ATHOL DICKSON

  • The Latest
  • Theology
  • Culture
  • Finance
  • Literature

Latest

Did Bush Kill More People Than Stalin?

October 17, 2016 By Athol Dickson

Skulls of Cambodian Communist Victims
Skulls of Cambodian Communist Victims (Wikipedia)

Good Grief. Sometimes I really do wonder if we should make Americans prove they have at least a basic understanding of world history before they’re allowed to cast a vote. A few days ago I posted a link to a Facebook post along those lines written by Mike Rowe. If you missed it, I strongly suggest you click that link to read what he has to say.  Because if the results of a poll recently published by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation are even remotely accurate, we are in very bad trouble.

Here are a few quotes from their press release:

  • Approximately one in four Americans (26%) – and one-third of millennials (32%) — believe more people were killed under George W. Bush than Joseph Stalin.
  • Many millennials are unfamiliar with communist leaders – [Mao] Zedong: 42%; [Che] Guevara: 40%; Stalin: 18%; Lenin: 33%; Putin 18%.
  • Of those millennials familiar with Vladimir Lenin, 25% have a favorable view of him.
  • 64% of Americans agreed with the classic Karl Marx statement that underpins Marxist philosophy: “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Historians estimate the total number of people murdered by communist regimes in the 20th century at about 100,000,000. Count those zeros. When it comes to genocide, the Nazis were amateurs compared to the communist regimes, some of which are still around today.

How can so many Americans not know this? If it comes as a surprise to you, for goodness sake, educate yourself. And this seems like a good time to quote George Santayana, from his Reason in Common Sense, Vol 1:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Cat

October 17, 2016 By Athol Dickson

Cat Standing Up
Cat.

For your consideration, I offer this subreddit with–so far–93,753 photos of videos of Cats Standing Up. It is vital that you click the link and go there now.

Tolerance For (Almost) Everyone

October 16, 2016 By Athol Dickson

The Big Bag Theory
The show is very funny. The actress, not so much.

Although I’m not a fan of network television, I do enjoy “The Big Bang Theory.” It’s a consistently funny show, which reminds me of such all time greats as “Cheers”, “Seinfeld”, and “Malcolm In the Middle”.

So I was interested when I saw an article entitled “Mayim Bialik: Hollywood is not friendly to people of faith.” Mayim Bialik plays Amy, the geeky girlfriend of Sheldon, played by Jim Parsons, star of The Big Bang Theory. (That’s Bialik in the upper right of the photo.)

In the article Bialik says, “I think in general it’s never going to be trendy to be observant or religious in Hollywood circles.” She also discusses being attacked with anti-Semitic comments on her blog simply because she said “I’ve gone to Israel” to visit a friend.

Christians have long believed the entertainment industry discriminates against us because of our beliefs, but this was the first time I’d heard of a Jew with the same complaint. Wanting to learn more, I went over to Bialik’s blog. Imagine my surprise to discover a post there, in which Bialik bashes a store merely for playing Christian music.

In the post Bialik announces she was “dumbfounded” to realize the music in the background was (gasp!) “singing about Jesus Christ.” When Bialik confronted the manager, who apparently did not share her concern, she “was shocked. I couldn’t stop my mouth from saying the words, ‘I don’t want to shop here,’ and I stumbled out the door.”

This, in a blog which also includes a post about the LGBTQ community which is presented with the hope that it “will inspire respectful conversation” and “build bridges to community and understanding for us all.” Community and understanding for all except Christians, apparently.

In addition to her acting career, Mayim Bialik is a neuroscientist, who wrote a dissertation called “Hypothalamic regulation in relation to maladaptive, obsessive-compulsive, affiliative, and satiety behaviors in Prader-Willi syndrome” (PhD Diss., UCLA, 2007). So Dr. Bialik is not an ignorant woman, or a woman unfamiliar with logic or deductive reasoning. This makes it all the more puzzling that she would complain on the one hand about antisemitism and a generally anti-religious atmosphere in Hollywood, while simultaneously complaining about a store simply because it plays Christian music.

This makes it all the more puzzling that she would complain on the one hand about antisemitism and a generally anti-religious atmosphere in Hollywood, while simultaneously complaining about a store simply because it plays Christian music.

As a Jew and an intelligent person, how can Mayim Bialik not understand that intolerance breeds intolerance? How can she expect the store owners to be silent about their faith, while simultaneously complaining about the Hollywood elite in who want her to keep her Judaism to herself? Does she really expect her fans to sympathize with bashing a store for playing Christian music, and also respect her Judaism? The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Yet this kind of doublethink is popping up everywhere, it seems.

I just left this comment on Bialik’s post:

“I get a little creeped out in home decor shops that sell statues of Buddha or Hindu gods, and I do notice when a Jewish restaurateur or shop owner puts a mezuzah on their door jamb. But so what? If you truly want a pluralistic society, you have to get comfortable with people being who they truly are. Otherwise, you’re just giving lip service to ideas like tolerance and diversity, when what you really want is a world where everyone is just like you.”

It’s too bad I had to write those words to an intelligent woman who is a member of one of history’s most persecuted minorities. Honestly, sometimes it seems like the world has gone insane.

Is It Ethical To Fund A Lawsuit?

October 15, 2016 By Athol Dickson

Investing in Lawsuits
Investing in Lawsuits

Today I’m considering an investment in an asset class most people know nothing about: loans secured by lawsuits. It seems there are companies which specialize in lending money in return for a carried interest in civil lawsuit settlements or judgments. If the borrower wins their case or gets a settlement, they pay back the loan with interest. Lots and lots of interest.

I only just began researching the idea, but so far it looks like there are at least two versions. Some lenders offer their funds directly to law firms. Others offer money to plaintiffs. The law firms use the money to pay their bills while they wait for big payoffs on cases they’ve taken on a contingency basis. The plaintiffs use the money to pay their personal medical bills and living expenses while they wait on the outcome of their lawsuit. I’m interesting in the second version, offering funds to plaintiffs. The first version, lending cash to lawyers, has no appeal at all.

Most people agree our society is much too litigious. Anyone can sue anyone for almost anything, and if there’s serious money involved many lawyers are all too happy to take the case on contingency. This often forces innocent companies and individuals to choose between settling with malicious plaintiffs, or paying big bucks for a legal defense. Even those with insurance against lawsuits still suffer, because the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits has driven premiums and deductibles sky high. I know this from painful firsthand experience.

I was sued by a woman who slipped and almost fell in a building designed by my firm. Allegedly, the poor dear pulled a muscle. She thought her “pain and suffering” was worth several hundred thousand dollars…

In the early years of my architectural career, I was sued by a woman who slipped and almost fell in a building designed by my firm. Allegedly, the poor dear pulled a muscle. She thought her “pain and suffering” was worth several hundred thousand dollars and she claimed we were negligent for specifying a wooden floor. The judge issued a summary judgment in my favor (meaning he threw out the case because he recognized her claim was ridiculous) but I still had to waste five days in court and working with my attorney to prepare a defense, plus cough up $10,000 to pay my professional insurance deductible. There were other similar legal attacks through the years. By the time I retired from practicing architecture, my firm was paying over $48,000 per year in errors and omissions insurance premiums, just to protect ourselves from lawyers.

America’s civil “justice” system promotes legalized extortion as far as I’m concerned, and pretty much the only thing stopping it from completely destroying the economy is the fact that the process can be as time consuming and expensive for the parasites who sue maliciously as it is for their victims. So no; I’ll not be lending money to lawyers.

But there’s another angle I like better. Sometimes a plaintiff might be someone who was injured due to the actual negligence of an insurance company’s client. For example, consider a person seriously injured by a woman who runs a red light while applying mascara, or a man who drives drunk. This person has huge medical bills, along with injuries that make it impossible to earn a living. In short, the fool who ran them over has devastated their finances. Meanwhile, the defendant’s insurance company, knowing this, might use its considerable resources to delay and draw out the legal process in order to coerce the dead broke plaintiff into accepting a lower settlement now, rather than holding out for a larger amount they really deserve. That’s where the other kind of lawsuit funding comes in. There are companies that specialize in providing funds to plaintiffs in this situation. The money allows the injured person to avoid foreclosure on their home, for example, while their attorney continues fighting for a fair outcome to their lawsuit. That’s something I can get behind.

These loans are very expensive from the plaintiff’s point of view. So far I’ve seen interest rates comparable to what someone would pay for a pawn shop loan. But unlike a pawn loan, the funds are offered on a non-recourse basis. That means if the plaintiff loses their lawsuit, they keep the funds and have no obligation to repay the money. So it’s a very high risk for the funding company, which explains the high interest rate. Also, at least two of the funding companies I’ve found so far have a policy of limiting the funding amount to 10% of the expected total judgment or settlement for the case. They specifically state that they do that so the plaintiff will still receive a substantial portion of the payment from the defendant.

I’m not sold on funding lawsuits as a legitimate alternative asset class quite yet, but it’s definitely worth more investigation. A quick search at Amazon shows they have only one book on the subject, so it may take some digging to find out if this is a worthwhile opportunity, but I’ll post more here as I learn.

« Previous Page
Next Page »
With regard to what I’ve written here, I know a little about a lot, a lot about a little, more than some when it comes to some things, less than others about others, and everything there is to know except for what I don’t.

Older Posts

  • Letter to a Disappointed Friend
  • American Success Story
  • Slave Labor Here and Now
  • When Motives Don’t Matter
  • Lies and the Lying Liars Who Publish Them
  • Design Is Like Riding a Bike
  • Right of Way
  • Give Like a Smarty
  • How to Conduct Due Diligence For A Crowdfunded Hard Money Loan
  • Why It’s Good We’re Not a Democracy

This site is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com

Secondary


The Gospel According to Moses

  • Facebook

  • Twitter

  • Vemo

  • Pinterest

  • Linkedin

  • Rss

  • Tumblr

Copyright © 2025 Author Author Inc. | Website Design by Robin | [footer_backtotop href="#"]