False Prophets

Last night I watched Fritz Lang's 1927 classic "Metropolis". Made in Germany shortly before the Great Depression, and anticipating the ascendency of the National Socialists, the film painted a stark picture of a dehumanized working class being manipulated and exploited by wealthy industrialists. This, of course, was a common theme presented by progressives over the decades preceeding the film's release.


Fast forward 22 years to the release of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four". In this classic novel, published following the close of the Second World War and anticipating the Cold War, the dehumanized working class are manipulated and exploited by intellectual elites. Orwell's work, like other fiction and scholarly works of the time, was in response to the rise of such repressive socialist regimes as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.


I mention these two works to illustrate how similar are the tactics used by those who would seek to control us. In each case, individuals advance to positions of power behind claims of intellectual and moral superiority. Though they are ultimately indistinguishible from one another, each group rails against the excesses of the other. Each marches behind false prophets claiming to know more than we do about how we must live our lives. Each gathers the forces of media to ensure a clear, united message assuring us that our obedience is a small price to pay for their magnanimity.


While it's easy for us, today, to identify the forces of progressivism which threaten our freedom, we must not allow the opposite forces to gain the same power we've ceded to those currently in power. If we do, we can be sure that the outcome will be the same: the loss of liberty.

Tempered Honesty

I would like to take this opportunity to applaud Andrew Alexander, Ombudsman of the Washington Post, for his attempt to chastise his own paper over its continued selective hearing: Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?. While he skirts the issue of his paper's tendency to support a progressive agenda, he does point out their lack of coverage on a significant issue.

For those not aware: the Justice Department has all but dropped a case involving members of the New Black Panther Party and voter intimidation in Philadelphia. As we all know, had the defendants belonged to the Klan, or any number of other equally offensive groups espousing violence against minorities, both the Justice Department and the Washington Post would have ridden the case into the next decade. The views expressed by members of the New Black Panther Party are no less violent or incendiary than their better known counterparts. The difference, it has been posited, is in historical perspective. I for one find little solace in the argument that a group can threaten violence against any other group or individual simply because they have a historical basis for their anger. Laws, and the application thereof, must be blind to color, status, agenda, and any other differentiating characteristic.

As for Mr. Alexander: his effort, while significant, suffers slightly from his willingness to dismiss his paper's oversight as the result of staff limitations. It is common knowledge that media outlets, both progressive and conservative, practice editorial reporting. His just got caught being obvious about it.

An Unusual Source

Yes, this appeared in the Huffington Post, normally a bastion of progressive presbyopia:

"At a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls -- all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions' broader economic impact," the report states.

I found it entertaining that the last line included the phrase “all based on a theory”. This is the fantasy world in which progressives live, where theories and ideology replace reasoned assessment. I’m sure the report will be dismissed by the typical progressive as mere partisan politics, but that’s only because those of us who can see beyond our noses raised concerns about it at the outset.

Recently been messing around on this site: Funnytimes.

Perpetuating Fallacies

This article includes a telling example of how most of our elected officials see the money collected as taxes: Philadelphia threatens jail for tax deadbeats. In the article, the Mayor of Philadelphia states “We want our damn money, you owe it, we want it, and I plan to collect it.” Other examples of this mentality can be found when bureaucrats make statements like this (from here):

In the near term, Steny Hoyer, House majority leader, raised the possibility that Congress will only temporarily extend middle-class tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. He pointedly suggested that making them permanent would be too costly.

Not only does Mr. Hoyer ignore the fact that the Bush tax cuts dramatically increased tax revenue, he also implies that there will be a cost to the government of allowing people to continue to retain the money they have earned. Statements such as these prove that our elected officials believe that government actually generates money independent of the taxes it forcefully acquires and that this money then belongs to them. Neither of these beliefs is true. However, as long as we continue to allow these people to either labor under or perpetuate these fallacies, we will be destined to suffer under their oppressive and destructive control.

Something Stinks...

One would think that being a libertarian for as long as I have, there might be more similarities between my position and other libertarians. That's the beauty of the cause: freedom doesn't require any conformity. Take illegal aliens, for example. I join with most libertarians when I say that people wishing to enter this country should do so legally. We are, after all, a nation of laws. However, I find myself parting company with many libertarians on the issue of what is to be done with those that have already entered illegally.

I recently listened to a podcast where an argument was presented that we needed to allow these people to remain in this country so that many low paying jobs could be filled. This argument is not dissimilar to those presented by Bush the Duller, predecessor to our current Big Brother. While I agree that we need to implement some improved immigration solutions, including a more accessible work program, I don't condone excusing illegal aliens from their past transgressions for any reason.

What confuses me about these arguments is that they come from people supposedly versed in the machinations of a free market. If there are indeed jobs to be filled, the market will fill them. If they are to be filled using labor rates too low for Americans to accept, the market will drive the value of these jobs higher, thereby creating an incentive for Americans to fill the positions. To use this supposed need of cheap labor to justify circumvention of existing law is indefensible and stinks of social engineering (yes, Barack, that smell was aimed at you).

That Ain't Right

I wish I had been surprised by this article: Fast Internet access becomes a legal right in Finland. Having grown up in a time before the PC, I marvel at even the idea of making high speed internet access a “right”. Of course, the people of Finland are free to pass any legislation they deem appropriate. This is, however, a prime example of the direction many governments, including in the U.S., have been moving: declare something a right and then force the citizens to fund it.

Where does this end? Well, if you agree with Hayek as I do, it ends in totalitarian regimes forcing individuals to labor, at the regime’s direction and discretion, to fund the ever growing cost of all the discovered “rights”. After all, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. This is why it remains vital that we stand up to such activities wherever free people wish to remain so.

Sounds familiar

From a CNN Money article ("CBO chief: Budget outlook 'daunting'"):

The gist of his testimony went something like this: The outlook is bad under current law and daunting if many current policies are extended as expected. And even that may understate the fiscal problem the country faces, because it doesn't factor in potential effects of debt on economic growth.

Where have we heard this before? From a variety of places such as those 'angry radicals' in the Tea Party movement, the 'unpatriotic' Libertarians and the 'racist' conservatives. My only question is: why would the administration suddenly be so transparent with their assessment? Oh, that's right, because they only have so much control over the CBO. Well, that too will change...

Tax 'em till they bleed

A new title for Big Brother has welled up from what seems to be his favorite pastime: Taxer in Chief. Yes, Mr. Obama has found another opportunity to place yet another levy on the banking industry: Obama calls for bank tax as next step in reform.

Mr. Obama may or may not be aware of a fact mentioned now several times on this and other blog sites: taxes to industries are paid for by the consumers of such industries. In order to save us, the tax payers, from future financial ruin due to risky investment activity, Big Brother has proposed a tax which, ultimately, will be paid by us, the tax payers. How sweet of him.

All of this activity moves us further from the true source of risky investment activity: government intervention. Had Congress not interfered with the government entities known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, creating an environment where risky investment became less risky for the actual lenders in the name of creating opportunity for the underprivileged, we would be looking at a significantly lessened recession. In fact, we would likely not have been introduced to the concept of bail outs had Mr. Obama and his congressional cohorts refrained from their typical shenanigans. Naturally, his solution to the aftermath of such government intervention is further legislation and taxation. I suppose he believes we can never have too much of a good thing. I, for one, disagree.

Salt of the earth

Following in New York city's footsteps, the Ministry of Information has begun assailing the use of salt by the American public: Study: Americans eat too much salt. Naturally, Americans are too stupid to know what to eat, much less how the food they eat impacts their health. To the rescue comes Big Brother to save us from our stupidity. Of course, to grease the wheels of the impending social interference, we are to be subjected to the unending justification of the loss of our freedom prior to the saving actions of Big Brother. I don't see my local government attempting such an encroachment on my rights, but I don't doubt the testicular fortitude of the federal government to exercise the demons of sodium from my diet. Thank goodness for the Ministry of Information and their objective dissemination of the talking points of social engineering. How else would I know that I am about to have another right trod upon?

Still wondering why?

Three women are currently on a hunger strike in Raleigh, North Carolina. Theirs is an attempt to gain support for a U.S. Senate bill designed to ease the path toward gaining legal residence. The interesting thing about these women is that they are in this country illegally: Illegal immigrants on hunger strike.

How is it that these women are not arrested for their immigration status? Well, unless the federal government arrests them, their freedom is guaranteed, at least until they break some other law. For those who wonder why Arizona passed a law allowing law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals stopped for other violations, your explanation can be found in this story. These are three women who openly flaunt their immigration status yet have no fear of incarceration because the federal government, tasked with protecting our borders from unlawful incursion, has opted to ignore its responsibility.

Some will argue that these women in particular, brought here as children by parents who remained past expiration of their legal status, should be granted special consideration for their circumstances. To this I would ask: where does special consideration end? Should we next consider excusing illegal parents of children who are born here and, therefore, are citizens themselves? After all, wouldn't these poor children be better served having their parents around to raise them? After that, should we give special consideration to those who, having remained illegally for some time, now find themselves indigent due to poor health? We certainly wouldn't feel good about returning them home in poor health.

We have laws for a reason. If we find the laws to be unjust, then we should change the laws. However, we should not excuse those who violate the laws simply because we can justify their actions in some loosely moral way. In the case of immigration, our efforts should involve building a fence with wide gates to deter illegal passage while accommodating those who wish to come, and stay, legally.

The Unavoidable

“The years of debt and spending make this unavoidable,” said British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne in defense of an increase to the Value Added Tax (“VAT”). So, rather than addressing the spending to alleviate the debt, the British government has decided to increase their reach into the pockets of the British people. This, of course, is the natural progression of oppressive government taxation: take and spend as much as possible until your level of spending forces you to take more. The value added tax, ironically, is the next revenue stream proposed by the current U.S. Congress.

In short, the current proposed U.S. VAT seeks to tax the final step in the process, consumption, on top of each other step (i.e. payroll, income, corporate, capital gains, sales, etc.). Even the title is misleading, since it implies that the tax is related to value, which it isn't. It is simply a creative way to suck more blood from the stone in order to keep the vote purchasing mechanism well greased.

As I am a small government Libertarian, I see the need to have some method for paying for government, albeit on a much smaller scale. What we must do is streamline the tax structure while eliminating the ability for bureaucrats to manipulate the system for vote generation. The answer to this is the Fair Tax, where all other methods of government funding are eliminated, replaced by a single consumption tax that is fixed (i.e. not vulnerable to increase to pay for government fiscal irresponsibility). By placing the burden of tax payment on all consumption, we eliminate loopholes currently exploited by illegal aliens, criminals and those wealthy enough to hide their taxable income in the most creative ways. In this way we also remove the power of taxation from the people who spend the money, forcing them to work within the constraints of available funds.

TANSTAAFL

Paying The Piper

Although I covered this issue in my equally obscure blog of several years ago (Maximum Wage), I thought it worth revisiting in light of comments made in this piece: Minimum Wage Hikes Deserve Share Of Blame For High Unemployment. At the time, the minimum wage in the U.S. was $5.15. I engaged in a discussion with someone who couldn't see the harm in raising this wage one dollar per hour. On the surface, this seemed a reasonable thought. After all, what is a dollar between friends? However, as I pointed out at the time, it amounted to a nearly 20% increase to the minimum. Money has yet to be found springing forth from trees.

The Bush administration, in its finite wisdom, allowed the newly crowned liberal congress of the time to pass a bill that would increase the wage in each of the next three years. The change in the years from 2007 to 2009 was $.70 per hour per year. The first year amounted to an increase of nearly 14%. The second was an increase of 12% from the previous year, 27% cumulatively. In 2009, the increase amounted to 10.7%, a mere 40.8% cumulatively. This means that any business employing people at the minimum needed to increase their payroll for these people by 40% over that three year period. Why do we have an employment problem? I can't imagine.

Four years later, we sit mired in an economic slump from which there appears little relief. After eight years of general ineptitude, we are now subjected to a more specific economic ineptitude seldom rivaled. Nations around the world are waking up to the fiscal reality of social engineering while our current incarnation of Big Brother takes us down that same path. The minimum wage is another of the many examples of such engineering at work. While there's no reason to expect this or any administration to come to its senses about the minimum wage, there is little doubt that such tampering has had an impact.

Tilting the Scales

It seems that a federal judge in Port Chester, New York, felt that the lack of Latino representation in village trustees warranted providing each Hispanic in the village with six votes: Residents get 6 votes each in suburban NY election. That's right, not just one, not even just two, but six votes each. This, according to Judge Stephen Robinson, will put the village more in line with the Voting Rights Act. In other words, in order to ensure that the village elected Latino representation sufficient to account for the fact that half of the village is Latino, a federal judge provided that half of the population with six times the number of votes. In what level of hell does this make any sense to anyone?

Of course, for those who think it does make sense, perhaps you'd like to institute similar lunacy for other underrepresented members of society. After all, more than half the voting public is female, yet female representation is significantly less than that of male representation. Of course, until at least ten percent of all elected officials are openly gay, we should provide the gay community with as many votes as it takes to get their fair share of elected representation.

This is yet another example of social engineering twisting the intentions of a fair and open voting system by attempting to manipulate the outcome. Instead of inspiring greater participation by the Latino contingent of Port Chester's voting public, we'll artificially create an environment where the outcome is “fair”. Rather than seeking more Latinos to run for office, we'll simply ensure that every Latino who does is given a downhill path toward selection.

And what of the non-Latinos in Port Chester? When all the trustees are now Latino (assuming, of course, that at least six run for the positions), where will the voting rights of non-Latinos be? Will the next step be to have this federal judge, or other “impartial” third party, make all the selections for this post? Stranger things have happened. At the very least, I think I know from where our current President's next Supreme Court nominee will be coming.

Dark at the end of the tunnel

The U.S. economy continues to suffer under the yoke of oppressive government intervention and regulation. As a solution, Congress proposes more of the same: Democrats' tax bill moves toward vote in US Senate.

While I am glad not to be one of those seeking employment in this economy, I don't see how indefinitely extending benefits to the unemployed does anything more than remove incentive to gain employment. We can wring our hands all we want over the situation, but we will not improve it without changing the way we do things.

Of course, the solution to paying for this extension involves a new tax. This levy is meant to target those greedy fund managers who profit from managing investments. Clearly these gluttonous denizens of Wall Street can do with a 65% tax on their income earned trying to make investment and growth a reality. While I don't have a specific concern for these particular targets of the government tax machine, the fact is that this tax will join the ever growing pile of regulatory suffocation known as the U.S. Tax Code, never to be heard of again, at least not publicly. I have two words in response to this: Fair Tax.

I have a right...

Congressman Bob Etheridge, Democrat from North Carolina's 2nd district, refused to answer questions from some students on a sidewalk in D.C. ("Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk "). Repeating the question "who are you?" and stating that he has "a right to know", the congressman grabbed and held onto one of the students while the other student continued to film him.

The congressman was correct: he does have the right to know who is asking him questions. He also has the right to refuse to answer, to ignore, or to even dismiss those asking questions. What he does not have a right to do, however, is assault someone simply because they asked a question. By striking out at the student's camera and then grabbing the student, he commits a crime for which any other citizen would be subjected to legal action, providing further evidence that our elected officials seem to believe that the law over which they preside does not actually pertain to them.

TANSTAAFL

Retail sales dropped “unexpectedly” in May. I have to ask: who doesn’t expect this economy to worsen? I would submit that anyone within reach of a microphone who is telling us that the economy is recovering does so without any conviction. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: nothing this administration, or this congress, has done will provide long-term recovery.

What I find amazing, at least in this article ("
Retail sales drop 1.2 percent in May"), is a statement like this: “The big drop raises new worries about the durability of the economic recovery.” There are no new worries, only the same old ones. There is no expectation of durability or recovery, at least not by anyone paying attention to the actions of Washington.

What do I mean by stating that this administration has done nothing to contribute to the long-term stability and/or growth of this economy? Prior to this president’s ascendancy, we heard the economy described as a depression, the worst since the 1930’s. Since he took office, he and his cohorts in Congress have written, passed and/or signed budget busting legislation related to healthcare, climate change and Wall Street “reform”. They propose to pay for all of these things through both borrowing and higher taxes. Borrowing creates future taxes and higher taxes stifle growth. What of these actions addresses the supposed depression upon which Mr. Obama ran his campaign?

Of course, they rarely use the words “higher” or “new” taxes, unless the words are accompanied by “on the wealthy”. While it may be a tired old mantra to many of us, it is the play on which much of their past success has been built. Make no mistake, however: a tax on anyone is a tax on everyone. Higher taxes on the oil companies translate into higher costs at the pump. Higher taxes on industry lead to higher costs of goods. Higher taxes on “the wealthy” lead to less investment by those people, leading to fewer jobs, leading to higher unemployment, leading to a higher tax burden on those who remain employed. Put simply, and by wiser people than I, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Oh Helen

This week, long time White House correspondent Helen Thomas retired due to the backlash caused by comments she made in relation to Israel. While her comments were lamentable and emblematic of her political naivete, they should hardly surprise anyone familiar with this particular fixture of the press corps. In fact, her statement proves once again that we are all equally endowed with both the ability and the right to express our ignorance.

Ms. Thomas had a long career of providing agenda driven responses to the news of the day. While this is also lamentable, it is equally recognized as a Constitutional right. Free speech, as with free press, does not preclude anyone from lying, distorting, confusing or otherwise misstating facts. Speech is only an issue when it is being manipulated by those in power. While Ms. Thomas may have, at times, willingly endorsed political positions which closely aligned with her own agenda, she did so out of her own choice.

Her decision to step down was almost certainly influenced by her employers, people subjected to the cold reality of a capitalist system that would punish them financially for not achieving this feat. While this is the fairest possible system, putting into the hands of the people the ability to support as they see fit, it also has the consequence of muffling the unreasonable views to which she has a right. Fortunately, she still has the ability to express her ignorance as a private citizen.

We Didn't Mean Us...

When Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives, they did so with the stated intention to “drain the swamp” of corruption. Naturally, Democrats somehow believed that corruption was an attribute of Republicans only. This may be a revelation to them, but power’s corruptive influence knows no political, racial or ideological boundaries.

One of the methods for addressing what they claimed to be a right wing propensity for corruption was to create the Office of Congressional Ethics, proving that even politicians periodically create necessary and sensible devices to address their own abuses.

Now a subset of Democrats, specifically within the Congressional Black Caucus, is attempting to weaken the ability for oversight by this independent group because members of their caucus have been targets of its investigations (Black lawmakers want to limit new ethics office). Presumably Democrats have discovered that being humans themselves, they are equally prone to abuses of power and they're none too comfortable with that idea. While the leadership of this party are not supporting the effort, the push is no less an example of the hypocrisy to which we are regularly subjected by our elected officials.

Hate Speech is Double-Plus Ungood

On May 7th of this year, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (“NHMC”) wrote a letter to the FCC further emphasizing their desire for the agency to investigate and counteract “hate speech” in the media. In total, the phrase “hate speech” appeared over forty times in the eleven page letter.

In the spirit of transparency, I've altered their summary, replacing the term “hate speech” with “thought crime”, since that is a more accurate description of their ultimate goal with this effort:


NHMC et al. respectfully request that the Commission grant NHMC’s Petition for Inquiry on thought crime in media, filed in January of 2009. NHMC’s Petition urges the Commission to examine the extent and effects of thought crime in media, including the likely link between thought crime and hate crimes, and to explore non-regulatory ways to counteract its negative impacts. As NHMC has awaited Commission action, hate, extremism and misinformation have been on the rise, and even more so in the past week as the media has focused on Arizona’s passage of one of the harshest pieces of anti-Latino legislation in this country’s history, SB 1070.

As outlined in NHMC’s Petition, the current media landscape is a safe-haven for hate and extremism. Many communities and individuals do not have the information they want and need to intelligently engage in our democracy. This shortage of information is exacerbated by the vast media consolidation that has unfolded over the past two decades. Studies show that media consolidation diminishes ownership opportunities for people of color and leads to less diversity of voices; this yields a media in which people of color are under and misrepresented. As traditional media have become less diverse and less competitive, they have also grown less responsible and less responsive to the communities that they are supposed to serve. In this same atmosphere thought crime thrives, as hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as “news.”

The Internet gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before. Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye. Even worse, sometimes anonymous Internet speakers hold their information out as news, leaving the public with the difficult job of discerning fact from fiction.

For these reasons, as the Commission deliberates how the public interest will be served in the digital age, it should consider the extent of thought crime in media, and its effects.

While opportunities to tear into this argument abound, I will stick with the very simple point that attempts such as these have shown a propensity to turn on those in whose name the effort was made. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is explicit in its defense of speech and the press for a very simple reason: because citizens need to be able to speak out against the government if freedom is to persist. Allowing for a government agency, like the FCC, to circumvent the Constitution and abridge free speech is an affront to all American citizens, including those who seek to silence others through efforts such as this.

Opportunity to Reflect

This being Memorial Day in the U.S., I thought it appropriate to address the complexity of the acts meant to be highlighted on this day. In short, it is a day for remembering those who have fallen in the liberation and defense of this nation.

Liberation is an easy thing to justify as it specifically deals with the acquisition of freedom. That is, in my opinion, the only reason for which any of us should ever take up arms: our own freedom. While people around the world have too often taken up arms to acquire their freedom only to have one despot replaced by another, this country enjoyed the fruits of an enlightened few who put forth a system under which freedom could be retained, at least for a short time. These founders even had the foresight to guard against the slow decay of freedoms they saw as inevitable.

Defense is a different subject entirely. The term itself opens the discussion to subjectivity. Against what have we defended ourselves? After all, other than 1812, Pearl Harbor and September 11, 2001, there have not been any direct attacks on U.S. soil. Yet we have engaged, almost continuously, in some conflict or other.

Now I am not arguing against engagement without direct provocation. We all know that Nazi Germany would have continued its pursuit of global domination had the U.S. and other remotely interested countries not joined the fight, almost preemptively, against them. Sadly, it is arguments such as this that are leveraged to justify other engagements. According to many at the time, Vietnam became a mission for the same reasons that WWII required our involvement in the European theater: the spread of communism. However, the domino theory ignored the very fact that the communist system against which we were to take up arms had little hope of sustaining itself. So many Americans died defending a system of democracy and capitalism against an idea that has no potential in reality. While we should memorialize their individual sacrifices, we should also take this opportunity to understand the pointlessness of the overall action.

Today we find ourselves in a similar position. While our dispute with The Taliban and their protection of Al Qaeda warranted a response, the continued nation building exercises hardly garner the same justifications. Had Iraq indeed proven to be a source of weapons, our involvement there would have had some substance, particularly in light of the goals of entities such as Al Qaeda. However, using the spread of democracy and the freeing of a nation is hardly the same as claiming defense. As each American who dies in these conflicts earns the remembrance designated for this day, we who remain must make a better effort to ensure that future sacrifices are made only in the name of defending the liberty to which we so tenuously cling.

Another Case of Do As I Say

It's not as though I need to work hard to find examples of government abuse. Case in point, Congress's reluctance to admit that access granted by virtue of their position does not constitute the same sort of insider knowledge that is afforded board members or executives of the same companies about which that knowledge pertains:
Congress Refuses to Outlaw Insider Trading For Lawmakers.

While each of us would argue that we would not succumb to the elixir of influence and power, we are equally vulnerable to the dictates of human nature. This is why it is so important that the limitations prescribed by the Constitution are adhered to. Despite (or perhaps due to) their position, members of Congress should have no more access to sensitive information than should the average person. Yet they not only have such access, they also have the ability to make that access legal. Had this concerned an evil executive or a greedy industrialist, there would be no question about this fact.

Actually, the idea of insider trading should be revisited. Instead of prohibiting this activity, there should be public access to the actions of those intimately involved in the workings of a company. In this way, any benefit of insider trading would be eliminated and the activities of those in a position to know would do what they should: benefit all investors.

Get out yer galoshes

I feel I have to ask the question: does anyone really pay attention to hurricane forecasts? The brain trust at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has predicted as many as 14 hurricanes for the coming season. Not that I need to dig up examples of shoddy government work, but when was the last time we had even ten actual hurricanes in a given year?

Meteorology is the only profession where you can be wrong a majority of the time and still keep your job. This being said, what makes us think that the same people who are unable to predict tomorrow's weather can come close to predicting storms as much as five months out?

Before I assume that most people are smart enough to know how ridiculous these predictions are, I guess I should pause. Most people think that the federal government has money, that politicians are acting in our best interest, and that those in power are immune to it's lure. On second thought, maybe I'm one of the few who scoffs at the NOAA.

Tanstaafl.

Double plus ungood

There has lately been added to the lexicon a phrase which defies justification: “too big to fail”. The claim is that there exist companies whose impact is so broad and thoroughly integrated into the fabric of our economy that failure of such a magnitude would be unsustainable. The argument is no less specious than those which defend government itself. Not that I am an anarchist by nature, but I do think that government is overrated and, were ours to collapse, people would find a way to survive without it.

As for these companies that supposedly must be saved I say: follow the money. Sure the politicians will tell us that the loss of jobs, the collapse of financial markets and the gap in services will be too great, but what they mean by these things are the loss of government jobs, the collapse of financial support for their next campaign and the gap of services they will be unable to parade before the electorate. Creating the illusion that certain companies are so critical that government intervention is necessary to keep them afloat is akin to claiming that the collapse of McDonald’s will bring starvation.

While many people would be suffering had GM gone into bankruptcy protection, those people would be the unionists forced to renegotiate contracts that would make GM more competitive rather than the taxpayers who have yet to gain a dime from being forced into an unneeded rescue. The bailout of companies like AIG speaks more to the origin of political fund raising than it does to the need to persist financial institutions which practice flawed policies. Compounding these actions is the fact that it is the self-same elected officials who, having passed ill-conceived legislation, created many of the risk pitfalls into which these companies fell.

Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, creating a culture in which companies believe that they will be saved from demise should they fail means creating one where the natural influence of risk is removed and decisions are made with less regard for their downside. The government already enjoys such a cushion from failure and now, thanks to the misguided actions of our politicians, so does big business.

Leon's Getting Larger

Despite the best efforts of the Ministry of Information, clues to the future of our economy continue to leak out. As I’ve said all along, nothing this administration is doing will benefit our economy in the long term. Further evidence of this fact can be found here “Private pay shrinks to historic lows”.

While our government has the ability to print money, it does not earn it. The money spent by the government is taxpayer money acquired through force. As this article shows, that money is now increasingly spent on the system under which we are all subjected. Rather than implementing policies which build jobs where money is generated, the administration continues to build the infrastructure where money is drained.

While this ultimately leads us to the likelihood of a one-term presidency, it comes at a cost for which we will all continue to pay indefinitely. The growth in government has historically been remarkably resilient to abridgment. Compounding this is the fact that no one of integrity has risen to a position of power in a very long time, so the next incarnation of big brother is likely to bring more of the same.

Econ 101

While there is virtually no end to the examples of how government regularly proves both its ineptitude and redundancy, this particular instance warranted inclusion in the “you’re literally too stupid to insult” category: Raleigh to raise water rate?. Seems the city of Raleigh, North Carolina, is struggling to fill a fiscal gap left by a successful water conservation campaign. While governments regularly ignore the principles of economics, this case involves the complete subversion of the law of supply and demand. Taking a page directly out of the U.S. Postal Service playbook, Raleigh is looking to raise rates BECAUSE people are using less water.

Of course, the proponents of this change will argue that the increase will amount to a very small charge per household. We can all understand the need to keep government running, can’t we? And who couldn’t afford a few extra dollars a month to ensure that government has sufficient funds to persist? Of course, as is generally the case with government, the idea of cutting back on spending has yet to enter the discussion.

More Of The Same

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed a Wall Street "reform" bill aimed at curbing the greedy appetites of the nation's investment class, proving once again that the current batch of elected "representatives" know nothing about either the Constitution, for which they've sworn an oath, or economics.

Sure, their rhetoric will be all about the abuses of the investing elite and defense of the downtrodden citizen, but make no mistake about their actual intentions. Remember that they are all supported by many of the same people they claim to be "correcting" with this legislation. Remember also that demonizing the wealthy is modus operandi of the elected elite. We can be sure that the current bill is laden with pork, that it is riddled with loopholes, and that it provides covert support for those self-same people against which it is presumably targeted.

What this country needs are more people like Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey and lone gunman against government ineptitude. Christie has proven, in his short tenure, that he isn't concerned about getting reelected. He has made enemies on both sides of the aisle in a state suffering under the yoke of massive deficits, oppressive taxation and burdensome entitlement. While the yahoos in Washington carve up a pie that has less to do with reality each day, he is vetoing new tax proposals that will drive away investment in his state (N.J. Gov. Chris Christie swiftly vetoes 'millionaires tax,' property tax rebate bills). He routinely chastises both elected official and private citizen alike for questioning his unflinching efforts to reign in out-of-control spending and abuses of power. Had we several dozen of his ilk, we could return common sense and the Constitution to their rightful places within our government.

Don't Let Them Eat Cake

“Any time you want to institute a behavior change, policy changes are really quite effective,” said Lisako McKyer, a professor at Texas A&M in response to a decision by the San Antonio city manager to ban sugared sodas, among other things, in city facilities (San Antonio city manager wages war on sugar). Why stop there, I would ask. If behavior change is your goal, why allow anyone entering or utilizing these government facilities to be overweight? For that matter, we should start requiring all users of public facilities to perform some feat of strength before being granted access. After all, improved public health is our goal.

In fact, there’s no reason to stop there. Each person needing to wade through some bureaucratic red tape should first be required to prove a minimum number of community service hours. Depending on the complexity of the need, they should also be forced to perform some function specific to offsetting their carbon output. Better yet, require them to surrender their time in a state sanctioned charitable endeavor.

As long as we have the power of the government, and its implied force, there’s no limit to the number of behavior changes we can achieve.

No Freedom for You

The Supreme Court has once again proven its willingness to eschew constitutionality in order to advance social or political goals. The issue in question concerns the most unsavory members of our society: sex offenders. A synopsis can be found here: Supreme Court: Sex offenders can be held indefinitely.

Naturally, I do not support providing these particular criminals with additional opportunities to ply their specific perversions. If our legal system adequately dealt with these people, that would be sufficient. If prevailing wisdom holds that these people are beyond reform, then laws should be written to include either permanent incarceration or capital punishment in response to their acts.

However, what this ruling does is allow for an arbitrary application of "danger to society" to be applied at the discretion of some federal representative. Today, the danger comes from sex offenders who are "beyond reform". Tomorrow, the litmus test will include those who will be repeat offenders of other crimes (i.e. 90% of current prison populations). Next week, the danger will be found in those who refuse to accept the "established science" that man is the sole cause of climate change or it will include those who have stubbornly chosen to believe in the absence of a higher power, depending of course on the dictates of those in power at the time.

As the fifth amendment clearly states:

"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

By electing to place in the hands of bureaucrats and functionaries, independent of due process, the ability to extend incarceration indefinitely, the court has again decided to ignore the very document on which our system was built, a document to which each of these justices has sworn an oath to uphold.

Ignorance is Strength

It comes as no surprise that the current incarnation of big brother, having ridden the wave of technology into the White House, is now descrying the evils of those same media and the information they provide: Obama bemoans 'diversions' of IPod, Xbox era.

When I heard the line "information becomes a distraction" I could think only of the title of this post which, of course, shares the same origin with the term "thought criminal". To be fair, Mr. Obama's quote is partly an attack on entertainment diversions of the Xbox and PlayStation variety:

"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.


"With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations, -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said.

Had he limited his comments to entertainment, he might have had a valid point. Instead, he pointed out that we are bombarded with content that is often not true. Of course, being a man of unquestioned integrity and considerable intellect, he would be happy to perform his big brotherly duties by shielding us from those things which he believes not to be true. He proves once again that the First Amendment to the Constitution was written for a specific reason: to ensure our ability to speak out against those who would exceed their constitutional mandate. What's next on his hit parade, "Freedom is slavery"?

Slice the Pie

When the rich get richer, the poor must get poorer, right? Well, as with many of the assertions of the sound bite era, this is simply not true. It is, instead, an oversimplified summarization of economics used to push an agenda. The argument can be generally described as a zero sum gain view of economics where a finite amount of wealth exists and the only means for one group within the system to increase their wealth is to somehow take it from others. It is the basis on which much of the social engineering arguments are built. Wealth cannot be created, they’d have us believe. Instead, it can only be displaced from somewhere else. So, in order to bring fairness to all, money from the wealthy must be taken and distributed to the poor.

In fact, wealth is created every day. In simple terms, every time someone invents something new, they’ve created wealth. If we consider the iPod (or any such MP3 device) we can see how this works. Before the iPod, there were any number of gadgets used to carry music around. These included both tape and compact disc devices specially designed to increase convenience. The iPod supplanted each of these devices by bringing a smaller, more stable format to the industry.

On the surface, this would seem to have proven the position of the zero sum gain camp: iPod stole market share from other products, thereby shifting wealth from one party to another. However, what iPod also did was enable other media industries. For example, the new generation of devices carried ever greater volume of music, both helping the environment by lessening the need for compact discs and increasing the choice of the user. Additionally, a burgeoning medium, podcasts, was given a new, more convenient vehicle by which to spread. On top of these came the ability to add audio books and video, again increasing both availability and convenience. So the iPod increased the number of products available to consumers, thereby increasing wealth potential. Yet none of this was done at the expense of the poor.

The Baby With the Bath Water

Yesterday, Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut, proposed legislation that would remove a citizen's rights based on their affiliation with, or participation in, alleged terrorist acts. While this is clearly a political move driven by the past week's activities in Times Square, it is no less a shining example of the steady, if sometimes subtle, erosion of rights to which we should be accustomed.

The fact that I considered voting for the dark lord, Al Gore, solely based on his selection of Lieberman as a running mate aside, I must say that few proposals have been more glaring assaults on our civil liberties than was this. Lieberman proves that even "moderates" are susceptible to the lure of power and the elixir of public whim (note: quotes should surround all things associated with Washington, not just descriptions of Lieberman's supposed political positions). Fortunately for us, even those on the far left see this suggestion for what it is: both unconstitutional and dangerous to the basic idea of individual rights.

Following 9/11, I read of the Philippines passing legislation similarly worded to this. At the time, all I could think of was the malleability of words. What is constructive criticism today is terrorism tomorrow. No, we do not want terrorists freely carrying out their violent agenda in this country. Nor do we want politicians and bureaucrats exercising the degree to which terrorism can be defined. I would ask Mr. Lieberman to consider his proposed legislation a terrorist act against the constitution, but I'm afraid he proved his redundancy long ago and the message would be lost on him.

The Cost of Citizenship

Primaries will be held in North Carolina tomorrow to select the nominees for November's mid-term elections. As is usually the case, these primaries will likely involve limited participation by the voting public. Similarly common is the populist mantra which reappears around these events insisting that those who fail to vote have no right to complain about the situation.

It is with this last point that I take issue. While there is no doubt that people who fail to vote are less justified in vocalizing their displeasure with the outcome, their right to complain is in no way impacted by their lack of participation. While we as citizens have prescribed rights protected by the constitution, there are no limits to those rights based on our willingness, or lack thereof, to vote.

Of course, many might think I'm overreacting based on idle chatter. Perhaps I am, but I see ample instances of populist rhetoric growing teeth. This issue in particular has had a history of debate, such as is currently occurring in Colorado among other places. What we tend to forget is that rights are not requirements. While we might tire of non-voters complaints, their right to vote, much like their right to free speech, implicitly includes their right not to vote.

Behind the Plow

I recently listened to a Cato podcast detailing the insanity that is Cap and Trade. Some of you have heard of this, the latest attempt by the left to modify our habits in order to address the well-disputed issue of man-made global warming.

Whether you believe that global warming is man made or not, you must avail yourself of the lunacy contained in this bill. The legislation I speak of can be found here: H.R. 2454. As you'll find in the section 703 ("REDUCTION TARGETS FOR SPECIFIED SOURCES"), the following goals have been outlined by our elected officials:

(a) In General- The regulations issued under section 721 shall cap and reduce annually the greenhouse gas emissions of capped sources each calendar year beginning in 2012 such that--

(1) in 2012, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from capped sources does not exceed 97 percent of the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from such sources in 2005;
(2) in 2020, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from capped sources does not exceed 83 percent of the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from such sources in 2005;
(3) in 2030, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from capped sources does not exceed 58 percent of the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from such sources in 2005; and
(4) in 2050, the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from capped sources does not exceed 17 percent of the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions from such sources in 2005.

In case you're wondering, 17% of emissions in 2005 generally equates to emissions from our forebears living prior to the start of the previous century. The brain trust previously known as the House of Representatives decided upon, and passed (by seven votes), a bill that proposes to reduce the emissions of the average American to levels not seen since the 1800's. Even those who believe that climate change is caused by man are unlikely to expect this or any country to return to an agrarian society.

Perhaps I should give our elected sycophants a modicum of credit. It's entirely possible that they believe that innovation will bring about such vast improvements in fuel economy and reduced consumption that we can maintain a lifestyle resembling that of the current century without the matching carbon output. Of course, if this were their intention or belief, why is it that everything they've done to date, including this legislation, has carried business and innovation stifling taxation and burdensome regulation? I suppose it's because they chose to prove, once again, that they don't have a clue how to enact any meaningful legislation without further expanding their power base.

Tanstaafl

Entitlement Lost

I had the misfortune this morning of watching a cable network where I was treated with indignation concerning people stranded by the Icelandic volcano who had to return to exorbitant parking fees. I realize that all bankers and big executives are exploitive and inhumane, at least according to conventional wisdom, but now the robber barons of public parking have been exposed for their greed and avarice as well. These thousands of travelers were forced to remain in Europe well beyond their planned departure, saddled with the costs of lodging and food associated with that delay, and subjected to the mental anguish of being separated from home and loved ones only to have to return to a bill for maintaining their transportation in a secure location. Does insensitivity know no bounds?

Of course, this is simply another of the many attempts to besmirch industry in defense of the consumer. What the announcers failed to mention was that these people had vehicles occupying spaces that might otherwise have been occupied by other vehicles. Should we assume that these spaces themselves should have been free of charge, even to people not impacted by the eruption, or is our humanity limited to those instances where the media can fain moral outrage? Perhaps, like health insurance, public parking should be a right extended to all citizens.

Like health care, the question would remain as to the source of the money to create or maintain parking structures. Right now that money comes from the willing in exchange for the service provided. However, the current system callously allows for the cost of misfortune to be passed on to those directly impacted by their circumstances. If parking is similarly a right, then the taxpayer should be footing the bill to protect the less fortunate from being subjected to such anguish. This logic can reasonably apply to any of the as-yet unidentified rights guaranteed by citizenship.

The Battle Rages On

We as a nation remain embroiled in two conflicts, one in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan. Despite having a commander in chief who professes to oppose war, neither conflict shows much sign of soon ending.

Each of these is different in many respects. Afghanistan, for example, was started as a direct response to Taliban protection and sponsorship of Al Qaeda, a group that had perpetrated attacks on American citizens in both this and other countries. While the initial operation was relatively swift, the engagement has been complex and extended. Afghanistan is once again earning the title "Graveyard of Empires".

Iraq, on the other hand, was started as an extension of the Afghan conflict. The initial rationale was that Saddam Hussein had pursued and developed weapons that posed a threat to the U.S. and its allies. However, as the buildup to war proceeded, the rhetoric changed. Not only were Americans to disarm both a direct threat and a potential arms dealer to sundry terrorist outfits, we were to both liberate and bring democracy to an oppressed people in the process. It is on these latter points that the argument broke down.

The United States has had a long, if sometimes reluctant history of being the world's police. We have involved ourselves in many humanitarian, political and military actions targeting injustice. However, in the case of Iraq, we took this several steps forward. The rationale was that bringing democracy to Iraq meant stability for that part of the world. While such an assertion might be correct, it was not the responsibility or right of the U.S. to attempt such a thing. The action, absent any legitimate threat of weapons stockpiles or development, was illegitimate at best despite its moral claim.

Yet we remain in each of these conflicts. I would assert that the reason for this is no different than the reason for starting them in the first place. After 9/11, America had an obvious enemy against which our leaders could rally the masses. The wars themselves then became extensions of that enemy, regardless how far removed from the initial attacks they are. In a way, they represent East Asia or, alternatively, Eurasia. These are part and parcel of the machinations of global power where a common enemy maintains centralized power. While Bush had the heat of fresh attack to spark the conflicts and was forced to deal with waning political support in the media, Obama has the luxury of maintaining each of these conflicts, with the support of the media, until they serve a political purpose. It's time we removed the potential for any president to again claim moral high ground simply because he or she has instigated or perpetuated aggression.

Wisdom In The Way

While running today, I had the good fortune of listening to an audio book recording of Stephen Mitchell reading from his translation of the Tao Te Ching. I've read his version several times, but having it on audio made it possible to refresh my memory during a monotonous six miles.

One chapter in particular, number 57, struck me as apropos for our current political dilemma:

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Wise words spoken over two thousand years ago, yet forgotten or ignored on a regular basis.

Spin Cycle

There is that overt, institutionalized form of newspeak known more commonly as political correctness. Then there is the other form of newspeak better known as spin. The minuscule difference between the two is the nature of their delivery.

Political correctness is built around the belief that society can be manipulated. While the stated goal (i.e. a more enlightened and empathetic populous) might be fueled by good intentions, the intrusion into our lives is nothing short of sinister. Just as Orwell predicted, the ultimate aim of this modern newspeak is to rid the world of negative thoughts. While I'm not advocating negative thought, I am also not a proponent of, nor a believer in, the manipulation of societies. Such a power, regardless how well intentioned, is just as prone to abuse as is the most lethal of weapons and potentially far more dangerous. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the affects of such efforts can be short lived at best due to the fact that such programs cannot ultimately change human nature.

As for the second form of newspeak, it is perhaps less sinister because it is not limited by a particular ideology. In fact, there are examples of this art being exercised on the same populous to sell the same product from opposite sides of the political spectrum (e.g. the Justice nee Patriot act). This form of newspeak convinces us to support things like "fairness", "progressivism" and "life", all things which, separated from their contexts, are easily supported.

The "fairness" doctrine proposes to force radio and television outlets to provide equal time to opposing political and social opinions. Who wouldn't support fairness, particularly when it comes to politics? However, who is to determine what is fair? Is the measurement of audience size meant to be included in the comparison, or is the measure meant to include only time? Are we to assume that one political view point gets less time because it occupies times of higher viewer/listener-ship? And who is to objectively measure on which side a given viewpoint should be counted? Were a libertarian to be speaking, should he be counted as liberal when advocating legalization of drugs but conservative when touting the need for smaller government, or should he be simply silenced for failing to be easily categorized?

Progressivism is a similarly misleading term. Again, who would be opposed to progress? But this is simply a label placed over the prior term "liberal", meant to convince us that the intentions of the political left are positive and progressive. Similar to the other form of newspeak, progressivism proposes to force the human race to advance toward a higher form despite human nature.

Even the seemingly innocuous term "life" has been abused for the advancement of a cause. Those opposed to the premature termination of pregnancy inform us that they are pro-life. Well, who isn't? I don't know anyone who doesn't want to be alive, despite what life has often thrown their way. Of course, the term is meant to imply that any proponent of abortion is anti-life. Somehow the term anti-choice didn't stick to these people.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that such marketing of causes is soon to end. However, I would hope that more people would become aware of the intent when signing onto such causes. People will forever be mislead by the words being used as long as they permit themselves to be.

A return to D.C.

Yes, I did manage to make it up to D.C. for the tea party rallies held on the 15th. No, it wasn't as big as I had hoped. It was what I should by now expect: largely a group of conservatives flying the banner of smaller government and less taxes while insisting on the support of conservative versions of big government. There was even a speaker who advocated the populist position of forcing big company executives to fork over money to pay for social programs. At least that's what little I could glean from his meandering speech and failed rallying cry.

I suppose the one thing I did learn from this excursion is that I have been, and remain, an isolated voice in the sea of the disenfranchised. While my "Libertarian Thought Criminal" t-shirt drew several complements, the vast majority of the people were there to push for a return to the burdensome social agenda of the right. This is not likely something they'd admit to, but my anecdotal observations lead me to that sole conclusion.

I had a woman speak to me about how individual rights are granted by god, not by the government. I agreed with her that the government does not grant rights to the individual that aren't already possessed by that individual by virtue of their inclusion in this human race. However, informing her that I did not belong to the club known as Christians, I found our conversation strained and shortened from that point forward. It appears that even common ground doesn't provide enough purchase to maintain civil discourse, at least to some.

The most humorous event occurred when some counter-protesters arrived with signs thanking our president for providing 95% of tax payers with a tax cut. At first I thought this to be an example of the degree to which our government schools are failing us. However, it turns out that Mr. Obama himself had made this claim. I must admit that I marvel at our president's considerable cheek. His distortions, exaggerations and lies continue to outpace the lengthening of his nose. Even if he were referring to tax credits, which are in fact a delay in tax payment rather than a cut, he certainly hasn't provided this "benefit" to 95% of the people. He may have bought into the Orwellian idea that "he who controls the past controls the future," but he doesn't yet maintain absolute control over the information at the disposal of the people.

We have always been at war with ecocide...

The latest in Orwellian legislative activity, albeit in the world community.

"Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute 'climate deniers' who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change."

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

Tanstaafl

Between a rock and a hard place

I received a notice from the Libertarian Party yesterday that Neal Boortz has been dropped as a speaker at this year’s convention. Having never been a member of the party, nor a participant in such activities, I’m not sure how often something like this happens. I do know that Mr. Boortz is likely the most visible libertarian in this country, if not the world. I have listened to his radio talk show for several years and, while I don’t agree with him on all things, I find him to be generally reasonable and straightforward.

The rift, it appears, is due to the fact that Mr. Boortz has decided not to condone third party activity during the coming election. While it would seem to fly in the face of his own interests, particularly where they relate to the advancement of libertarianism, his decision is not one with which he alone wrestles. After the last election, I promised myself that I would never again vote for a democrat or republican. I, like most others, see the choice perpetually to be between two evils.

This being said, I did inform my current “representative”, David Price, that his vote on Cap and Trade had forever lost my support for any future office he sought. I had voted for the man since the late eighties, believing him to be a fairly reasonable democrat, and only recently paid closer attention to his actual voting record. I further informed him that when he voted for the health care power grab, he inspired me to do something that I had never done before: to actively support whatever opposition could be mounted to his continued public “service”, be they libertarian or otherwise.

Like Mr. Boortz, I find myself unwilling to accept the persistence of the current cast of buffoons, believing instead that the only hope for the continued survival of our republic is to swing congress back to the right, at least until we can awaken more people to their own as yet undiscovered affinity to libertarianism. In the case of Mr. Price, I’ve been fortunate to have found a republican who, at least on the surface, doesn’t appear to be driven by the need to force his moral code on the rest of us. Had there been a libertarian running for that office, my decision would not have been as easy. As Mr. Boortz contends, third party candidates are more likely to siphon away support of the opposition rather than the incumbent. I believe that, in the coming election, defeat of the incumbency is more important than advancement of that which will ultimately bring freedom and prosperity back to this nation.

Shouting fire in a fire

Over this past weekend, I attended a few documentary screenings at the Full Frame Film Festival in Durham, N.C., the first of which was entitled “Shouting Fire”. As the film dealt with the topic of free speech, I was very interested to see its treatment of the subject. The film was made by Liz Garbus, the daughter of longtime free speech advocate Martin Garbus. I found the film to be a bit more liberal than I had hoped, particularly since, in my opinion, the assault on free speech comes from both sides of the political spectrum. If anything, I might concede that liberals tend to be stronger direct advocates of free speech than are conservatives, though their negative impact on this particular first amendment issue comes in more subtle ways such as through political correctness and advocacy of the “fairness doctrine”. In general, people are in support of free speech unless it runs counter to their own beliefs regardless of their political affiliation.

Following the presentation, the film maker and her father remained to answer questions. One of these came from someone obviously liberal, as was likely the makeup of the majority in the audience. His question concerned a segment of the film which dealt with an Arab woman who was publicly mistreated by the New York Post in order to advance a populist concern about her involvement in a public school. To paraphrase, he asked why it was wrong to abridge the freedom of speech of a media outlet run by a group of greedy individuals bent on pushing their agenda. My response would have been that such an abridgment would violate the constitution. Mr. Garbus’s response, instead, was to express concern that such an abridgment would likely lead to additional curtailments of speech, potentially leading to an impact on the freedoms of the individual. I suppose his approach provided more of a justification of the amendment rather than an obstacle to discussion. Perhaps there’s something to be learned from that.

Breast feeding: your patriotic duty

Several months back, the Ministry of Information (formerly the Main Stream Media), began running "news" articles about links between obesity and sugar in soda. More recently, pieces of "information" were subsequently released linking sugared soda to cancer. It is little surprise, therefore, that Big Brother would now be championing additional taxes on this insidious threat to our well being. Now that Big Brother has taken over the reigns of the health of his citizenry, what other causes might be on the horizon?

Well, look no further than breast feeding. Yes, the Ministry of Information has recently been stressing both the economic and health benefits of breast feeding. Will this amount to additional taxes on baby formula, or will we see Rita the Riveter stressing the patriotism of lactation? One can be sure that the creativity of our betters will be evident when the potential of this new revenue stream is fully realized.

Tanstaafl.

Super Humanus Vis

There was a time when I wrote an equally obscure blog entitled "Bulimic Rabbit Herders and The Men Who Love Them." This other vehicle was a means for me to voice my concerns about the myriad issues which, ironically, persist today. Finding fault with much of what I saw around me, I wondered if there were a way to improve upon the system under which we in the United States live. After much contemplation, I realized that we were an incredibly fortunate nation to have had the insightful fathers who founded our republic.

While these brilliant people were provided few examples of freedom in their time, they crafted a system which emphasized individual liberty without ignoring the often corrosive influence of human nature. The challenge presented to the founders was to establish a system under which a central government could operate without impinging on the rights of the citizens.

Considering the constitution as the most basic tool of this system, we witness a document which establishes a refined bicameral legislative structure balanced by both judiciary and executive powers, wresting centralized power from each component to balance it within the whole. The genius of this system is it's emphasis on limitations. Knowing that their system must inherently be populated and maintained by humans, the founders hoped these restrictions would stifle the influence of human nature.

For it is our nature, as with all things, to seek the path of least resistance. Our species, while possessing intellectual potential never seen before on this planet, is no less tied to its base instincts than any other creature that lives and breeds. We are lured and intoxicated by power for it is through power that we find security. Through security we find the path of least resistance. The founders, understanding this, ensured that this drive for power was limited by legal mechanisms established in the constitution.

Tanstaafl.

To We or Not To We

I recently heard a news analyst ask a question similar to the following: "What if Obama is a socialist? Is that illegal?" The answer, of course, is no, it's not illegal. Mr. Obama is protected by the same constitution that protects us all and, as a result, is just as free to exhibit his ignorance as the rest of us. The fact that he would circumvent that same document, even to the point of rendering it obsolete, still doesn't preclude him from being protected by it.

Of course, many of those foolish enough to vote for him might not like the fact that he's a socialist, particularly because he ran his campaign as a moderate liberal. He certainly can't be accused of being the first politician to lie about his agenda in order to gain sufficient power to advance it. After all, had he run as a socialist, there's no doubt he would not have been elected to his current office.

While he is free to say and/or believe what he chooses, his ideology would preclude the remainder of us from that same freedom. Socialism requires the individual to subvert personal gain for the betterment of the whole. In short, the people subjected to a socialist regime are forced, against their will if necessary, to provide the fruits of their labor for the benefit of others. Another word for this is slavery. Now, last I recall, THAT is illegal.

Please allow us our daily bread

Yesterday, our socialist in chief made a very telling statement during a rambling response to an assertion that Americans are "over-taxed". At one point, the community organizer informed us, the people by whom he is employed, that "we have been, up until last week, the only advanced country that allows 50 million of its citizens to not have any health insurance." Of course, he was referring to the long-disputed uninsured number and was implying that we as a nation failed these underprivileged by allowing them to fall through the cracks.

However, the word "allows" does more than imply something else this president believes: that the government of the United States cedes rights to the citizens of this country rather than the other way around. In my twenties, I didn't maintain health insurance because I saw no need to do so. Now the right to make that choice has been taken away through the unconstitutional "mandate" which forces all citizens to maintain health insurance. Not only does this require the citizens of this country to purchase something as a requisite of citizenry, it places specific limitations on what is acceptable insurance. Somehow, unalienable rights are now something to which our elected officials have some veto power.

This is not a surprise, at least not to those of us who have been paying attention. Nor is it solely an affliction of the left, as evidenced by the "Patriot Act" encroachments forced through by the previous administration. Yes, fascism creeps in from all sides. The question is, how long will we tolerate this misconception by our elected representation. It is only when we the people stand up and correct such assertions and abuses of power that we will bring back the nation of Jefferson where freedom was valued above all.

The Broken Window Fallacy

Nothing of my own creation, though it bears repeating over and over again. John Stossel does a good job with that here:

John Stossel's Broken Window Fallacy

Who would have thought that someone in the main stream media had a brain?

Let's check on granny...

...when this thing actually starts choking us.

Yes, the person currently playing the role of big brother yesterday claimed that no grandmothers were harmed in the making of his health care abortion. What he didn't mention (nor would he) is that the overtly negative impacts of his scheme won't take affect until after he has had an opportunity to be reelected.

I first believed that perpetuating his regime was the only intention behind the plot design. However, it is merely a byproduct of the financial conundrum under which we will be suffocated. In order to pay for the billions of dollars of overhead required to administer the yoke, the plot was designed to amass a pool of money from which it could be launched. Additionally, and most importantly, the provisions of the scheme designed to dismantle the private health insurance industry will take time to fully mature. At that point, the only "option" will be to create a public one.

One thing that works against this particular big brother is his under-appreciation for the more important issue on the mind of the people: the economy. While his minions prepare the piles of red tape that will smother us, his tax collectors begin the task of amassing the necessary funds. This, in an economy with near record unemployment, will do little to soften the hearts of the great unwashed as they see further erosion of employment opportunities.

What our oppressor in chief is counting on is a short memory. He believes that telling sufficient lies between now and November will cushion the blow of the first phase of his plan. Perhaps it will. After all, people are fools. He may be myopic enough to believe that people of this country will become accustomed to living off the government dole, but he'll find that even fools have pride.

Let them eat cake

There has been a recent increase in the number of news articles and big brother actions directed at executive pay. Is this merely another convenient enemy used to galvanize the lesser privileged behind a government gone mad with power? Perhaps, though I'd say it's more likely another tactic in the orchestrated effort to lower the quality of life for all of us.

Of course, the banner under which these efforts fly is one of helping the poor and middle class while bringing about fairness in business. The argument is that these people amass far more than they are entitled, stealing from those of us truly worthy of these riches. It's an easy case to make if we assume that these executives operate in a vacuum, that they dictate their own compensation, and that they bring no more value for their efforts than does the average pencil pusher.

The fact of the matter is that many of the companies where these cases are being made gross hundreds of millions of dollars each year. Each of these companies has guiding boards who determine how best to improve company performance. None of these boards behave in a way counter to the overall objectives of the company, including where compensation is concerned. If they consider a compensation package to be in excess of a given executive's performance, they alter it accordingly. If they find that the performance of an individual exceeds expectations, they will tend to increase the level of compensation.

However, unlike the executive, the average employee of a company isn't even compensated based on performance. This is due in part to the nearly impossible task of quantifying how the average employee's performance directly relates to a company's overall success. As a result, most companies provide cost of living increases rather than get tangled in the legal minefield of performance increases, except where sales can be directly attributed. For the executive, the overall performance of the company is a more direct reflection of their ability to manage and therefore a better barometer of their performance. Those most closely aligned to the expectations of performance, such as the company's board, are best equipped to determine the level of compensation.

Of course, all of this sidesteps the reason that politicians claim themselves better positioned to dictate executive pay: they believe that rallying the masses against the evil profiteers will garner more votes and, therefore, more power. What they fail to inform their hapless followers is that impacting compensation has the effect of diminishing a company's effectiveness which, in turn, impacts its ability to hire. Of course, this allows the politician to demonize business further, perpetuating their own political power.

Where there's smoke...

I considered myself, at least for a short time, a tea party activist. This is largely because my very first overtly political act was to attend an anti-tax rally in the spring of 2009. Since then I've attended one organized tea party event as well as protested, with a loosely organized band of activists, the passage of the health care reform abortion.

I say that this was for a short time mostly because I don't join any group or cause as a rule. I've been a Libertarian for nearly thirty years yet have never been a member of the Libertarian party. It's just not in my nature to join things. I couldn't tell you if my four year stint in the Marine Corps was merely anomaly or catalyst for this aversion.

From what I can tell, this is the case for most of the early participants in the tea party movement. These were people awakening to political activism because they had simply had enough of the lies and drunken spending sprees that are a staple of Washington politics. These were libertarians, independents and moderates who felt that the eight years spend fest of "compassionate conservatism" under Bush the younger, combined with the thinly veiled socialism of the current administration, warranted a call to action. While this remains the case in general, the movement has steadily been co-opted by disaffected conservatives who share, at least in part, the disgust of these other political neophytes.

While my acceptance of the movement is tepid at best, specifically because of the moralizing and selective application of liberty championed by some of the speakers at these rallies, my support of the movement grows with each attempt by the administration and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, to demonize its participants. Clearly the movement is having an affect on directing the discussion. If this were not the case, we wouldn't have the ministry of truth and other agents of big brother so aggressively attempting to silence this growing voice of the people.

This has never happened before

Recently, while listening to my iPod, I heard a song from an early nineties band called Consolidated that made me think. The band was a collection of brazenly socialist vegetarians who challenged their audience to question all aspects of society. While I always admired their ability to question and challenge, I certainly found little to agree with in their political viewpoint.

The song that piqued my interest was called "Music Has No Meaning". This particular piece descried the corporate influence on the music industry. The song, like many of their works, incorporated audio clips from such sources as an MTV music award presentation and news analysis of the industry. In short, their argument was that corporate culture had transformed music into a commodity that had little social, artistic or historical value. While I don't completely disagree with this, I did find its analysis to falter like most do when challenging the status quo.

We too often fall into the trap of romanticizing the past when arguing our point. Much like this song, we have a tendency to assert that present conditions are directly attributable to some recent evil. Of course, the benefit of this is having a concrete enemy behind which to rally our opposition. However, I find little value in attempting to transform things which, in essence, are elements of human nature. History's most famous artists are notorious for dying destitute, yet this is somehow new to the music industry. As Paul Fussell once said: "...prole America is about sweet." Of course, while he seemed surprised by this, the fact is that the masses throughout history have been about the most basic fluff and diversion. Music, art and entertainment in general has always been most successful when it caters to the masses in very superficial and titillating terms. It is human nature to seek out the path of least resistance and no where is this more evident than in the masses.

Politically, this analytical shortcoming most often manifests itself in the conservative pining for the good old days. I'm sure the pedophiles and child abusers of the past would also like us to return to a time when their activities where discussed in mere hushed tones. Conversely, and just as inept, is the liberal belief that creating an identifiable current evil, most recently the younger Bush, will help us force humans to behave in ways completely contrary to their nature. Neither of these approaches holds any lasting potential. Only through accepting and understanding human nature do we have any hope of improving our lot socially or politically.

Return of the Neanderthal

I count myself among the millions of Americans who opposed the health care "reform" bill from inception to passage and remain an ardent supporter of the forces which would repeal this abomination. However, I do not now, nor will I ever, condone violence against the perpetrators of this criminal legislation.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that violence has been done against liberty in the name of "reform". However, that is violence against an ideal and does not warrant physical aggression as a response. In fact, the threats and vandalism thus far targeting those involved in passing this legislation have, in fact, harmed the campaign of those of us who recognize that this bill is an assault on freedom.

Such is the nature of political activism. Ignorance knows no political boundaries and those ill equipped to reason out the consequences of their actions in advance will be doomed to commit them to the detriment of their crusade. Despite the fact that their actions reflect poorly on my cause, I remain certain that its goal is just: returning the constitution to its appropriate place at the helm of our republic.

Gray matters

I find it troubling that we as a society so easily fall into the trap of declaring issues in absolute terms. For example, and drawing again on my recent excursion to D.C., I kept thinking to myself that I support immigration reform, just not reform identical to that being called for in the rallies on the lawn. There are similar questions of choice specific to terminating pregnancy and the recognition of same-sex couples.

I am pro-choice. I don't mean that in the liberal "I believe in the rights of the individual except when it comes to owning property or guns" sense. Nor do I mean it in the conservative "I believe in the rights of the individual except when they want to take drugs or have abortions" sense. I mean it in the absolute sense. This being said, one of my many oppositions to the health care abortion passed this week was the issue of taxpayer funded pregnancy termination. Yes, people should have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so desire. No, they should not have the ability to demand that someone else pay for it.

However, many on the left tried to make this a black and white issue of choice. Abortions, like health care in general, are not a right. Nor are they things for which one person can steal from another to pay for the activity of a third. I was disappointed that the final vote hinged on abortion, not because it rightly pointed out the immoral act of taking tax payer money to fund this activity, but because it served to fuel those who wish to force their ethical code on the rest of us by banning abortion.

Gay marriage is similarly gray to me. Marriage is a religious ritual and, as such, is protected from federal intervention by the first amendment. I'm not a Christian, nor do I espouse any beliefs adhered by the world's organized religious groups, but I do recognize the need to protect religious activity from government control.

At the same time, I believe that two people wishing to join together through a social contract should be recognized equal to any other couple, regardless of their gender or sexual practices. The only way that I see this as possible, while enforcing the constitutional protection enjoyed by religion, is to separate the religious act from the social contract. This is not to say that we should simply allow for civil unions as well as marriage, but we should make all such contracts into civil unions and leave the marriage act as a separate religious rite void of social or legal implications. Then, each union can be granted the same recognition without violating the constitution.

Concerning rights and privileges

This morning I heard a news article concerning the health care piracy bill signed into law today by the president. The commentator indicated that the question hinged on whether a person thought that health care was a right or a privilege. It occurred to me that those who pushed this down our throats don't consider it a right at all. Instead they consider it a responsibility. I base this assumption on the fact that they seem bent on forcing us to maintain insurance. If it were a right, then there would be no such requirement.

Of course, I understand why they created the requirement: their scheme breaks down if only a portion of the population participate. So, as is the case with government, they must force us to participate in order to take our money to give it to someone else. These people appear to believe that forcibly taking the fruits of one person's labor and giving it to another, without their permission, is a moral act. I, however, understand this to be a rough definition of slavery.

Recollections of my early forays into political activism

My recent trip to our nation's capital was not without it's reassurances that ignorance and stupidity remain among our nation's great pastimes. Having only recently begun attending anything remotely political, the experience has served to reinforce my understanding that few people truly grasp what freedom means.

As with the prior events, this spectacle was populated with many people touting their religious zeal, descrying the exercise of personal freedom vis-a-vis the choice to prematurely end pregnancy, and speaking out about their unique ownership of citizenship as it relates to immigration. One prime example of all that is despicable about conservatives repeatedly insisted that Hispanics, there to protest for immigration "reform", return to their home. The fact that they may have been born in this country seemed to escape her.

On the opposite side of the coin were those who, instructing us that we were ill-informed, sought every opportunity to silence our voices while screaming about first amendment rights when others attempted to respond in kind. I always marvel at how arrogant liberals are, insisting that only they are smart enough to understand what is necessary despite the obvious flaws in their "logic".

Why is it so difficult for people to see their own hypocrisy? Each side, liberal and conservative, claims the moral high ground of individual liberty while attempting to squelch the rights of those they oppose. Am I really one of the few who understands this?

I did spend an hour or so engaged in a great conversation with a fellow Marine Corps veteran who found that he and I agreed a great deal on what freedom meant, though he had never considered himself a libertarian. I suppose there is some hope for us yet.

As Goes Health Care

I begin this blog on a sad day for freedom in this country. Having just returned from our nation's capital, a place where I found a modest assembly of people at least moderately versed in the U.S. Constitution rallying against the attempted takeover of health care by our elected representation, I've come home to hear of the "momentous" beginning of socialized medicine in the land where liberty is thought to be an unalienable right.

While few I meet will argue that our health care system is not flawed, few people of reasoning can abide the atrocity that is the legislation passed on this day. The unconstitutional nature of the act aside, there is little hope of success of such an act. Nothing government does is efficient because government itself has no incentive to be so. Nothing the government does costs as little as the government claims it will because... well, I just answered that point. In fact, we have ample empirical evidence that such systems do not work, that they serve only to lower the quality and/or availability of care, and that they in fact harm the people they are presumed to aid: the poor. So starts my argument for repeal.

Constitutionality
A point which seems hardly worthy of debate. Health care itself is certainly not a stated right, nor can the declaration of "life" be twisted to apply to this without significant gerrymandering. Additionally, and most importantly, the constitution is explicit in the powers it grants to the federal government. Any such powers not granted are explicitly set aside for the states and/or the people. I plead the 10th on that point.

Feasibility
The system as proposed removes incentives for people to maintain insurance by removing the impact of "preexisting conditions". Those who see a financial incentive to pay the fine over the premium will take the sensible approach. Insurance providers will then have to increase premiums to address the shortfall, making even more people realize a financial incentive. The inevitable outcome of that are death spirals for each insurance provider until the only option is a government one. While the current scheme lacks a government "option", such activity will make it appear to be necessary to bring about that which the proponents have always desired: a single payer system administered by the government.

Ample examples of failed socialized medicine experiments aside, the ploy here attempts to imply feasibility of such a social program by delaying its implementation until taxation has built up a sufficient nest egg from which to launch. However, inevitably the cost of maintaining that single payer system begins to squeeze both availability (read rationing) and innovation while perpetually increasing the burden on tax payers. Eventually, the money runs out.

Perpetuation
While the stated cause is to help the impoverished, these are the people who will be forced to remain poor by the very plan that is meant to assist. How is this? Simple: subsidies. The proposal seeks to force all people to participate. When a person is incapable of paying the cost themselves, a subsidy is to be provided to assist them. When a person qualifies for government subsidies, they are trapped in a position where improving their station threatens the availability of those subsidies. For example, if a subsidy amounts to $12,000 dollars (i.e. $1,000 per month), as soon as this person begins to earn enough to no longer qualify for the subsidy, they take a $12,000 hit on their income. If they have advanced their personal income $24,000 in a single year, they net only half of the benefit, thereby removing the incentive to advance.

These are but a few of the several reasons to have defeated this legislation. There are ample methods for reasonably addressing the aforementioned flaws in the current system, none of which involve increasing government involvement:

Address tort reform
We are all aware of the impact that defensive medicine has made on the industry. This, coupled with outrageous malpractice rates make inexpensive health care merely a dream.

Increase competition
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines would mean... well... competition. Competition breeds lower costs and greater efficiencies. I just came up with that one all on my own.

Increase personal responsibility
People becoming directly aware of what health care costs will have the incentive to shop for better deals, to reconsider unnecessary procedures and to demand better alternatives.

Permit individual coverage
Sure it exists, but it's only after taxes. Individuals have an incentive to get insurance through corporations. If the federal government extended pre-tax payment to individuals, insurance would be accessible to many more people.

These are but a few of the options which, despite their viability, were ignored by the powers-that-be while crafting the current abomination. Instead we moved several steps further from freedom.