Coming Soon to the DarkNet Near You

Thoughtful and creative people should be able to benefit from their talent.

For Brainwashing
PIPA (Protect IP Act) and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) are two newly proposed bills whose purported aim is to protect copyrighted material, including movies,  music, and other forms of online content from abuse. On its face it seems like a good idea. And those promoting it say that it will protect jobs, and stop ruthless foreigners that benefit from ripping off talented people.

But the true impact of these bills will result in further extending the power of the powerful oligarchy that already controls Washington. It could easily become a system of censorship and thought control. As it is, the government has already been monitoring the online activity of its citizens. And unless you take special measures to browse anonymously the government is capable of finding out everything that you've posted, downloaded, or written in an e-mail.

If enacted, IP providers will be mandated to block all websites which are deemed to be in violation of this new law or be prosecuted themselves. These laws could shut down websites like the Gathering Spot, Youtube, and Facebook because they might be unable to comply with the new laws.   And even Google stands in opposition to these possible new regulations.

Most people who browse the web are probably unaware of the threat SOPA and PIPA will have in relation to their Internet-browsing freedom?

Those who are aware of the threat are generally people who work in the field of technology and those who want to protect the online freedom of expression that the Internet has provided.  Others are concerned with the underlying political consequences of such new laws.

There are those who have been working for years on technology to circumvent these overreaching forms of governmental spying and censorship.  Under the new laws ISPs will be required to block all requests to sites that have been known to provide access to copyrighted material.  However, if one types in a numerical IP into their browser they will be able to access the blocked sites.

The folks in Washington seem unaware of the existence of the DarkNet.  Short for dark Internet, in file sharing terminology, a darknet is an Internet or private network, where information and content are shared by darknet participants anonymously. Darknets are popular with users who share copy protected files as the service will let users send and receive files anonymously — that is, users cannot be traced, tracked or personally identified.  By using encryption technology packets of data circulate through the net without detection making attempts to shutdown file sharing impossible.

So, it is very unlikely these new laws will suppress file sharing for long.  But these laws do give the government an excuse to extend the reach of its spying and interfering in the online activity of citizens.

Is Gold Money?

What is money?

Cowry shells
Money can be any token of value that helps facilitate trade. It could be an IOU (just a promise to pay someone in exchange for something). It could be a piece of paper in the form of a US $20 bill (legal tender). It could be cowry shells (a form of money once commonly used across Europe and Asia). It could be large stone wheels (once actually used on the Pacific island of Yap), or it could even be gold.

Whatever the form of money may be, it use is always based on trust.

The stone money of Yap
It seems that whenever someone makes the observation that the US dollar may be losing its value people suggest there may be a need to return to a "sound" monetary system, perhaps like one adopted after the end of World War II called the Bretton Woods agreement.

Bretton Woods became operational in 1945. It obligated each member country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate by tying its currency to the U.S. dollar at a fixed agreed-upon rate.  Bretton Woods made the US dollar the global reserve currency. And it was backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government along with a promise to exchange, on demand, US dollars for gold at a fixed rate. It was through this mechanism that trade imbalances were corrected by gold reserve exchanges or by loans from the International Monetary Fund.

And it seemed to work well up until president Richard Nixon closed "the gold window" in 1971, officially taking the US off the so-called gold standard.

Gold vending machine
This refusal to honor the long-standing agreement was considered a form of default that broke the trust the international banking community had in the US dollar, even though the dollar continued to enjoy its privileged status. The closing of the gold window has subsequently became known as the Nixon Shock. It hardly seems coincidental that the US dollar has consistently lost its value in terms of real purchasing power since the Nixon shock.

The growth of US deficit spending along with the expansion of the money supply has begun to further erode confidence in the US political system and the US dollar. China, a big holder of US debt, has begun reducing its US treasury reserves. China has also suggested that an aggregate of currencies replaced the US dollar as the global reserve currency.

Some have now called the United States the new Italy because of its absurd monetary policy. The US, however, is not compelled to act in a responsible way because of its privileged status as the controller of the global reserve currency. Hence its installation of a helicopter dropper as Fed chairman who plays a lead role in bombarding the world economy with dollar emissions in what has come to be known as the "international currency war."

But the US is now being downgraded and alternatives are emerging. The dollar certainly is suspect as a store of value, "strong dollar" policy pronouncement evoke sneering hilarity. A particularly interesting new development now lies in the realm of futures trading.

It turns out that the largest US futures exchanges are now allowing the use of RMB for margin. As you know, the Chinese have been experimenting with internationalizing the use of its currency for currency exchange, trade settlement and other purposes in financial centres such as Hong Kong and Singapore. Not one to be left behind, London is lobbying PRC authorities to some extent for similar privileges as the PRC experiments with making its monies more readily available.

Gold has not been in common circulation since about 1933-34 when Congress and President Roosevelt implemented a series of Acts and Executive Orders which suspended the common circulation of gold except for foreign exchange, thus, revoking gold as universal legal tender for debts, and banned private ownership of significant amounts of gold coin. People were required to redeem their gold coins for silver backed legal tender at $20.67 per ounce.  Then under the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 the value of the dollar was fixed at $35 per ounce. the gold was store in Fort Knox, Kentucky.  The possession of gold except as jewelry and collections of rare coins was outlawed.  And it wasn't until 1975 that Americans could again freely own and trade physical gold.

Many economists have pointed out that gold isn't viable alternative to a fiat currency that can expand and contract according to the demand of markets.  Although it is true that the amount of available gold cannot be expanded to match market demand for all forms of money, gold was never used in the manner that this observation suggests. Gold has never been the sole token of exchange in any economic system.

Although no one I know is suggesting that gold could ever be the sole token of exchange,  some people have suggested that gold, as a commodity, could never be viable alternative to a fiat currency because its price fluctuates too much.  This kind of statement demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of how money markets function.  Anyone can open an account with one of the 200 or so companies that provide a means to trade in the various global currencies on the FOREX.  The price of money, as a commodity, also fluctuates.  Money is just another commodity it seems.

In these turbulent financial times, for individual investors, holding a commodity such as gold is very reasonable way of hedging against currency fluctuations, or worse the threat of another banking collapse or a bank holiday.

Who is holding gold reserves as a form of a monetary asset?

The US government holds the world's largest amount: some 8,133.5 tons of gold. see - Gold Reserves

Should the US return to its so-called "gold standard?"

This is the wrong question. The right question is how can the United States restore the trust it once held in the eyes of the international financial community.  This is not just a question of monetary policy. The US is in need of some fundamental political changes before any meaningful discussion of its monetary policy is even possible.

Nonsense? What are you talking about?

I need quite a bit of time to adequately rebut my little brother Dan regarding the excellent article he posted last week titled: Gold Standard? What Nonsense! I regret that I can't give it the effort it deserves right at this moment because today I have to hurry out to do some Christmas shopping. I will be exchanging some hard earned Federal Reserve Notes that the government has been so generous to leave me. 

There is no restraint of consequence on the government because our highly esteemed House of Representatives (along with the Fed of course) has access to our money before we do.They play a perpetual shell game with the public as to where the money goes. A gold standard would force them into honest accounting.

Would you leave management of your estate to that bunch of bungling con-artists expecting them to deliver it intact to your precious grandchildren when they are ready to retire? I hope not Danny because the inflating of the money supply causes its value to disappear before your very eyes when they get their printing presses rolling to make ends meet..The best way to "hold the presses" is to have some medium of exchange that cannot be inflated. Gold is the solution to that problem now and has been for the 2 thousand prior years. Why is that?

A Question of Character: Newt's Tainted Past



Newt Gingrich is a recent convert to Catholicism. Rather ironically, it seems that he converted in order to facilitate his marriage to his newest wife,Callista,after abandoning two previous wives . After converting he was subsequently invited to give a speech at this year’s National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. 


Did Newt Gingrich cheat on his first two wives for the benefit of America? He seems to think so.  Newt pressed his first wife to sign divorce papers while she was still in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.


He divorced his second wife, Marianne, for Callista, with whom he had an affair while she was his staffer on Capitol Hill. In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network last month Newt explained his double spousal abandonment this way:

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” - Newt Gingrich
What other inappropriate things has he done?

This video below explores yet another aspect of his tainted past.


Arrogant Thumb Suckers

Some people have faith in the God of their faith. Others seem to have faith in godlessness. And yet again, other onlookers  seem to be confused, not really knowing whether one position of the other makes more sense in any kind of absolute terms, and perhaps wondering why the discussion generates such passionate debates.

Those on both sides seem just a bit too certain and willing to cast aspersions on the moral character of those in the opposition. What has pride got to do with it?

There is there is, or there isn't a God. Our believing one way or the other doesn't alter the truth of the matter.

Believing in God doesn't make people somehow automatically good. Nor does disbelieving automatically make people bad. But clearly both sides are capable of being arrogant.

Having faith in the God of one's faith doesn't make a person deserving of righteous scorn, or ridicule. Nor does being an arrogant godless heathen make a person less human.

What's the point of belittling an arrogant thumb sucker who takes pride in sucking.

It seems that there are those on both sides of this issue who are arrogant thumb suckers. The discussion seems to always degenerate into a game of up-man-ship. The winner is the is the one who is better at smearing the opposition.

If there is a God, I wonder how many truly know him, or are simply self delusional. It seems to me those that truly know him would have no reason to argue about it.

In the story of the New Testament the one person that I most truly admire is St. Thomas. I admire him because of his personal honesty and respect for what it means to know something factually.  How does Jesus respond to Thomas?

John 20:29 Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen me, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

In this passage, although Jesus chastises Thomas, he also confirms that seeing is believing. Thomas, perhaps, is not as good as other saints, but neither did Jesus curse him.  To me, personally, I prefer Thomas' honesty.  I cannot declare to believe in unseen or unknowable things even if that would make me somehow appear to be a better person in the eyes of people with faith in the God of their faith.

I simple want to be honest with myself about what I know to be true and what I do not know to be true.

In all cases, at all times the feeling of "deadly" certainty is potentially dangerous.  Those who are willing to die for a cause are often just as willing to kill for it.

If that results in me becoming the target of a smear campaign by those "blessed" with faith in the God of their faith, then so be it.

Proud to Have Faith


Reflecting upon an item I see on Street Articles called "Proud To Be A Faithless Heathen" , I can perceive a self-assured but sadly arrogant individualist. There is nothing wrong with logic per se, except when an individual, with a small range of subjectivity, begins to maintain that he or she has got the whole of it, along with, I presume, "The Truth." Logic should be our vade mecum but it should not cover over our hearts.

I deem Adolph Hitler as an example of an individual whose reliance on a specific (ill-founded) logic allowed his heart to be completely suppressed. Surely there is danger to encourage any and all individuals to abandon traditional faith and pursue their own brands of logic. No, people need a blueprint for ideals for behavior that can be provided by faithfulness.

One big trouble that the author of the article has recognized in the progress of history is the misuse of faith. Faith should not be invoked to trump logic any more than logic should be invoked to trump faith. But what is faith? Personally I see faith as largely misunderstood. Faith is not knowledge, but many will rely upon faith as if it were. This is the primary danger inherent in religions of all sorts. It is potentially a disaster of semantics. I am deeply hesitant to start any sentence with the words, "I believe..." This is because I want to be very careful about what I believe and what I need to have faith in. NO ONE can tell me with absolute certainty what I should have faith in--not a priest, not a preacher, not an imam, not an avatar, not a pope. But I should seek Truth, and perhaps in those places where those same authorities are pointing to.

Faith is a choice. I choose God. I do not choose to have the faith that there is no God, such as Nietzsche's belief. His beliefs set him free from the moralities ingrained in him during his very young years. His freedom led him to an early death due to venereal disease--not very logical at all. Humans have many natural tendencies that are very difficult to defer by logic, such as revenge, greed, and slothfulness. I can assure the reader that, in my many years of teaching, I have found few successes in using logical arguments against these vices that I have recognized in my students. Heart-felt arguments tend to work much better.

The author quoted the famous saying "God works in mysterious ways." Avoiding any logical argument for rejecting this statement, he simply shunts the words aside, saying "even a first-grader wouldn't fall for" [that explanation]. Funny, I must, I suppose, confess my stupidity because I fell for that explanation as a first-grader, and I fall for it now as a senior adult. Humans do have great capacities for huge depth of great understandings. But one person's mind cannot hold the entirety of truth and logic. We all need, and rely upon, the whole experience of civilizations that preceded us. Personally, I do not bother my little brain about whether God has a mind that can hold all that, I just accept that God does work in ways that are beyond a human's capacity. I find "heathen" irreverence akin to the shallow ethnocentrism of by-gone ages. It's a by-product of a dangerous combination of small-mindedness and overblown pride. (Talk about condescending!) Tradition does have something to offer (and, yes, some things to reject by logic). Individualists should stop presuming and accept their own personal limitations.

Responding to Newt the Nominee

It appears that Republicans will never be able to win an election without substantial help from the  Jackasses. Here we stand, at the starting gate for the presidential campaign with Iowa only a few weeks away and the GOP seems ready to throw in the towel. They have no agenda ready with well conceived ideas; they have no organization singing the praises of Capitalism; and they have no charismatic leader to rally the faithful. (Or if they do, they are hiding him among the corn stills in the backwoods of the Ozarks.) They only seem to have talent enough to throw stones at Obama, so they do that incessantly. It may be great fun but it won't put ballots in the boxes. What happened to the RESOLVE that was so common during the 20th century?