Obama Continues Moving Toward Center

As more and more of the Obama administration is announced, the most striking feature is the centrism of his appointments. In fact, they are so centrist, there are already cries of protest from the left, and Karl Rove has offered tepid support. Though in one way such a move is somewhat surprising, it also underscores the lack of a knowledge base about President Elect Obama, from which predictions could be drawn.

For those of us who opposed Mr. Obama's candidacy, this is a welcome surprise. Though it is very early to make any judgements on what policy will actually be in the new administration, the early signs point away from a significant swing to the left, the outcome most feared by most who preferred Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama benefits from following Mr. Bush in many ways. Not the least of these is that by moving so far to the right and fake-right, Mr. Bush in effect enlarged the middle of the political spectrum. By moving into this space, Mr. Obama can protect himself from both a midterm challenge, which a President who has a party majority in both houses usually faces, and cement his lead with the moderate voters who gave him the presidency. Freed from ever facing a challenge from the left, he can virtually assure himself a second term, assuming a moderately successful first term, where he can move to the left if he so chooses. Whether he chooses to do so or not, he very well may have that option.

The Follies Of The New Prohibition

Once again, the new prohibition has shown how pointless it is. There are now reports of immune systems being wiped out by a cutting agent used to dilute cocaine. The entire modern justification of the war on drugs is to protect us from ourselves, because we can't be trusted to make choices for ourselves. However, this is counterproductive, because people will always continue to use drugs because they like them. Thus, instead of "suffering" a cocaine high, along with the repercussions of it, they essentially die, because they were forced to make a blind choice, not knowing what they were taking. Yes, it was their choice to take an unproven substance. However, the government had no right to deny their right to use cocaine. The foundation of modern government is to protect people from others infringing on their rights.

When the government goes beyond that basic principle, unforeseen ramifications occur. In this case, the effect of prohibition was worse than the likely effect of the banned action. The vast majority of drug deaths are due to the prohibition rather than the actual drug. Most overdoses occur because there is no way of knowing how much active ingredient is in a dose of drugs. If they were sold as any other consumer good, it would be as simple as reading the label. Yet the government does not trust you to use drugs safely, so it becomes a guessing game.

Once given a power, the tendency is for the government to abuse it. Because voters cowardly allowed the war on drugs to flourish, the government is applying the principle to other areas. Governments are increasingly regulating food, with trans fats being the first victims. All data so far points to trans fats being very bad. However, it should be a personal choice. The reason goes deeper than many realize.

Starting a few decades back, the government urged people to eat a grain based diet. For now, I'll leave aside the possibility this was pushed by grain producers with political sway. At the time, there was preliminary data to suggest a grain based diet was healthy. Today, we know that, depending on your body chemistry, this is not the case, and in fact, in many cases, those things which we were told to eat were borderline poison. The epidemic of obesity and diabetes today is caused in large part by the grain and starch based diets of Americans. By and large, it is not cause by the fat intake the government said caused it. At least those guidelines were voluntary. Imagine if they were put into law. This is yet another reason to not allow government to outgrow it's role.

Could the Mumbai Attacks Be Replicated In America?

As news of the terror attacks in Mumbai dominate the news, a critical question to ask is how similar attacks can be prevented. There are likely to be several schools of thought as to the best way to prevent attacks such as these, depending on the beliefs of those asked.

One school will insist that we need tighter security regulations and more law enforcement. While these may be helpful, they can only go so far. India has been at war with Muslim extremists much longer than the US, yet clearly was still vulnerable. Indeed, there were reports that the police station was the first target.

Another school will insist that this is the time for more gun control. This, of course, ignores the fact that those who are going to kill many people do not mind violating some government regulation. Banning guns will not have an effect on their availability to terrorists for several reasons. One, by banning them, their value will increase, along with the reward for trading in them. The prime example of this is illegal drugs. No one has any problem finding drugs if they want them, despite their illegality and the resources wasted on trying to reduce their supply. Second, guns are very easy to make. The technology for an machine gun is about 150 years old. Nothing that old is that hard to build. Guns can be made in any machine shop. They are routinely made covertly in prisons. To go back to the drug example, it is infinitely more difficult to make cocaine than a gun, yet anyone in America could get cocaine in a day if they tried hard.

Rather, the necessary solution is more guns, that is, to allow concealed carry by any and all sound minded citizens who do not have a criminal background. This is how Israel prevented shootings like this from occurring. They generally now only take place where Israeli citizens have been disarmed. This tactic has also been proven to prevent such tragedies in the US. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that most mass shootings in the US now take place at schools, which are "gun free zones". What they really are is free victim zones, where the law abiding cannot defend themselves. Until we extend the single most basic right, self-defense, to all citizens, we will always be subject to these types of attacks.

Obamanomics

As Mr. Obama starts his transition to the presidency, we start to see which campaign promises will be glossed over and which will be pursued. There are indications that he is at least attempting to govern somewhat from the middle. It appears he will go forward with his infrastructure rebuilding, which will act as a intermediate range stimulus, and also eventually boost the business community. Infrastructure spending is one of the less offensive forms of government spending, if done correctly. He also looks likely to appoint Mr. Volcker to head his economic advisory board. As I noted earlier, he is also open to at least delaying the tax increases he proposed for the top bracket.

If Mr. Obama is able to focus his party on center-left economic policy, and to minimize their unpopular social policies, such as gun control and wealth redistribution rhetoric, he will prove a powerful force, unstoppable in 2012. Mr. Obama is also smart enough to realize that if he wants his more radical agenda, he will need to postpone it until his second term, and that the key to getting a second term is to fix the economy without making too many people upset.

Obama Keeps Gates

As much as I criticize Mr. Obama, his decision to keep Sec. Gates on was a good one. With so much on the country's plate right now, it is wise to retain someone who can handle crisis #2 while the administration focuses on crises #1. Sec. Gates was fairly popular for someone in such a position, as has done a fairly good job, considering what he was working with. While I'm sure they will not agree on everything, hopefully they can find a common ground on which to work.

Taxes Vs. Deficits

It now appears that Mr. Obama will not move to raise taxes on the highest bracket under his initial legislation. I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I have strenuously opposed higher taxes for the top bracket. I do not believe in punishing success. If taxes are lowered on the lower brackets, the tax burden will still shift in ways that could become very important down the road, however, it will be the lesser of two evils. On the other hand, without some form of tax increase, the deficit will be out of control. There have already been estimates of $1 trillion dollar deficits under Mr. Obama. As the depth of the recession becomes clear, that may be optimistic, even with tax hikes. Without the additional revenue, all bets are off. Though there are all sorts of technical points and subtopics, generally speaking deficits are bad. Ironically, those who embraced deficits in the past have been the somewhat irrational far right, such as the neo-cons. Some who were essentially anarcho-capitalists and/or corporatist actually viewed deficit spending as a way of permanently crippling government.

More interestingly, this points to the possibility the Mr. Obama may in fact govern from the center, though in some cases that may be a worst of both worlds proposition, rather than a true centrist policy. This would have many implications for 2010, 2012 and beyond.

Children Need Play Time

Finally, a group of experts is saying we are harming our children by not allowing them enough time to play. In modern America way too much time is taken up in children's lives by school and other structured activities.

First, speaking with only my personal experience as a guide, much, if not most, of school time is a waste. I was homeschooled for one year. In that time, I jumped what I estimate to be at least 4-5 years of public school. I did what felt like 30-60 minutes of work a day. In my experience, most effort in public school is forcing children to obey rules. Much of the rest is make-work to take up time. Granted, I was somewhat adept at academics, but I was no savant.

Second, too many parents want to delegate their responsibility of raising their children to others, such as coaches, the schools, TV, and anyone else. This is what leads to young children having booked 14 hour days. It's not healthy. Children need time with books and open-to-interpretation toys in order to be healthy emotionally and mentally. In my personal opinion, over-exposing children to TV is borderline child abuse. My own parents did an excellent job of this, and that is one of the reasons all of their children are successes(well, some would argue about me).

I sincerely hope that this new evidence is not brushed aside by the establishment, and is instead embraced as the critical truth that it is. Playing to "what about the children" is standard justification for all kinds of issues. In this case, it really is about the children, not the transference of adults.

News Sampler

Here are a few articles which caught my eye:

Scientists now have enough DNA to study the Woolly Mammoth, as well as possibly clone one. Hopefully the techniques will allow us to still study species which have become extinct in the modern era, which has a huge potential upside.

It appears that insurance will soon start to cover maggot therapy. I really have no idea why this took so long, but it's always nice to see that insurance will cover something that isn't patented.

A teenage girl has lived 118 days without a heart. Our ability to extend human life is truly staggering.

A version of the science fiction deflector shields has been developed. Though so far it only works against a specific type of particle, it will be interesting to see where this technology eventually leads.

To the surprise of few, a study has found that banning fast food advertising would significantly reduce childhood obesity. While my belief in free speech and a free market preclude me from supporting such a ban, I can't say I'd lose a lot of sleep over one. More importantly, it is another reason to limit the amount of television watched by children to an absolute minimum.

IAF Chief: We Can Bomb Iran

The head of the IAF has said they are able to strike at Iran's nuclear program, if given the order by the political leadership. He emphasized that the decision was now solely political. I have speculated before that Israel may strike at Iran during the transition period of US politics. Political turmoil in Israel now may well preclude such a strike. However, it is still quite possible, especially if the Likud party makes gain.

Romney On Detroit

Mitt Romney wrote an editorial outlining how he would fix Detroit, and it's an interesting read. I was not a particular fan of Mr. Romney during the primaries, mostly due to his political flip-flopping. However, his business experience may well have been able carry him to the White House, had he been the nominee in the homestretch. It may have also hurt him, as CEO's were not held in high esteem at the same time. However, regardless of Mr. Romney's particular qualifications, political parties should be open to successful businessmen as candidates. As the office of the President is increasingly about managing the nation's economy, they will always have more experience than politicians in managing the bottom line. They are also more in tune with the challenges faced by businesses.

It is too early to know if Romney will run again in 2012. It will be interesting to see both whether he runs, and whether he is tapped as a VP candidate.

Daschle Pick Illustates Difficulty Integrating Change And Effectiveness

As the New York Times pointed out, the rumored pick of Tom Daschle, former majority leader in the senate and current unofficial lobbyist, shows the fine line the Obama administration is trying to walk by hiring experienced Washington insiders to execute the policy of "Change". Mr. Obama is pulling heavily from the Senate and the former Clinton administration to staff his administration. Some had hoped that Mr. Obama would appoint people with unconventional backgrounds to his cabinet, something that so far has shown no signs of occurring. There is also some conflict between Mr. Obama's strict restrictions on previous lobbying, and some of the people he would like to be in his government, something long predicted by insiders.

The core issue will revolve around how strong of a leader Mr. Obama will be. If he is willing to set the agenda, and define how his subordinates will carry it out, he may be able to carry out his idea of "Change" with a cabinet full of establishment types. However, if he wavers in exactly what he wants to do, or does not enforce his will strongly, the result will be typical establishment proposals, policies and results.

Pirate Update

Russia is now joining the fight against Somali pirates. Since they are sending warships and not nuclear subs(which they don't have a great record of safety with) they should be fairly effective. As I implied in an earlier post, I'm not sure why countries which don't fight wars often aren't jumping at the chance to get their troops some cheap experience. The US, while in possession of far and away the largest military in the world, has more combat experience than it wants. Russia has arguable the same amount of experience in it's military. One would think emerging powers, or countries that may face conflict would want at least some veterans with combat experience, something that cannot be taught. Indeed, this may play a role in why India was the first to sink a pirate ship recently.

Indian Navy Sinks Pirate Ship

The Indian navy stepped up to the plate and sank one of the pirate ships which have been operating with impunity off the coast of Somalia. I hope the other navies of the world take this as a challenge to not let themselves be surpassed by India, and that the competition wipes out this practice.

Good Riddance To A GOP Senator

It now appears that Senator Ted Stevens (R, AK) has lost his senate seat. Faithful readers know I slightly prefer the GOP to the Democratic party, and that I shudder at the thought of a Democratic super majority. However, Sen. Stevens was emblematic of the problems with the Republican party. He channeled billions and billions of pork to his home district. He, along with Sen. Byrd (D, WV), is the poster child for wasteful government spending. Not content with merely plundering the public treasury, he also openly took bribes, and was convicted of a felony in Federal court. The fact that the RNC didn't disavow him and sue to keep him from running as a Republican shows their political greed and cowardice. Fortunately, the voters finally had enough and stopped the madness. In this case, it was worth it to lose a senate seat over principle.

The Shores Of Tripoli Redux?

Apparently, despite trillions of dollars of global military spending over the past decade, no one can, or will, take on a couple of Somali pirates with AK's in bass boats. The US military whines that it can't do everything, despite the fact that this is the exact reason the Marine Corps was created. The European militarys/armed welfare groups, who rarely, if ever, fight anyone, won't act. The only ones up for a fight, are, believe it or not, the Saudis, who aside from also never fighting anyone, are widely considered to be one of the least effectual governments on earth. (Side note: when the Saudis referred to the pirates as "terrorists" the word lost it's last shred of meaning.)

Now, since they strike fear into the hearts of all the world's armies, you would think they're pretty fearsome. Nope, they seem to be kinda like slightly more heavily armed Bloods or Crips, but in boats. Well, then, they must be elusive. Well, at sea, yes, but we know where they live.

Well, if no military will take them on, what will save us from these pirates? Are we doomed to be at their mercy? Fortunately, there are some experts who have found some good techniques for dealing with them. Apparently, spraying them with a hose discourages them. Also, greasing the ladders on the sides of the ships keeps them from coming aboard. Nope, I'm not kidding. Apparently these are the tried and true solutions. It's too dangerous to send in the SEALs, we've got to stick to grease and hoses. Talk about $550 billion a year well spent, huh?

How Obama Got Elected

As I was glancing over my blogger feed, I noticed a new item from Copious Dissent, where he linked to a website for an upcoming film, entitled "How Obama Got Elected". There is an extended trailer of the film, where Obama voters are interviewed, and are just missing basic questions about the election. As I watched it, I kinda chuckled, figuring the producers did a good job of finding some uninformed voters. Then I went to the website, and scrolled down past the video, and saw that they actually commissioned a Zogby poll to confirm the tendencies. Just as in the video, the majority of Obama voters did not do very well answering the questions.

Of course, this is not to say only uninformed people voted for Mr. Obama, nor did all of the uniformed people vote for him. There are plenty of idiots who vote Republican, too. However, the larger issue of the uninformed voting has to be addressed, at some point. The founders never intended everyone to vote, and there was a reason for that.

Burn Baby Burn

As I read about the LA suburbs burning and Mr. Obama talking about the need to save Detroit, I was struck by a similarity between the two. Both groups put themselves in a situation where a reasonable person would have foreseen trouble, and are now astonished to find that they are, in fact, in trouble.

A reasonable person could have predicted that if you sold low-quality cars made by overpaid employees, paid out all of the profits as "compensation" of one form or another, mounded up debt, and refused to save or innovate, you will eventually go out of business.

A reasonable person could have predicted that if you build flammable homes in the middle of a forest with a hundred year history of wildfires, a tendency towards period of drought, and then watched as year after year there were fires, and saw that while the fires themselves were contained, the fuel for them continued to mound up, chances were very high your house would eventually burn.

The common link is the American cult of the victim. We have, as a culture, become a nation of whiners who always want to blame someone else for their problems, and worse, want someone else to fix them. Until we start to take responsibility for our problems, and separately and more importantly, fixing them, this nation will continue its descent.

Hillary As Sec. State?

There are rumors that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State. The parties emphasis that the talk are, at best, preliminary. However, one of the most interesting reactions I read was that of Dick Morris, a former Bill Clinton adviser. His reaction is interesting in two ways. One is that he thinks that Ms. Clinton would undermine Mr. Obama. The other interesting thing about his reaction is that he thinks that Mr. Obama will have to fight Congress to stay towards the center, and that Congress will be pulling far left. Mr. Morris certainly has experience in this area, and it will be interesting to see if time proves him right.

More On The Detroit Bailout(s)

The Senate is now debating a new $25 Billion bailout for Detroit. No, not the old $25 Billion that was already approved, but hasn't been implemented yet, a new $25 Billion. The only upside is that this bailout would have a provision for the government to benefit if Detroit makes some sort of miraculous recovery. However, this issue has always been that it is likely that the money will never be recovered due to bankruptcy. Detroit is so horribly run, the real surprise is that they are still in business at all.

However, with Mr. Obama deeply indebted to the unions for his victory, this may well be only the first of many bailouts for Detroit. The Big 3 are in such bad shape that each $25 Billion will buy them less than a year. That would mean another $50 Billion at least during the first Obama administration.

Numbers On Post-Obama Gun Binge

We now have numbers on the amount of increase in gun sales after Mr. Obama was elected. Gun sales soared a staggering 49%, a huge number for a economy in recession. From personal experience, I was at a gun show over the weekend, and many dealers, especially those who were selling semi-auto rifles, which are seen as likely to be banned under Mr. Obama, were selling unprecedented amounts of weapons. Many political observers doubt Mr. Obama will commit the political resources needed to enact much new gun control, especially after the devastating effect the last gun control measure had on the Democratic numbers in Congress. Mr. Obama is also hamstrung by the new Supreme Court decision declaring the second amendment has not, in fact, been somehow deleted. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama's previously state taste for gun banning left many not wanting to take a chance.

Automaker Bailout Talk Increase

With all three of the major leaders in Washington in favor of baling out Detroit, it seems likely to happen. GM, in particular, is in such bad shape it may not make it until Mr. Obama is inaugurated. Republicans are surprisingly showing some backbone and resisting, however, since they have long since used up all their political capital, it is unlikely they can affect the outcome.

As I've written before, I do not believe that Detroit should be bailed out. At the rate they are burning through money, it would never be recovered, and would only delay the inevitable. Both the executive teams and the unions need to have their positions completely reworked. The best thing that could happen is that the Big Three were sold to Toyota, or to a lesser degree another Japanese car maker. They could then take the company into Chapter 11 and rework the absurd union deals, or better yet, scrap them. They could then institute modern manufacturing techniques and teach them that you need to make a profit, and also set money aside for market downturns. However, this will not happen, because Americans believe in babying American corporations. One of the reasons Detroit is in the position it is is because they were always treated as the spoiled favorite child who got special treatment from the parents. Americans would rather give tax money to Detroit, and still have it run into the ground, than let itself be saved by the Japanese. The free market needs to work, and as long as sentimentality keeps it from being brutally efficient, the problems will remain.

Paul On The Republican Party Post-2000

Ron Paul has a great, if a little vague, article on the mistakes of the Republican Party after 2000 at CNN.

The War On Drugs

I'm excited to write this post, because it is a direct response to a reader comment. If anyone has a request for something to write about, please post it.

I was asked what my position was on the War On Drugs and on legalization of drugs. They are separate, if related, topics, and I will address them individually.

The War On Drugs is an absolute failure that was ill-advised from the beginning. The effects of this war have been a large amount of money wasted, a creation of a violent industry that has killed thousands, and a trampling of the constitution. It has cost nearly $45 Billion this year so far alone. Total cost is in the hundreds of billions. The worst of it is, it simply doesn't work. Those who want drugs can get them. The real result has been a large amount of money wasted on allocated law enforcement, prisons and other enforcement. The other result has been that law enforcement has become extremely intrusive and rights are being trampled.

The root of all this is simple. People want drugs. Period. When people want something, and that something becomes more difficult to obtain, they are willing to pay a higher price for it. The profit is the price of breaking the law. This makes breaking the law very profitable. When there are a lot of profits to be made, there is a lot of competition. When competition cannot be regulated through the courts, the only recourse is violence. Hence, making drugs more difficult to obtain leads to violence.

If there were plenty of drugs to go around, there would be no extreme profit, and thus no need to resort to violence. So by not artificially manipulating the market, we can reduce drug violence significantly. Besides, it's not as though it's impacting the availability of drugs. I've never seen a case of someone stopping their drug addiction because there were no more drugs available. Because people want them, they will always be drugs. There are drugs in prison for crying out loud!

Let us look at the other cost as well. Civil liberties have been greatly eroded under the guise of the War On Drugs. We now have police units armed to the teeth, ready to kick down any door based on the smallest tip. We have mayors of small towns being attacked by police, dogs shot, people handcuffed for hours, and all on virtually no evidence. The protections against search and seizure are all but nonexistent. No-knock warrants are being handed out on the slightest suspicion, and any resistance is met with lethal force. Police forces are using the absurd seizure laws to target property they want, and using the slightest justification to seize it with no due process or compensation. These departments are just like any other drug gang, except they are sanctioned by the corrupt legislature and courts. All this to keep people from doing things that the President-Elect has admitted doing and the sitting president is strongly suspected of doing.

The typical (liberal) response is that drugs make for dangerous situations. Well, so do matches and gasoline, yet anyone can buy those. Any police officer will tell you a drunk is every bit as dangerous as someone on drugs. The point is that the government is not supposed to be your mother, keeping you from things that might have the potential for trouble. The government is supposed to keep you from infringing on another's rights. I'm all for throwing the book at those who commit crimes while high. If we ended the War On Drugs, we might have a place to put them. But we have no right to arrest someone for doing something that might be dangerous. Until they infringe on someone's rights, or are imminently about to, they have the right to choose what they want to do. If they want to get high and sit around, it's their right. It's a waste of resources to stop it.

As far as my opinion on legalization, it's simple. Any adult (eligible for the military) should be allowed to use whatever substance to get high that they want to. Children should need the consent of their parents. Quite simply, it is not the government's place to tell you how to run your life. The line is simple. If you are going to infringe on another's rights, it's a crime. If not, it's your right. If you get high and drive recklessly, that's a crime. If you get high and mind your own business, that's your right.

Let's look at the benefits of legalization:

1. Puts drug cartels out of business.
2. Virtually eliminates accidental drug overdoses. Right now, there is no way to tell how much of the active ingredient is in a bag of drugs. There are no labeling laws. Legalize and regulate, and viola, you know exactly how much your taking.
3. Eliminate adulteration of drugs. Many of the worst effects of drugs come from cutting agents and other drugs mixed in with the named drug.
4. Allow those who use drugs responsibly to have more productive lives.
5. By reducing the price of drugs, the need to commit immoral acts to afford drugs is reduced.

This is a short list, and does not contain all of the benefits of just ending the over enforcement of drug laws.

The other question is, why should the government ban drugs? Because they might be harmful? Does that mean the government should ban junk food, tv, not working out, video games, all of which lead indirectly to more deaths than drugs do, or whatever your favorite vice is?

The idea that the government should be an all-powerful nanny, forbidding you to do whatever might be dangerous is a liberal one. It has been shamefully usurped by "conservatives". It is not the government's job, nor is it in any way constitution for the government to regulate such things.

The original prohibition didn't work. This one doesn't either.

The Death Of The Republican Party

The Republicans have no one to blame for their losses but themselves. Even Sarah Palin, much derided as a political neophyte, knows this. Such was Republican incompetence that Mr. Obama even won the group he demonized the most, the wealthy.

The reason for this is simple. Instead of standing for something, the Republicans came to define themselves as opposed to things. This applies to issues across the board.

Let us first define what the Republican party is alleged to stand for. They are supposed to be the traditional conservative/classical liberal party. That philosophy can be summed up very simply: Government should only protect us from those things that we cannot stop from directly hurting us. That is, government should protect us from invasion, violent crime and fraud, as well as doing a small handful of other regulatory things. Now, let us examine what a platform based on these beliefs would look like:

Essentially the first item of business would be to reduce Pentagon spending. This is the single largest expense on the government budget, and has no justification under conservative philosophy. Though it is euphemistically labeled "defense", it is nothing of the sort. The overriding mission is to accomplish and maintain invasions. The US military is in roughly 130 countries. To have a military in another country, regardless of their consent, is maintaining an invasion. It is not defense. To the contrary, it is our presence in other countries that brings attacks on us, more often than not. The defense of the country lies with the National Guard, and perhaps a small nuclear deterrent. There is no need for standing invasion fleets, which is what we have now. Wars not involving the defense of the nation are luxuries, and should not be be paid for by the public.

The massive law enforcement/domestic intelligence octopus is also completely against conservative ideology. The only federal law enforcement needed is a small agency handling interstate affairs. The absurd war on our own citizens masquerading as the War On Drugs and gun control are fundamentally liberal policies. Liberal ideology is that the government should save you from yourself. Conservative ideology is that you should be responsible for yourself. The War On Drugs is a liberal war on liberty that no real Conservative can support. As far as the ridiculous spying on our own citizens, once we stop making enemies overseas, a lot of the justification for that goes right out the window. Even if it didn't, it is an unconstitutional infringement of liberty.

Next up is the red tape wrapped welfare state apparatus. There is no need for the Federal government to be issuing standards for education. Again, you are responsible for yourself, not the government. The same goes for welfare type programs. That is the mandate of private charities, not the government. The same goes for the ridiculous corporate welfare. If you can't run a business profitably, that's your responsibility, not the government's (noticing a pattern?).

Now that we've streamlined government down to reasonable, constitutional level, we can start ramping down taxes, while using the surplus to pay off the national debt. Then we have an efficient government which does it's small part, and leaves the rest up to you.

Now, the above platform might be a little too radical for mainstream politics. The point is, however, that the Republicans, rather than standing for some version of the above, settled for being Democrats lite. Indeed, the only part of the party which stood for something like the above was the Paulites, who were also the only energized part of the party. The next question is, how did this happen.

The short version is this: After the Great Depression, the Republicans allowed the Democrats to bully them away from their beliefs. Having become afraid to stand up for what they believed in, they took the course of many who, not having anything to believe in, content themselves with opposing those who did believe in something. They found liberalism and Communism, and made these their focuses ever since. Along the way, they added other to their negative coalition, and made concessions to get votes from them, selling their soul along the way.

One of the most distasteful additions was the so-called Religious Right, which really isn't Right at all, but a bunch of liberals with different beliefs. That's right. As much as the "Religious Right" whines about liberals, the differences are only superficial. What they agree on is that the government should save people from themselves. They only thing they disagree on is what to save people from.

There is nothing conservative about repression and censorship. Both are intrusions by the government into private life. Things such as the War On Drugs, government repression, censoring art in any form, and forcing their beliefs on others are anathema to true conservatives. Yet they are the cornerstone of the "Religious Right".

If the Republicans are going to regain power, they need to stand for something more than a watered down version of the Democrats. Both President Bushes were as guilty as anyone, including Mr. McCain, of this. Indeed, there are precious few actually conservative Republicans left. Unless they take charge, the republicans may well go the way of the Whigs.

Silver Lining

It's always important to find the best in any situation. For instance, with the economic downturn, one small bright side is that there will be a reduction in junk mail. Not surprisingly, some of the first to go will be credit card offers and home refinance ads. Never mind that most of the credit card offers should never go out, at least the ones with your info already printed in. Don't expect to see that curtailed, though, especially since we just elected a VP from the capital of credit. More broadly, one of the functions of an economic downturn in a free market is to prune sick or wounded companies, or industries, in order to make the market more efficient.

This is, by the way, why we should let the domestic automakers die. Instead, they are likely to get $50 billion in loans. Unlike the so-called "bailout" the likelihood of the government ever getting this money back is pretty low. All of the "Big 3" are fatally wounded by staggeringly incompetent management, and bankruptcy is all but a forgone conclusion. However, it seems likely that President Elect Obama will hand them some cash.

Economic downturns are much like forest fires, destroying the dead and paving the way for new growth. Some industries, in this case junk mail, may be either trimmed back, or die entirely. However, when the fire is not allowed to do it's job, such as in California recently, or if the Big 3 are bailed out, the system starts to break down.

There is a difference between the Market Stabilization Bill and this bailout. A liquidity crunch is not the same as being fundamentally headed for bankruptcy. Furthermore, the government contributed to the liquidity crunch by it's policies. On the other hand, the government has done nothing but help the Big 3.

The problems at the Big 3 are deep and there is plenty of blame to go around. On both ends, the executives and the unions, there was a complete lack of long-term thinking. The economic rot is so deep at these companies, it is likely that the cleansing fire of bankruptcy is needed.

Technology Is A Powerful Thing

Two technological developments recently caught my eye. The first was a new technique to use an extremely common type of rock to trap CO2, the alleged nemesis of our generation. The second is a burgeoning technology which allows for spray on solar panels.

While it remains to be seen how useful these exact technologies will be, the larger point is that seemingly insurmountable challenges can be humbled by a series of technological advances. We must move cautiously to deal with problems who seem to only be able to be solved by the wholesale infringement of rights and/or growth. It would be foolish to rashly legislate roughshod over people, when the next year may bring a simple, noninvasive solution.

Obama Election Sells Guns And Stocks

The two groups with the most to lose in an Obama administration have reacted in predictable ways to his election.

Many gun shops are reporting records sales, with the only point of comparison being 9/11. The buying is being driven by fears that Mr. Obama will either prohibit, inhibit or tax guns and ammo. Though Mr. Obama has been extremely vague on this issue, has flip-flopped on it, and obscured his views, many believe this may be their last chance at firearms ownership. On a personal level, I couldn't begin to count the number of people who have told me, or asked me, about buying a gun, including many people who are the farthest thing from the stereotype of a gun owner.

The election was also followed by the largest post-election sell off ever. Though the causes of the sell off can be debated, it will be interesting to see how the market responds to the economic plans and taxes presented by the new administration, especially those which will single out the investor class to bear virtually the entire cost of the government.

News Potpourri

Here are a couple random news stories which caught my eye:

Speaker Pelosi says that Mr. Obama must govern from the center. Democrats claim to have learned their lesson about overreaching when they have command of Congress and the White House. It remains to be seen if this is in fact the case, and also if Speaker Pelosi actually knows what the center is.

The Domestic Automakers are yet again claiming they are victims of circumstances not of their making, and that they may not survive to see Mr. Obama inaugurated without help/welfare. For the love of Adam Smith, let capitalism work and let these worthless companies die much deserved deaths!

With the price of oil falling to below what is needed to support his socialist programs, Mr. Chavez has diversified his thievery/nationalization into the gold industry. It remains to be seen what it will take for Mr. Chavez to be forced from office. What is already apparent is that "new" populist-mild-socialism also does not work.

In a news piece which is likely to be buried, it has been discovered that parts of nature can reduce global warming on their own. Apparently, things besides "awareness" can affect the world.

Good News In Ballot Initiatives

The futility of the War on Drugs is slowly being realized across the nation. Michigan joined the growing ranks of the states that have reached what should be a completely obvious conclusion: very sick people should be allowed to use things that heal them, or reduce their pain. How this is not standard practice already is simply staggering, and quite frankly, criminal. Why would we deny them this? We allow people to use a substance which is interchangeable with heroin to treat their pain, but not something that is far less addictive and harmful? I have yet to hear a good reason for this from a prohibitionist.

Conservatives should be ashamed that one of the great liberal bogeymen, Massachusetts, has trimmed back governmental interference that they embrace. Massachusetts has decriminalized personal quantities of marijuana, a good first step. Quite frankly, one cannot be a real conservative and support the criminalization of drugs, especially marijuana. It goes against the core beliefs of government non-interference and personal responsibility. To be a prohibitionist conservative is to be a hypocrite.

Obama Wins

The election is over, and Mr. Obama is our President-Elect. I congratulate him on an extremely effective campaign and a clear victory. I also congratulate him on becoming our first black president. I hope his presidency helps to heal the racial wounds of our country.

Indeed, I hope that his presidency brings a new tone and new priorities to Washington. I hope that he will embrace his campaign promises to bring Republicans into his administration, and to govern in a post-partisan way. I hope he chooses to govern in a centrist, moderate way.

I pray that his presidency will be as successful as his campaign. I can only pray that he will embrace the best ideas of his candidacy and party, while compromising on the polarizing issues by working with the Republicans. I hope that he will foster diplomacy and peace. I hope that he will decriminalize marijuana and start to roll back the senseless War on Drugs. I hope that he will rely on his advisers who are most qualified and make choices which grow our economy as in the Clinton years, rather than embrace class warfare. I hope that he will reverse the shameful Patriot Act and other criminal violations of our civil liberties. I hope he will close Guantanamo bay and prosecute the War on Terror with respect for human rights and our allies. I hope he chooses to embrace transparency and ends the secrecy and criminal mischief of the Bush regime.

I do not expect many of these things to happen. But I hope they do.

Who I'll Vote For And Why

We have finally reached election day. Even I'm sick of it, which means most of America must be miserable. The time has come for my last post on this election. I generally don't do endorsements. I'm just going to share who I'm going to vote for, and just as importantly, who I'm not going to vote for.

It will come as no surprise to those who read this blog on a regular basis that I will not vote for Barrack Obama. While there are a few things I agree with him on, for the most part I believe he will take this country in the wrong direction. Socialism, regardless of how mild, is not the course the US should take.

I also cannot, in good conscience, vote for John McCain. While he is the lesser of the two major evils, that cannot justify voting for him. Compromise on principle will not lead to victory. It is for a lack of people taking a stand that we are in this position in the first place. Mr. McCain is an admirable man, but his policies are all too often Obama lite.

I wish I could vote Libertarian, however, they nominated Bob Barr, the worst of both worlds, Republican and Libertarian. There are many reasons not to vote Barr.

Nor can I vote for any of the potpourri that Ron Paul endorsed, Nader, McKinney, Baldwin or any of the other crackpots. All of them have positions or temperaments which are unacceptable.

Instead, I will be writing in Ron Paul, despite his wishes. I will be voting not for the man, but the principles. They are the only hope for America. There is no other vote I can cast with a clear conscience.

Many believe I am throwing away my vote. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Indeed, voting for the lesser of two evil because you won't stand up for your beliefs is throwing your vote away, conceding to a system which gives you only a ceremonial choice. Everyone should vote for what they believe in, regardless of it's popularity.

Evolution Of The Role Of The President

Becky, over on one of my favorite blogs, has a great article on the role of the president as it has evolved from the day of the founders to the present. As always, a very well formed look at an issue that is often overlooked.

When Will The Bailout Madness End? Apparently Now.

So the Bush administration finally said no to a corporate bailout. The lunacy of giving two failing companies money to merge into a bigger failing company was too much even for them. It's a shame they couldn't have found this kind of fortitude earlier, when it may have actually affected the presidential race. Now they are forced to rely on finding Mr. Obama's missteps and pointing them out, such as his plan to bankrupt the coal industry.

Obama Wants A Paramilitary

Although there are few details, apparently Mr. Obama wants some sort of Paramilitary apparatus. Because, you know, those always work out so well. I'll refrain from more in depth comments until more details are available, or until it becomes clear they are not forthcoming. If anyone has a link to details, please post it in the comments sections. Here is some somewhat related commentary until then.

Obama: Wanting To Keep What You Earn "Selfish"

As the election nears it's final days, and as more and more people believe Mr. Obama has this election in the bag, he is starting to show his true colors more. He recently declared that it was "selfish" to not want to pay higher taxes for succeeding. He explained that he, in fact, wanted everyone to be rich, which of course calls into question if he knows what that term is. His next comment revealed a little more. He believes that when "we"(the people that actually pay significant taxes, about the top 20%) provide health care, college, and spending money to "everybody", the economy will grow, and everyone will be better off, even the rich. So basically what he is saying is, when you cut though the rhetoric, is that he will take resources from the successful, spread them around, but not take quite all of them, so the successful will still have some left, and then everyone will be rich, but those who actually earned it will have a little more. Opposing this, he says, is selfish.