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.