America's Sterling Monetary System

The debt limit talks/arguments/rabid war in Congress has been amusing, disturbing, and frustrating to say the least. But, I've been thinking... this whole concept of needing to raise the debt ceiling seems rather ironic.

If the money you spend is based on something you don't have, and not even something that will ever exist... what is more outrageous than that you should never break trust with what you don't have, with a fake trust? So, we need to raise the debt ceiling and say to our creditors, "No, we don't plan on paying you back yet. In fact, we're going borrow more because we have authorized ourselves to do so."

So, the way this works (and if I get my facts messed up, don't hesitate to try and correct me) is that the Treasury decides that it needs more money, so it sells these things called bonds or securities to the Federal Reserve, a private bank. These bonds represent something I guess, at least I think they do in theory. But, I really don't know.

Anyway, the Federal Reserve says, "All right, I'll take those bonds.", and gives the US Treasury X amount of money. Now, the Federal Reserve doesn't mind paying for the bonds because, well... it has a limitless supply of money. Those things you stuff in your wallet and are perhaps pinching a little more in this strained economy... they're called Federal Reserve Notes, and that is what the Federal Reserve pays the Treasury for their "valuable" bonds. When they agree to buy more bonds, they just print off another batch of "money" notes. What this means is that the US Government can get as much money as it wants from the Federal Reserve, as long as it has bonds to sell.

Now, the problem. The US Treasury is going to reach the debt limit soon and oops... it won't be able to sell any more bonds! No worries! We can just raise the debt limit, and voila! we have more bonds to sell. Just. Like. That.

But, unfortunately (depending, of course, on who you talk to), many Republicans don't feel like raising the debt limit anymore... or they at least won't do it unless we drastically cut spending and NOT raise taxes. Oh, and they want this Constitutional amendment for ensuring balanced budgets.... never mind the fact that Congress hardly pays attention to the Constitution anymore.

I don't know, I just kinda found the idea that Congress needs to allow itself to sell more thin air amusing. Also, if defaulting (not paying bills, interest payments, etc.) is bad faith with our creditors... how is borrowing more, to pay our debts (but borrowing more than we pay, nonetheless), good faith on credit?

I haven't really made up my mind whether the government should or should not raise the ceiling. I mean I am one for standing on principle, but it seems like a kind of artificial limit. Nothing more arbitrary than Congress has already done.

The reason so many conservatives are against this, I believe, is that they feel that now should be the time when America should turn from its fiscal irresponsibility. It's kind of obvious that both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to use the issue politically, though. They just can't keep their eyes off of next year's elections.

Tale of Linux Addiction: Post 1

So, ever since I installed Linux on my netbook, I don't know that I have ever booted Windows, except maybe to leave immediately. Hey, my options are Windows 7 Starter or Ubuntu 10.04... not much competition there. I have wireless internet access, touchpad control, and tons of apps and utilities to mess around with. I haven't been able to print using my Dell Laser yet, but I am not giving up on that.

I have also discovered that youTube is about as useful as any Linux forum for getting how-to information for problems. Some of the videos preclude the user from even being anything near a computer geek. There is hope yet that we may put Microsoft out of business... well, maybe we can get a few more personal users at least.

Science Is as Science Does

Regarding the old Creation vs. Evolution debate and what should be taught in schools...

The I.D. movement has made claims that their concepts are science... I cannot really agree.

The proponents of the Big Bang theory and macro-evolution claim that their concepts are scientifically produced... I cannot agree to that either.

What is science? Science is knowledge. The word's etymological roots are in Latin: scientia - knowledge, sciens from scire - to know. Ok, knowledge. Both intelligent design people and Big-Bangers claim to possess this knowledge.

But, as science is understood in the present day (hopefully it hasn't been changed too much to obviate this discussion), and more specifically the scientific method, science is a practice that produces knowledge gained by observation and the practical testing of theories. The way I learned about it from a wee age is that you observe some phenomenon, create a hypothesis to explain it, test this hypothesis, approve it enough to claim it as a theory, test it more, and eventually (usually post mortum) it becomes a scientific law. Voila!

Now, as far as I can understand, the I.D. people cannot claim to be practicing science. But, I am not really focusing on that now. My main intent here is to show that the evolutionary crowd and those who tout the common explanation of cosmological origins that goes in hand with evolutionary theory cannot claim to practice science either. Why? They have an explanation of origins... an idea not based on observation, or at least only observation and then a guess. An explanation not tested by practical methods at hand. Not reproducible. Not even falsifiable, as far as I am aware with our present body of knowledge.

Wait, those are the same accusations they lay at the feet of proponents of Intelligent Design. How strange?

The question looms... is origins a field in which we can actually practice science --contribute to the body of knowledge found in the study of the natural world by way of the scientific method? I kinda of doubt it. We can make guesses based on data, but they remain guesses. We can suggest explanations, but we cannot reproduce the events to test our case. So, if they only want science to be taught in the classrooms when teaching origins, they should probably just shut up altogether.

Maybe, they could include it in a philosophy course...

In which I share a thought or two about our nation's economics...

So, these talks are happening, and I am starting to grow a little concerned about the whole thing.

Two things come to mind from the article above. One, the US Congress surely could have started addressing this issue long before now. It seems rather short-sighted to be on a crash course of debt-reduction planning on the eve of defaulting.

Second, this idea of tax hikes or closing tax loopholes (depending on who you talk to, it seems to be referred to by either of those terms) has me confused and wondering. If these are actual tax loopholes, I am beginning to wonder at the conservative opposition to the plan. Obviously, though, I don't know the details of what these "tax loopholes" are. I have my doubts that something illegal is happening on a massive scale with these supposedly profitable businesses.

On the other hand, though, one can make an argument that, even if big businesses and banks are getting a break on taxes, this is probably better for the economy anyway. If you want liquidity and credit flow, I think your best bet for the source of that liquidity is going to be in the top-tier of earners, especially large banks and other such businesses. It seems a little ridiculous, especially when the employees of these rich companies bring in million dollar bonuses, but hey, you're going to have unequal situations in a market-driven economy.

Just another rant about why I hate Windows...

Windows 7 Starter is doing a power down update at this moment on my new netbook. The amount of software and online apps this thing has on it is mind-boggling, especially when they could have just stuck a nearly empty version of Windows 7 Home or Professional, or even XP, on there and it would run just as fast, if not faster, and have more room to add functionality and applications.

But, no, they have to do it for you and make life all nice and easy! In my case, that usually means my life is made more difficult. And, I bet its the same way for the majority of at-least-semi-intelligent computer users out there.

The sooner I can use Linux for everything the better.

Still fiddling, though, with getting Linux installed via a Live USB...

Oh look! My netbook's almost done with its set of 52 updates.

So, I have decided that I need a netbook...

...and I thought that if anyone had any helpful suggestions on what exactly to get, they could give them to me.

Before I ignore them all and buy what I want.

But, seriously, if you know of some netbook that has outperformed them all (but is really a modest computer for modest needs) tell me.

Otherwise, I'm leaning towards this guy.

Biggest bonus is that it appears to work fairly well with Ubuntu Linux.