The debt that should not be

Student loan debt, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, is nearly twice as bad as previously reported:

The latest report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows how dire the financial situation has become for college students with outstanding loans.

According to numbers released by the bank this week, 1 in 4 borrowers with outstanding student loans had a past-due balance in the third quarter of 2011. Those figures are higher than most previous estimates because, in its recent calculations, the New York Fed deliberately left out borrowers who are temporarily exempt from making payments, like those still in school or within the usual six-month period after graduation when they’re not required to make payments. By removing those borrowers from the equation, the percentage of past-due student loan balances sits at 27% of all outstanding student loans….

The estimated student loan balance in the third quarter last year was $870 billion, which increased 2.1% from the previous quarter and is more than both Americans’ total credit card balance ($693 billion) and auto loan balance ($730 billion). About $580 billion of the total is owed by Americans who are younger than 40.

That debt isn’t going to be repaid, not when “almost half of student loan borrowers are either deferring their student loan payments or are in forbearance”.

If you think the global economic contraction is over, you’re not paying attention. The Fed and the other central banks are still fighting their desperate delaying game, but once more, the cracks are starting to show.

Mailvox: whither post-Jobs Apple?

LH wonders about the future of Apple:

I’ve noticed several news articles and radio broadcasts over the past week talking about a new Ipad coming out. Today I saw it’s official. Didn’t Apple do better at keeping product upgrades under wraps until the announcement prior to Jobs passing? Do you see the techno-facist facade failing?

Yes, I think the Eviler Empire is in the very early stages of collapsing. The screw-ups are small, but significant. They couldn’t even come up with a name for it? The killer new feature is a super high-resolution? I’ve worked in an industry that reached its natural limits – graphics cards – and the resolution gambit particularly is a classic sign of a product category that has peaked. Unless Apple manages to reinvent itself again, which would appear to be a very difficult trick without the evil genius that was Jobs, I think they will continue to be profitable, but cease to be dominant and they will become just another big technology company within 10 years.

Team Calvin: Question Four

DD. Lamentations 3:31-33

For the Lord will not cast off forever, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not afflict from his heart or grieve the children of men.

Vox, does the Lord cause grief? If so, does he act against his will?

Yes, on occasion, when it is necessary in order to fulfill His grand design of Man’s salvation and the reclamation of a fallen world. This does not mean He is the cause of all grief.

No, He does not act against His will, although since He acts against things He previously willed, such as when He removed Saul’s kingship and gave it to David, it is obvious that His will is both dynamic and responsive to the consequences of Man’s free will.

Team Calvin: Question 1
Team Calvin: Question 2
Team Calvin: Question 3

Alaric inside the walls

The UK anticipates the USA’s descent into barbarism and the dawn of aristocracy:

Walking home from school, my two eldest sons, then aged four and five, were chomping their way through Rice Krispie cakes bought at a school sale, while I pushed their baby brother in a pram beside them. Typically for 3.30pm in the part of North-West London where we live, the pavements were awash with children and pushchairs. This area, with its wide tree-lined avenues, smart family homes and good schools, is hugely popular with young families….

We’d just left our local newsagent’s, magazine firmly in my little son’s hand, when we suddenly found ourselves in the middle of a 12-strong gang of hooded youths who were chasing a girl who looked no older than 14. One grabbed her and started battering her with an umbrella, but she managed to get away. Then the youths gave chase, throwing bottles and shouting obscenities. It looked as though they meant to kill her….

Grabbing my sons and frantically pushing the pram with one hand, I rushed to get them home as quickly as possible. Then to my horror, Zach broke free of my grip and blindly ran back into what was now a full-on turf war. He’d dropped his magazine, which had been trampled underfoot, its pages scattered across the pavement. Oblivious to the mayhem, he attempted to gather it up as tears rolled down his cheeks. Terrified for him, I pulled the pram and my five-year-old back towards where Zach now stood rooted to the spot as more gang members came tearing up a side street.

I heard myself scream as a bottle skimmed Zach’s head, missing him by millimetres, glass smashing around his feet — later I found shards in his shoes. Then I did something I never thought I’d do: I ran, clutching my terrified children. In my panic, I lost control of the pram which swerved precariously and almost overturned twice.

Our cakes spilled out over the pavement. It was the wrong thing to do, of course. I’d drawn attention to my fleeing family, and a splinter group gave chase after us, calling out ‘get the whities’. Seeing this terrifying drama unfold before them, passers-by and locals sped up steps, pounded on front doors or sought protection in porches.

We reached our home and I released my screaming baby from his pram, which I left abandoned with our bags outside, and practically threw my boys inside the front door, locking it behind us — my legs had turned to jelly and breathlessness and searing chest pain convinced me I was having a heart attack.

Whether they like it or not, the white European people of the West are facing two ugly choices. Either start deportating the barbarians now or fight a brutal war later. Africans cannot be blamed for acting like Africans, Mexicans cannot be blamed for acting like Mexicans, and Arabs cannot be blamed for acting like Arabs. One simply shouldn’t be surprised when people who are not white Europeans do not act like white Europeans tamed by more than one thousand years of Western civilization. Why would they, and more importantly, why should they?

For little more than the fear of being called racist and in a futile attempt assuage the guilt for past centuries of colonialism, the people of the West have permitted their countries to be invaded by barbarians. Instead of civilizing the immigrants, as it was foolishly imagined, the immigrants have increasingly barbarized the nations they have invaded en masse. This should not have been a surprise, as the attempts to civilize them in their native lands had failed for hundreds of years.

The problem isn’t that Africans or Central Americans cannot ever be civilized or that there is a civilization gene, the problem is that like domesticating an animal species, civilizing an entire culture is a process that takes hundreds of years. Consider, for example, how long it took the barbarians of Britain and Germany to go from the naked pagan barbarism described by Julius Caesar to the heights of Christian civilization that produced Mozart and the chamber orchestras. The nations of the West doesn’t have that much time, especially when they can no longer serve as a strong and stable models, having invited the enervating peoples into their civilizations. Moreover, in addition to attempting to civilize the barbarians inside their borders rather than outside them, they are trying to do so without the benefit of Christianity, which historically played a powerful role in the civilization of the white European barbarians.

The woman in the article moved with her family out to the countryside to escape the hooded black barbarians of London. But the retreat of civilization cannot continue forever, as history shows the barbarians will simply expand their dysfunctional and parasitical cultures until they are forcibly stopped and turned back. Every civilization needs its Marius, its Qin Shi Huang, its Charles Martel, or will be overrun and die.

Feudalism and the age of aristocracy grew out of a need for protection. It is now becoming increasingly clear why the age of democracy is over and how the coming aristocracy is going to take shape and come to power.

Mailvox: omniderigistes

CM has two questions:

I find your anti-omni* arguments very compelling. It’s completely counter to everything I’ve been taught (Baptist upbringing, elder in the Reformed church, currently in Missouri-Synod Lutheran church).

Couple of simple questions for clarification:

1. I believe that God created time, and therefore must exist apart from it. So even if he’s _not_ omnipresent, he could insert himself into any location and any time whenever he wishes, making himself functionally omnipresent. Do you hold that God is a slave to an “external force” of time? If he is, wouldn’t that mean that he’s not the “ultimate force”?

2. If God is not omniscient, how does prophecy enter into your world-view? If you believe that it’s possible, how can God know what’s going to happen if he doesn’t “know all” at some level?

CM is making the same mistake in confusing capacity with action that Richard Dawkins makes in The God Delusion and which we see with regularity from Team Calvin. The fact that God “could insert himself into any location and any time whenever he wishes” doesn’t make him “functionally omnipresent”, but rather “potentially omnipresent”. This is the same difference and distinction that I draw between omniscience and voliscience, between God knowing everything at all times and God knowing whatever He decides He wants to know. As for the question, no, I don’t consider God to be a slave to the external force of time. For more thoughts on this, see the chapter on God as Game Designer in The Irrational Atheist.

As for prophecy, this is pretty simple. The fact that you don’t know everything doesn’t mean you don’t know something in advance, especially if you are the one who is arranging to make it happen. There is absolutely no need for omniscience to support the concept of accurate Divinely-inspired prophecy.

The cure for Curie-Hultgreen Syndrome

It’s a little tempting to point and laugh, but really, Miss Stewart should be commended for her good sense:

Britain’s first female Red Arrows pilot is to move to a ground role after two of her flying colleagues were killed in separate tragedies. Flight Lieutenant Kirsty Stewart, 33, is to be reassigned after the ‘tragic events’ of 2011 had an ‘adverse effect’ on her, a defence source said….

A defence source said: ‘Not many people outside of the Red Arrows will understand the pressure and busy schedule that the team endure through a normal season. These factors have been exacerbated by the tragic events of 2011. This has had an adverse effect on Kirsty and has resulted in the Royal Air Force deciding that it would be more appropriate for the individual and the service if Kirsty is reassigned.’

Her superiors should be commended too, for reassigning the young woman before she crashes, burns, and ends up another pointless human sacrifice on the altar of female equality.

Team Calvin: Question 3

CC. John 6:37, 44 and 45

All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out.(…) No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Every one who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

If there are those that get saved without God’s prior action (Pelagianism), or those that refuse the action (Arminianism), then where do they fit between the “no one” of the first verse and “every one” of the second? Please describe a possible chain of events for such a person so that it doesn’t conflict with any of the verses.

First, it is necessary to correct the error in the question. Pelagianism is “the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.” This does not mean that “there are those that get saved without God’s prior action”, but rather, that there are those who are not in need of salvation or God’s prior action since they do not merit condemnation. The distinction is significant.

Now to address the direct question. There is obviously no need to figure out where the Pelagian unfallen fit here, since they have no need to come to Jesus Christ for a salvation they do not require. This, however, would appear to be a very small group of people; the Biblical record suggests a potential set of three: Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus Christ himself. So, what remains is to determine where those who require God’s grace but nevertheless refuse it fit between the “no one” of the first verse and “every one” of the second.

And when we consider the verses, it is perfectly obvious where these Arminian refusers fit. They a) have not been given to Jesus, b) have not come to him, and c) have not heard and learned from the Father. But none of this indicates that God does not wish them to be saved, that they have not been drawn by the Father, or that they have not heard the Father.

As is so often the case, Team Calvin’s position is based on a serious failure of reading comprehension. Their concept of election and irresistible grace, as it corresponds with these selected verses, is dependent upon assuming that “draws” is equivalent to “gives” and that “no one can come unless” is equivalent to “everyone must come if”. Not only are these two assumptions not necessarily true, they are quite obviously false on their faces as well in the context of the totality of Scripture.

As for the chain of events:

1. The Father draws everyone, since as per 1 Timothy 4, He “wants all people to be saved. He speaks to them through Creation and through His Spirit. All are taught.
2. Some hear, learn and permit themselves to be drawn. Some hear, do not learn, and do not permit themselves to be drawn. Some do not hear, do not learn, and do not permit themselves to be drawn. See The Parable of the Sower in Mark 4. All are taught, but not everyone learns.
3. Those who permit themselves to be drawn to the Father are given to His Son, Jesus Christ.
4. Those who are given to Jesus Christ go to him.
5. Jesus Christ does not cast out any who come to him, but raises them up on the last day.

I should perhaps mention that based on the various definitions, it is incorrect to describe me as a Arminian since my theological stance is more accurately described as Pelagian. I agree wholeheartedly with Tertullian when he writes: “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power…. For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law. Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will…. Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

Team Calvin: Question 1
Team Calvin: Question 2

John Piper’s murderous god

If you aren’t convinced that omniderigistes worship the god of this world rather than the genuine Christian God, you’re probably not paying attention to their words:

Why would God reach down his hand and drag his fierce fingers across rural America killing at least 38 people with 90 tornadoes in 12 states, and leaving some small towns with scarcely a building standing, including churches?

If God has a quarrel with America, wouldn’t Washington, D.C., or Las Vegas, or Minneapolis, or Hollywood be a more likely place to show his displeasure?

We do not ascribe such independent power to Mother Nature or to the devil. God alone has the last say in where and how the wind blows. If a tornado twists at 175 miles an hour and stays on the ground like a massive lawnmower for 50 miles, God gave the command….

Therefore, God’s will for America under his mighty hand, is that every Christian, every Jew, every Muslim, every person of every religion or non-religion, turn from sin and come to Jesus Christ for forgiveness and eternal life. Jesus rules the wind. The tornadoes were his. But before Jesus took any life in rural America, he gave his own on the rugged cross.

Piper’s Jesus is a serial killer. He is a murderer, a slayer of children, and like those who follow his lead, he also appears to be a fairly shameless liar. His Jesus isn’t merely responsible for tornadoes, but also the gulags, the gas chambers, and the guillotines. The more I read of what John Piper has written, the more I am convinced that he worships Satan in the cloak of Jesus, the more it is readily apparent that he worships an antichrist.

Piper states very clearly that he does not ascribe independent power to the devil, but rather to his god. But if I am correct, (and I believe there is copious scriptural evidence and Christian tradition to support my contention that Satan is the ruler of this world and is responsible for much of the evil in it), and if Piper worships the god that he believes is responsible for committing such havoc throughout history for its own mysterious reasons, how can one possibly conclude that the man is anything other than a grievously deceived Satan worshipper?

Mailvox: the logic of suffrage

This dialogue with Bohm merits its own post.

1. Do you concur that when the government imposes a law on the populace, it is intended as a restriction on human behavior?

2. Do you concur that a general restriction on human behavior is a restriction on human liberty, given the definition provided by Icarius?

For the sake of argument, I will concur with both your propositions, with the caveat that restricting one’s ability to rob, maim and murder, say, is obviously beneficial to general liberty.

3b. Do you concur that laws are passed in order to modify existing human behavior?

of course I concur, since I’ve said as much already, except perhaps to say ‘prohibit’ instead of ‘modify’, since people will carrying on murdering other people even when they know they shouldn’t really.

4b. Do you concur that the threat of government force causes humans to behave differently than they otherwise would?

Agreed.

5. Do you concur that laws are backed by the threat of government force.

Agreed. I would have thought that, for the purposes of this discussion, 4b) and 5) amounted to the same thing.

6. Do you concur that because they are backed by the threat of government force, laws cause humans to behave differently than they otherwise would?

Ha! So we have another transitive relationship. I am bound to agree with proposition 6.

7. Do you concur that the imposition of laws backed by government force amounts to a restriction on the behavior of those humans who would otherwise choose to behave differently?

I suppose so. I would prefer the term ‘modification’ rather than ‘restriction’. Are we going to address those humans who choose not to behave differently.

7b. Do you concur that a “modification” amounts to a “restriction” when the legally permissible range of human behavior has been reduced?

I find myself balking at this supposedly ‘logical’ approach. This formula is too vague to be meaningful. The ‘range of human behavior’ remains the same whether it is permitted or not. What constitutes a ‘legally permissible behavior’ is decided by a judiciary on a case by case basis. You’re presuming that human behavior is a range that is measurable; reduced or extended, which presumes that behavior comes in some kind of unit. Is unlawful killing of a human being a unit of human behavior? Or is simply killing a human being the unit to be measured? There are myriad different circumstances under which a death might be deemed lawful or unlawful, depending on the circumstances and who is doing the killing. Is gambling a unit of behavior? Or should it be divided into smaller units, depending on the nature of the punt? Laws against sports gambling in the US do not prevent Americans gambling on other stuff or indeed on sports. Furthermore, what is considered unlawful in one place, is perfectly legal elsewhere, even within the US. This is probably not what I’d say precisely if I had more time today, a bit rushed but there you go. But I really think we should stop talking about ‘human behavior’ and address something more tangible.

There is nothing vague about “the legally permissible range of human behavior.” Nor is this approach anything but logical, there is nothing supposed about it. The fact that you are balking at this approach is because you are increasingly beginning to understand that your position on the matter is not a logical one. So, I will repeat the question. Do you concur that a “modification” amounts to a “restriction” when the legally permissible range of human behavior has been reduced?

OK, I’ll play ball. I concur just to see were this is going.

8. Are there significantly more state and federal laws than there were in 1919?

I would have thought so, yes.

9. Do you concur that because laws restrict the legally permissible range of human behavior and because there are now significantly more state and federal laws than there were in 1919, the legally permissible range of human behavior has therefore been reduced since 1919?

That’s certainly true.

10. Do you concur that the majority of the electorate is capable of effecting change in the number of laws passed by its representatives?

The Eurebellion begins

At long last, the politicians are turning against the Euro and the European Union:

“The euro is not in the interests of the Dutch people,” said Geert Wilders, the leader of the right-wing populist party with a sixth of the seats in the Dutch parliament. “We want to be the master of our own house and our own country, so we say yes to the guilder. Bring it on.”

Mr Wilders made his decision after receiving a report by London-based Lombard Street Research concluding that the Netherlands is badly handicapped by euro membership, and that it could cost EMU’s creditor core more than €2.4 trillion to hold monetary union together over the next four years. “If the politicians in The Hague disagree with our report, let them show the guts to hold a referendum. Let the Dutch people decide,” he said.

The Dutch aren’t the only ones. The open challenge from the new Spanish premier is arguably even more serious:

The Spanish rebellion has begun, sooner and more dramatically than I expected.
As many readers will already have seen, Premier Mariano Rajoy has refused point blank to comply with the austerity demands of the European Commission and the European Council (hijacked by Merkozy).

Taking what he called a “sovereign decision”, he simply announced that he intends to ignore the EU deficit target of 4.4pc of GDP for this year, setting his own target of 5.8pc instead (down from 8.5pc in 2011).

In the twenty years or so that I have been following EU affairs closely, I cannot remember such a bold and open act of defiance by any state.

There is no real left-right divide in Europe anymore, as the Europhile-Euroskeptic one is much more significant. While the mainstream parties have long succeeded in their game of taking Europhile positions of varying degrees of enthusiasm – Eurofast vs Euroslow – the parliamentary systems have permitted the development of a continent-wide anti-EU political movement of the sort that the two-party system in the USA tends to preclude.

And eventually, the anti-EU side will win because the iron laws of economics are on their side.