liberty resulting from this is ensured for its citizens as their rights are acknowledged as unalienable. Those rights are a check on the power of government. An armed citizenry can defend its rights from oppressive government.)

This morning of Dec. 25, 2014, of the nine top stories from US Reuters, six were about shootings — four new ones and two about the national movement against shootings of citizens by police. This pandemic of sick violence, punctuated by mass killings of children, has gone on far, far too long. It is long past time to repeal the stupid Second Amendment. (Unfortunately for the author, gun deaths are trending downward. This of course means that the sensationalist reporting of the news has skewed perceptions with anecdotal evidence and emotionalized reporting, and thus is not based on fact. Here are the real statistics:

The fate of the Second Amendment should have been sealed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that past rulings by their predecessors were wrong, (The Left is never troubled by the overturning of precedent when it comes to their issues. However, even here the author is wrong, since the Supreme Court was overturning lower courts and not itself.)

that in fact the amendment that provided for a "well regulated militia" really guaranteed every individual the right to own a gun. Wow. That is an interesting reading of the English language. (Using his warped language to describe the court decision is ironic indeed. The decision was not to interpret the meaning of "well regulated militia." The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." 

Legally speaking, the militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...", and can be either in the National Guard or separate from it. The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. They are already armed! )

What the Supremes have done is to not only warp the meaning and make it into twisted law, but to further prohibit states and local governments from declaring their places free of legal guns.  The conservative court once again rules against the power of states, a principle that used to be associated with darn liberals who wanted to make sure everyone had the right to vote, for example, even though they weren't properly white enough. Now when a city or state wants to outlaw firearms, too bad. The conservatives took away their powers and rights in favor of Big Brother. (Indeed, the court has been rather consistent violators of the Tenth Amendment. Ironically, this may be the only instance of states' rights being an issue for the Left.)

The only logical path, given the clearly decided role of the Second Amendment, is to repeal it. American people are tired of mass shootings and police shootings and family feud shootings and sibling shootings and accidental toddler shootings and teen suicide by gun (highly popular).We are exhausted by the proliferation of death, of threats, of bloodshed, and by the NRA/gun industry moral garbage spewing forth every time someone challenges the ubiquity of guns. (And all this has happened despite a plethora of laws already on the books. On what planet does one have to live on to think that more gun restrictions will have any effect?) 

Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history. (And here's the final nail driven into the coffin of stupidity being spouted by the author. The Second Amendment, like all provisions of the Constitution, defines and limits the power of government, the repeal of the Second Amendment will reduce government power. The Constitution will then fall silent on granting any power at all to government to regulate guns.

I can only attribute this level of ignorance to maleducation.)

Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University in Oregon.

On Leaving Church - by Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. Excellent article.

----------------------------------------------

There are many Christians who have stopped going to church. They have not given up on God, have not renounced their faith, have not denied Christ, and have not become pagans. They simply are no longer going to church. That this is happening is not a matter of doubt, but why this is happening is in fact a difficult question to answer.

One recent article spoke about this trend. Entitled “The Rise of the ‘Done With Church’ Population,” it looks at this scene – primarily in America – but does not offer us any clear indications as to why this is becoming such a problem. The article begins:

John is every pastor’s dream member. He’s a life-long believer, well-studied in the Bible, gives generously and leads others passionately. But last year he dropped out of church. He didn’t switch to the other church down the road. He dropped out completely. His departure wasn’t the result of an ugly encounter with a staff person or another member. It wasn’t triggered by any single event. 

THE ONE BAPTISM -BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. My comments in bold.

-------------------------------------

Mr. Finnell persists in his claim that one needs to be baptized in water to be saved: 
--------------------------------------

THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. WHAT IS THAT BAPTISM? (EPHESIANS 4:5 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM,) WHAT IS THAT ONE BAPTISM?

There is one baptism. Is it water baptism or baptism with the Holy Spirit? (Granting for a moment that there is only a singular baptism, which I would dispute, then what does Mr. Finnell do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit? I'm going to surmise that Mr. Finnell believes the baptism of the Holy Spirit has ceased. This would conveniently allow him to claim there is only one baptism, water baptism.)

The 12 apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. What was the purpose of their baptism? (Notice that Mr. Finnell will restrict his discussion to the apostles, which suggests he believes that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Most certainly he believes the Apostles received a "special" amount of Holy Spirit not available to us today.)

A market-based method to deal with warming - letter by Dr. Kenneth Pierce

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Dr. Pierce apparently does not understand the concept of free markets, because "putting a fee" on carbon content has nothing to do with the free market. A "fee" (that is, a tax) is a government intervention into the free market, not an activity of the free market. And this particular tax is not for the purpose of generating revenue for the operation of government, it is a manipulation designed to alter peoples' behavior to certain desired outcomes. This is known as social engineering, which is about as far from the free market as one can get.

Citizens' Climate Lobby is an advocacy organization attempting to persuade people to consent to taxing themselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend is intended to be given to people to mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice they want an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point, which will be transferred to you and me. This tax will be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy," but each household will receive a dividend from a "trust fund," which supposedly covers the increased cost of goods and services resulting from the tax. 

The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. Therefore, it seems that their intent is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies. for that is the only substantial place where carbon enters the economy.  "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Atheists Rewrite Ten Commandments, MythBusters’ Adam Savage Judged New Commands

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------

Anyone catch the colossal, stark irony here? Atheists, who bristle at the idea of absolute truth, wrote their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.

Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these atheists offer us commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there is no imperative. However, each of their "commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally. 

Sounds like what a church would do, right? 

Further, the final commandment, "there is no one right way to live," is self contradicting. Aside from the fact that there are nine previous commandments telling us how we must live, the statement asserts an absolute. That is, there is a right way to live, and that way is to live as if there is no right way to live.

There's a lot more that can be said about each one from a logical and moral perspective, but I'll leave you with a final comment about #7, "Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective." Have you heard that before? "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

---------------------------------

Atheists have written their own version of the ten commandments. These commandments were chosen from submissions to Atheist Mind Humanist Heart’s (AMHH) Re-Think Prize, a crowdsourcing project.

Previously reported by the Inquisitr, in November Adam Savage announced he would be a judge in the ReThink Project, the host of MythBusters (one of only two, these days), caused a new surge of interest and awareness for the contest — so much that the contest website crashed shortly after his tweet.