The Political Market

Obama Administration Endorses Voter Intimidation

2009-05-29T13:03:00.002-04:00

The political appointees of the Obama Administration have dropped the charges against Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a polling place with weapons. This is inexcusable. This is the type of thing that happens in third world dictatorships. Unless there is a major piece of the puzzle that is not in the article, voters need to demand an answer about this from the administration.

PATRIOT ACT Out Of Control

2009-05-05T00:25:00.002-04:00

It's funny and tragic to me that some people actually believe that the Bush Administration actually made them safer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The massive constitutional damage to the rights of Americans will take years to repair, if ever. How far back you need to go to find a President with a greater disregard for the Constitution and rule of law will not be known for some time, but it will be somewhere between FDR, Lincoln, and Jackson.

A prime example of this is the abomination of using the PATRIOT act, which will likely go down in history as one of the great legal abominations of American history, to indefinitely detain a home schooled tenth grader.

One of the idiotic beliefs of the neo-cons that run the GOP is that the laws they pass will be used only on the people they don't like. This is one of the reasons that they, and the Republican party, are not conservatives, nor are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or any of the other talking heads that misappropriate the term. They are right wing fascists to varying degrees. Basic conservatism tells us that any power granted to the government will be used to it's fullest, and stretched as far as possible. This is precisely why the founders strictly limited the powers of government, and warned against expanding them.

Law Enforcement are not bad people, they simply use every tool granted to them by us through politicians to do what we through politicians tell them to do. If we give them a tool they will use it. That's simply logical. So when you allow them to do things to American Citizens, remember that they will not simply do that to the Muslim they find suspicious because you would be ok with that, they will also do it to your pastor if he associates with the wrong antiabortion group, or you if you vent your frustration with politics wrong. They simply do the job we ask them to do with the tools we give them. We are to blame, not them. We asked for it and received it. It is the voters responsibility to not be fooled by politicians, and to hold them accountable for the laws they pass. It is us who re-elect those who disregard the constitution. It is us who fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap. When you look at who to blame for the state of civil liberties in this country, start by looking in the mirror, especially if you vote for one of the main parties.

So what is the solution? Think and share. Don't blindly follow. It may feel good to listen to the guy with an R after his name bash Obama for running a huge deficit, and expanding government, but ask how we fared under his party? Did the size of government increase, or decrease. Did they cut taxes AND spending? Or did they add to the debt by spending money they didn't have. Did they protect your gun rights AND your right to constitutional rights when in detention? When you talk to other people about your beliefs, don't do what President Obama suggested on the campaign trail and "get in their face". Listen to what's important to them. Find common ground and relate. Use nonthreatening examples, and don't be afraid to agree to disagree. The conversation is the victory. When people think though the issues and don't fall into soundbites, we make progress.

Biden Needs To Resign

2009-04-30T10:35:00.002-04:00

Joe Biden has long been putting his foot in his mouth. However, his latest irresponsibility is too much. He is spreading panic over the so-called "Swine Flu" in a complete disregard for the economy and public order. It's not that he intends to be malicious, he just simply doesn't think before he speaks, and when you are the Vice President, that is unacceptable. Enough is enough, we need a new Vice President before his unthinking wording cost lives. If he does not realize it, President Obama should request his resignation.

Waste Of Resources

2009-04-29T15:03:00.002-04:00

So apparently the precursor to SKYNET is going to be drones to sniff out marijuana. Governments are so terrified of people getting high in way that won't harm them and they don't pay taxes on, instead of ways like alcohol that will harm them but that they pay taxes on, that they are developing robots to spy on them. Doesn't anybody else see how insane this is?

Maybe You Don't Do That Again

2009-04-28T23:43:00.002-04:00

I know there is a learning curve with running the country. The Obama Administration has learned the hard way that it's a bad idea to fly an Air Force One and two F-16s 1000 ft above New York, and not warn people. There's gotta be a better way to spend $300k.

Specter's Switch

2009-04-28T17:16:00.002-04:00

Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) switched parties today, officially becoming a democrat. He claims that this is a result of changes in his constituency, which has been moving steadily democratic. Skeptics point to conservative challenges looming in the primary. In either case, this just goes to show how little difference there is between the parties. The Republicans are just Democrat Lites. Making a switch requires only a subtle difference. If only there was a viable third party...

Obama Administration Seeking To Strip More Rights

2009-04-26T09:29:00.002-04:00

Taking over smoothly from the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration wants to remove an obstacle to police interrogation. It has asked the Supreme Court to allow police to continue to question suspects who have a lawyer or who have asked for one. This opens the door to a variety of interrogation tactics that come closer to Guantanamo Bay than people would imagine. Sure, it's not the Bush Administration pushing for actually torturing American citizens, but it'd likely result in much broader application.

What's Next?

2009-04-16T13:36:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, there were tax protests across the country. Despite what partisans on either side said, these were not simplistic Republican rallies. In fact, they just might signal the end of the Republican party. Many of the signs decried steps taken by Bush, and the debt and deficit that were created in large part by Republicans. Republican numbers have been declining for a while now, and they essentially have no national vibrant leadership. The RNC chairman was denied the speaking role he requested at a tea party. People are catching on that the Republican party has become Democrat Lite. Right now the only thing saving them is the even greater lack of libertarian leadership. This may not last indefinitely.

The political atmosphere is becoming increasingly charged. The DHS keeps warning of right wing extremism without much evidence, and is blindly lashing out at veterans. This is ugly, foolish and unnecessary. As a chicken and egg effect, gun sales continue to soar. Waiting lists are over a year long, and factories are running 24hrs a day. The backlash against gun control is so strong, not only has a group of congressional democrats announced they will block any, even the President has backed off plans for it.

Backing up the claims of those who fear a stronger government, it was announced that the NSA had dramatically overstepped it's legal authority, and had spied on millions of people it didn't have the authority to spy on.

Despite DHS's assertions that it's only the "extremists" that are concerned by the growth of Federal power, even State Governors are speaking out. Texas' went as far as to mention secession, which hasn't been brought up by someone that prominent within memory.

It is far too early to tell what changes will come from this situation. But it seems certain that some will, and they may have ramifications for years to come.

Second Militia Movement?

2009-04-14T18:27:00.002-04:00

The DHS is warning of a possible surge in "militia" and "right wing" activity. It is important, of course, to protect Americans against skinheads, crackpots and anyone who would use violence to make a political point. There is no doubt that white supremacist are using the election of President Obama to try to boost membership. Such groups must be monitored, and, when they break the law, punished.

However, in our vigilance against violent extremists, we must not dampen legitimate discussion. The government is in a phase of unprecedented expansion, and we must not allow those who object to be painted with the extremist brush. There have already been instances where a Ron Paul bumper sticker has been cited as possible probable cause to search a car. This is despicable political repression.

With the Texas government speaking out against the expansion of Federal power, the debate is likely to get more heated. Hopefully, legitimate discussion does not become collateral damage of the fight against extremism.

Capitalism Is The Answer

2009-04-13T13:11:00.002-04:00

Glancing over the headlines today, I was struck by two examples of how capitalism can solved problems so much better than the government:

In response to America's increasingly broken health care system, store such as Walmart, CVS and Walgreens are opening thier own health clinics which can treat basic illnesses quickly, effectively and cheaply.

A Chinese company is poised to ovetake the electric car and battery market. It is also working towards making it's batteries 100% biodegradable. You can drink the battery fluid. Are they profitable? Buffet had to buy less than he wanted of the company. That says it all.

American Pirates

2009-04-13T10:39:00.002-04:00

So the SEALs defeated a trio of Somali Pirates, and even in my somewhat cynical view, the Captain is a hero for offering himself as a hostage to free his crew. All's well that ends well, except that the Pirates have now vowed to kill Americans on sight.

The whole episode evoked the principles of one of my most passionate issues to me. I'm going to skip over the whole International/Maritime/Admiralty law specifics here, and just deal with concepts.

Start with this: You are sailing through an area where there is known Pirate activity. You know that if you put out a distress call, highly trained and armed people will arrive to help as soon as they can. Don't you still want to be able to defend yourself?

This is where most Americans are with criminals. For the majority of Americans, they live within reasonable traveling distance from a criminal with violent tendencies. If they call for help, it will arrive as soon as possible. However, in the intervening time, if you are unarmed, there is nothing keeping them from killing you, harming you, or taking you hostage. It is a basic human right to be able to protect one's self. That right can be supplemented by police, but not replaced by it.

Americans Don't Want Gun Control

2009-04-09T23:31:00.000-04:00

Only 39% of Americans want more gun control. This number has been slowly dropping for years, yet has dropped precipitously recently, despite the recent spate of highly publicized shootings. The reasons are likely complex. The pollsters attribute much of the drop to a distrust of the Obama administration. Also likely is a larger distrust of government as a whole to do a competent job at anything. The fact that the AWB did nothing certainly didn't prevent any crime took some of the mystique out of gun control. Believe it or not, the cultural phenomenon of the Zombie Apocalypse probably played a role as well.

It now appears that a new Assault Weapons Ban is unlikely. In fact, 65 Congressional Democrats begged President Obama not to attempt to pass one, and vowed not to vote for anything resembling it. Congressman Mike Ross led the group, and is to be commended.

Right and wrong aren't dependant on popularity, but it's nice to see many Americans see through the propaganda.

Apparently Obama Doesn't Want A Second Term

2009-04-09T11:21:00.000-04:00

President Obama will apparently push for a bill that would legalize illegal immigrants. While I personally have only a few qualms with this, it may well be a political invasion of Russia, especially right now.

The Obama Election: Stimulus For Gun Manufacturers

2009-04-08T11:59:00.002-04:00

The boom in gun sales that started as soon as President Obama got elected continues to expand. It is increasingly difficult to even find semiauto rifles and standard ammunition. Factory orders are full for months on end. The price of ammo has skyrocketed. Money is pouring into the gun industry, which will hopefully means it has the resources to withstand the eventual attack of the Obama administration, led by Eric "The US is a nation of cowards" Holder. With someone who plays so fast and loose with the truth in charge of the coming draconian crackdown on personal self defense, one shudders to think what absurd promises will be made to the ignorant masses to try to gain their assent. "When we ban Human Killing Weapons(or whatever new made up term they'll use), not only will there never be another crime, but puppies and kittens will lick away all your tears!" This is pretty much the main thing the Republican party is any good for, so if they roll over on this like they have so many times before on self defense, my last vestiges of respect for them may go out the door with my freedoms.

The most ironic part of this is that the Obama Administration's fascist "solution" to gun crime will undoubtedly create more of it. People who otherwise would not buy a semiauto rifle or handgun are now going out and buying one because they may never get another chance. These, for the most part, are not the ideal gun owners, who generally own the majority of guns. So instead of sitting safely at a gun store, it's gathering dust unsecured under a bed, waiting to be stolen, pawned illegally or used in a crime.

If a ban is passed, then what? There are two possibilities: a total ban, or a ban on new production or importation. A ban on new production and importation is much more likely, but will not do much except drive up the price, making theft more enticing. But everyone who bought them before the ban will still have them, and the number will be higher than if the subject was never brought up. The less likely total ban would be even worse. The guns would be required to be either destroyed, or turned in for a token sum. In either case, many, many gun owners will simply file away the serial numbers and sell them onto the black market, and report the gun stolen or destroyed. All this is not even taking into account the loss of freedom and security by law abiding citizens.

Much of this hinges on the 2010 midterm elections. Mr. Obama likely does not have the political capital to push this through before then, as congressional Democrats remember the fate of the Democratic congress who voted in the last abridgement of the second amendment.

Drug Testing For Government Money?

2009-04-01T19:24:00.002-04:00

So, some politicians who want to make a name for themselves are proposing drug testing people who receive unemployment, welfare, etc from the government. First off, in the case of unemployment, it's the money they paid into the system, so it's not government money/taxpayer money anyway. As far as everything else, decide whether you are going to treat them as a human or an animal. Either give them the money, and let them spend it as they see fit, or give them the food, housing, etc, that you consider proper. This is ridiculous political grandstanding.

On the topic of regulating what people who get government money can do, how about keeping the Iraqis from executing people for being gay(and don't pull out your bibles/Korans unless your going to execute people for everything included under the death penalty)?

Obama Raises Taxes On The Poor

2009-04-01T15:23:00.002-04:00

President Obama has just broken one of his major campaign promises. He and his running mate repeatedly promised that there would be no tax raises on the poor. He just signed a bill which skyrockets tobacco taxes. Liberal tax analysts have long decried such taxes because they take a much larger portion of the poor's income than the rich, and because the poor are more like to smoke than the rich [probably has something to do with discipline(preemptive disclaimer: I've quit smoking. It's not that hard)].

New Chinese Weapon?

2009-03-31T18:54:00.002-04:00

Apparently, the Chinese may have a new weapon which would, if reports are true, change the balance of power in the Pacific. It's a ballistic missile modified to strike a moving target and to modify it's course to tract the target and avoid defenses. It's believed to target US carriers, and is also believed to not currently have a countermeasure. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Good News

2009-03-31T00:35:00.002-04:00

There is a piece of good news out of Washington for those of us who believe they should have the right of self defense. The NRA is apparently having a fair amount of success limiting anti-gun legislation. This is mostly due to pressure on Conservative Democrats/Democrats from Conservative districts. However, even liberal Democrats remember that the "Assault Weapons Ban" play a role in their loss in the 1994 elections, and are unwilling to risk a repeat of that defeat in 2010. Hopefully, this will stave off the attempts by the Statists to outsource self defense.

Response To The Obama Presser

2009-03-24T23:32:00.002-04:00

President Obama gave his second Prime time speech and news conference. If you missed it, or don't watch TV because it makes you stupid, you can read it here.

My response was a very simple, two part thought. He is truly gifted at abstractly arguing for his position in rhetorical terms, and at sounding extremely centrist. He is able to do this for the very simple reason that he was won the battle over the battlefield. That is to say, he has succeeded in framing the argument in a framework where is positions are moderate and reasonable.

Conversely, Republicans have failed because they took the bait, and tried to argue with the President on his own terms. They are trying to argue over what course of State action would be the most effective, rather than arguing over what the role of the state is. As long as they do not challenge the role of the State, they will always lose. They are going against a relatively popular President who succeeded a extremely unpopular President of their party, and have historically represented some constituencies that are extremely unpopular currently. Going on his turf and arguing his issues on his terms is not a formula for success. In order to have a chance, they need to force the debate out of his home field and onto their field. In this case, their home field is the role of government in abstract. Most Americans are still against Statism. Hopefully, they will figure this out before the midterm elections which may well prove pivotal for the country.

Welfare Alternatives

2009-03-23T10:53:00.002-04:00

After seeing that the so-called "Octomom" had planned on supporting her kids on welfare, I decided that I would go into a little more depth on what I see as a critical reform to the tax and welfare system.

The idea is extremely simple. Enact a dollar for dollar tax credit(not deduction) for charities that take the place of welfare, up to the full amount your taxes would be. Obviously, they have to be nonprofits, and some general guidelines would need to be put in place. As they take off, there will be less and less need to have any governmental welfare, and once it is unneeded, it can be ended.

The beautiful part is, it's voluntary. Pay taxes OR support private charity. Generally speaking, liberals give far less to charity than conservatives anyway, so both groups can be happy.

The critical component is this: it removes the role of government in a place it doesn't belong. No more governmental involvement in socialistic redistribution of wealth.

Indeed, this approach could be applied to virtually all functions of the government, outside of a few bare bones functions such as law enforcement. You know, the way the founders intended?

The real question is: why has this not been proposed by the Republican Party? It is in accordance to several of the key "official" principles of the party: limited government, reduced welfare and reduced effective taxes. But the Republican Party has been seduced by power. Truly reducing the power of the government would reduce the power they have when they manage to convince people to vote them in by complaining about things they have no plan to fix. Remember, it was Clinton who last reformed welfare, not either of the Bushes.

Without tax revenues, they couldn't invade other countries with their shiny toys that they spend 30-50+% of the budget they complain about on. They couldn't use earmarks to bribe the people who helped to elect them on a platform of no pork. With reduced government spending, there would be less lucrative contracts to sign immediately upon leaving office to lobby for government spending.

So Republicans really don't care about cutting down the size of government or taxes, at least outside of soundbites and campaign ads. That's why they don't do it when they have power. At least the Democrats tell us what they are going to do.

It's time for another way.

Deficit Spending

2009-03-23T00:19:00.002-04:00

The latest projections are that the policies sought by the Obama administration will contribute to nearly ten trillion dollars in deficits over the next decade. A moderate Republican who was nominated for Secretary of Commerce by President Obama says the new budget will bankrupt America.

To President Obama's credit, he campaigned on these principles. People knew what they were getting, and the fault lies with the American public as a whole. Though they are not happy with the spending, they seem resigned to it. Republican complaints, while red meat to the base, are not resonating with moderate Americans. Why should it? The last Republican administration brought us an illegal, absurdly expensive war and loads of pork barrel spending. All this from a President who mouthed the official Republican lines, then turned around and did the opposite. True, he enacted a temporary tax cut. However, when you increase spending, you by definition increase taxes. The two are linked.

Because of this, it will take time for Americans to believe the words of the Republican party. In order to regain credibility, the Republican party must reject the pop politics of talk radio, of simplistic political duality, and re-embrace their foundation. They must embrace limited government, not just pay it lip service. Tell us how you would cut the deficit. Take back the House in 2010 and actually cut the budget, and not just settle political scores with budget trimmings that are more than offset with barely concealed bribes to campaign contributors.

How about changes to the tax code that actually empower the private sector to take over government waste. How about a dollar for dollar tax credit for charitable donations? What about a tax credit for private or home school? What about ending the War on Drugs?

It will take a bold agenda to capture the attention and trust of the public, because you squandered it last time. If you continue being reactive and negative, sniping at the Administration without offering new solutions, then there is a very real prospect of lasting one party rule in America.

Is This Where We're Headed?

2009-03-21T14:46:00.002-04:00

It's widely agreed that President Obama is steering the country towards a British-style mild socialism. Somewhat higher taxes with a sturdier "social safety net". Doesn't sound so bad, does it? Well, check out this British family. All four of them claim to be too fat to work. So the government pays them a healthy salary to sit around and eat. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, eh? The worthless (can't find an word to use that isn't extremely vulgar)s whine that it's not enough money, that it's not their fault they are fat, and they are too poor to buy healthy food and don't have time to exercise. Can even the most bleeding heart liberal give me a reason they shouldn't be put down? Remember, none of the traditional excuses work. It's a socialist country. School and health care are free. They clearly aren't too busy working. Got anything?

If this is where we're heading, I don't want to go.

Where Are Americans Heads At?

2009-03-13T10:56:00.002-04:00

There is an interesting article in the WSJ where a former Clinton pollster breaks down President Obama's poll numbers. He concludes that the numbers being reported in the MSM are misleading and that Mr. Obama's numbers are lower than Mr. Bush's were at the same time. He also notes that many Americans are deeply pessimistic about the near future, and are especially worried about the effects of deficit spending. This is likely to increase as China becomes increasingly vocal about it's loaning to the US.

Another key sign that Americans are uneasy is the continued reports of weapon and ammunition hoarding. Ironically, President Obama may be responsible for more guns being in circulation, if he spends his political capital before pushing through his draconian gun ban.

Some people are using the economic situation to advance common-sense legalisation. In California there is a bill to legalize and tax marijuana. Now that the stormtrooper-esqe Bush Administration DEA has been replaced by the somewhat more pragmatic Obama DEA, this would actually go into effect. This would cost the state less, while bringing in revenue. Funny how no one ever cites liberty as a reason...

Is The War On Success Driving Companies Offshore?

2009-03-12T11:45:00.002-04:00

As a natural result of President Obama's War on Success, firms are starting to move offshore to escape the crushing US corporate taxes, which are among the highest in the world. The Swiss in particular stand to gain a great deal as they already have treaties with the US in place. This minimizes the consequences for firms. It may only be a matter of time before US citizens of high personal worth make similar moves.

Also, though he was obviously being hyperbolic, it's still not a good sign that a US governor is warning of a Zimbabwe style economic collapse in the US.

Establishment Losing Patience With Obama?

2009-03-11T10:08:00.002-04:00

There are increasing signals that the Washington Democratic establishment is over it's honeymoon with President Obama. Even some in the admittedly left wing media are starting to question his general handling of things. His staff is getting slightly defensive. All of this is despite the fact the he remains popular with the public. However, that public opinion moves slowly is a double edged sword. While they may be slow to turn on the new President, they will also be slow to embrace him again if his luster fades.

Indeed, one of the criticisms of President Obama during the campaign was that once he was forced to make the difficult decisions, and put his rhetoric into practice, his supporting coalition would crumble. This seems to be happening. It is starting with the political class, and his largest challenge will be keeping it from spreading to the public. The spread is not a foregone conclusion. The public content will have more to do with the shape of the economy that policy squabbles.

The most dangerous part for the President is dealing with the "Blue-Dog" Democrats. Not only will they eventually reach the limit of their part loyalty, the voters they represent are easy pickings for the Republican insurgency. Navigating this constituency is key for the President's future success.

Warnings

2009-03-09T23:05:00.002-04:00

Yet another leader who has experience with socialism warned President Obama against infringing on free markets today.

Those who have dealt with the state running the economy are far more protective of the free market than those of us who take it for granted. The have suffered first hand the chilling effect of such systems. Hopefully we will not be forced to learn this the hard way.

For a particularly harsh look at the Obama administration's plan, read this article by Kevin Hasset.

Conservatives vs. Republicans

2009-03-08T14:18:00.002-04:00

David Frum has a very good article on why Rush Limbaugh is bad for the Republican party. He illustrates why if the Republican party continues to revere Limbaugh, they are doomed in the polls. It's a pretty decent article for MSM.

However, it misses the larger point. The Republican's problems go much deeper than Limbaugh. At the heart of them are a lack of firm ideological foundation and worse, a tendency towards hypocrisy when they do gain power. Both of these are rooted in the modern Republicans near constant opposition status. Since the end of the second World War, for only a few years did Republicans hold both Houses of Congress and the White House. When they did, they abandoned the principles they claimed.

Because they were in opposition for so long, to a large degree the Republicans defined themselves in opposition to the Democrats rather than creating a base of ideology. Consequently, they tend to attack more so than suggest alternatives. This is precisely what causes the hypocrisy when they do achieve power. Because the focus was simply on what the Democrats were doing wrong, the Republicans did not have a ideological framework to base their administration on. Instead, they go about it as righting wrongs and rewarding patrons. The best example of this is 2000-2004. For decades the Republicans had been complaining about "tax and spend" Democrats. They finally gain control of all three Houses, and what do they do? Skyrocket spending. Sure they cut taxes, but only for 10 years. Even if the tax cuts didn't sunset, they would eventually have to be repealed, as you can't cut taxes while increasing spending indefinitely.

As a result of a lack of agenda and hypocrisy, the Republican Party, is limited to opposition. True conservatives must not bow to the lesser of two evils mantra that is rolled out each election cycle when the Republicans field another lousy field of candidates that are "not great but at least they're not a Democrat". Aren't true conservatives against rewarding mediocrity? Until we demand excellence, we will keep getting the same welfare-grade candidates. We need to make our voices heard, and let the GOP know that they won't get our votes until they start standing for something, and following through on it when they have the chance.

The "Obama Bear Market"

2009-03-06T23:59:00.002-05:00

The WSJ has an excellent write up on what is causing the "Obama Bear Market". With the jobless rate at a 25 year high, things are looking grim in the short term. Tent cities are starting to pop up, though they are not yet called Obamavilles. Declaring war on the successful is a sure way to slow down the growth that is needed. Hopefully President Obama realizes this before we are fully mired in the Second Great Depression. However, it looks doubtful that he learned the lessons of that time. Even the far-left New York Times notes that raising taxes during the Depression made it worse. Indeed, there was a surge in investment in 1938 when the Democrats lost 72 seats, dramatically reducing the attack on the successful. Hopefully we will repeat that in 2010, and not later.

The War On Success

2009-03-03T09:28:00.002-05:00

As the Obama Administration's War on Success continues to be announced, the stock market continues to slide in the face of technical analysis that would suggest a rise. This is because the traders can read the writing on the wall. In fact, the Wall Street Journal opined that President Obama's actions may actually make the recession longer and recovery weaker.

There is also a growing sentiment of resistance to the punitive tax on success. People are realizing they really don't want to work just to have much of that money taken away, so individuals that run small businesses are considering working only part time so less of their income is taken from them. Why bother working so the money can be given to someone else? Of course, this will be devastating to the economy, as small business are the engine of job growth.

Before you get too nostalgic for Republican rule, read the memos the Bush administration kept secret for their whole administration. Basically, they claim the Constitution doesn't apply if they don't want it to. Scary stuff.

When will Americans stopping looking at politics as the lesser of two evils and start actually working towards a prosperous and free future? Hopefully before it is too late.

Yet Another

2009-03-02T21:21:00.003-05:00

Yet another Obama Administration nominee has been found to need to pay back taxes.

Corruption We Can Believe In

2009-03-01T23:40:00.002-05:00

Apparently President Obama's "Urban Czar" whatever that is, has some pretty shady habits. It seems that when people "contributed" to him, their projects got approved and funded. This is typical of the Chicago machine politics where President Obama got his political start.

The real question is: Can some of the wealthy pay off the Obama Administration to keep from destroying the economy and punishing success? It'd probably pay off after everything is said and done.

Another Take On The New War On Success

2009-02-27T23:38:00.002-05:00

Over at CNBC, in the NBC family which is the farthest left of the MSM, Larry Kudlow has an excellent column which says Obama is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs and business.

The real question I have is this: When are the real conservatives going to show up? President Bush sure wasn't one. Mr. McCain wasn't either. The party has rejected it's true conservative voice in Ron Paul. If the Republicans don't move past complaining and propaganda, they risk losing their chance at a rebound when the Obama administration's policies fail.

Glimmer Of Hope

2009-02-27T15:01:00.002-05:00

In the darkness of some of the oppressive new Obama administration, there is a glimmer of light that they may make some concessions on medical marijuana and lessen the federal enforcement of marijuana laws.

Fascism We Can Believe In

2009-02-27T10:38:00.002-05:00

The Obama administration has unleashed a new multi-pronged attack on freedom. The net result is a complete undermining of personal freedom and responsibility and a massive expansion of government.

As always, they start with guns. By disarming a nation, you force them to rely on the state for protection. The most fundamental responsibility is for your own protection. By forcing you to give this over to them, they are forcing you to give part of the control of your life over to them. So it was no surprise that despite assurances to the contrary, there is a new "assault weapons ban" in the pipeline. This was announced by AG Holder, previously noted for calling the US a "nation of cowards". Semi-automatic rifles are critical for self defense. They are much easier to use and more accurate than pistols or shotguns, especially for women and the elderly. It has been all but proven that gun control does not reduce crime, and that in fact, more guns prevent crime. Of course, that is not their goal. The goal is control.

The next target is people who are successful. They are being targeted with significantly higher taxes and lower deductions. The liberal establishment will whine that these taxes are not that high by historical standards. The real issue is that, increasingly, only the successful pay any taxes at all, and much of that tax money is given to the unsuccessful. Once again, by punishing success and encouraging mediocrity, the state forces reliance on them.

Despite savaging the successful, allegedly to help the poor, there is also an attack on charities. The tax deduction for giving to them is being curtailed. This would not make sense if the goal was to actually help poor people, as private charity is much more efficient than government aid. Rather the goal is to eliminate competition with the government and force the poor to rely on the state, rather than the private sector.

The coming months and the 2010 election are going to be a critical battle for freedom. I urge everyone to educate themselves and others, and to make your voice heard.

Consequences

2009-02-24T23:38:00.002-05:00

Unlike the police in the earlier article I posted, the Atlanta police who shot a 92 year old women in a fraudulent drug raid have been sent to prison. Due to the lax enforcement of due process, and outright fraudulent behavior of police in some cases, we will never know how many illegal raids have been conducted.

There is the beginnings of a common sense answer to this issue in California. Hopefully this nation will come to its senses before too many more lives are lost.

Trailer

2009-02-23T00:36:00.001-05:00

I'm really interested in seeing this movie, even though I doubt it's anything new to me:

Big Brother

2009-02-20T13:39:00.002-05:00

In President Obama's hometown, they are vowing to bring the Orwellian nightmare of constant surveillance to reality. This will come in the form of a security camera ON EVERY CORNER! Your every public movement will be recorded and tracked. There is no way that this can be justified. The excuse is to combat crime rate, of which Chicago has one of the worst in the nation. The reason for that is simple. Chicago, like the other most violent cities, does not allow citizens to protect themselves by carrying weapons. Therefore, the criminals know that their victims will be unarmed. The real qualm I have is that these cities view your personal protection as the role of the police. This is simply wrong. It is not the police's responsibility to protect you. It is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself. The police are there for extraordinary situations, and to arrest people who are guilty of a crime. Their job is not to protect you. No police officer will ever be as motivated to protect you or your family as you are. Therefore, they will never do it as well as you. Citizens must demand the right to protect themselves.

2009-02-20T01:56:00.001-05:00

Wow. In possibly the worst sign yet, Prime Minister Putin of Russia is warning the US, and the rest of the world not to fall into the trap of socialism.

Latest Shenanigans

2009-02-19T11:46:00.003-05:00

Though they have been cutting a more centrist path on actual policy than many feared, the Obama administration is continuing in one of the worst bipartisan traditions, giving a bunch of money we don't have to people who don't deserve it. The housing bill is probably the worst of the worst. On CNBC, which is a part of the farthest left branch of the American media, they showed and posted to their website traders on the floor openly lamenting and calling for a new Boston Tea Party. It's pretty bad when the farthest left MSM is comparing your administration to Cuba. Even high school students are starting to see through the propaganda and doubting the man their age group supported wholeheartedly. The fact that inflation is already creeping back, before all the spending, is also extremely worrying.

On top of all this, it is becoming pretty clear that all the "Change!" slogans were just that. Mr. Obama plays the fear card just as often as Mr. Bush did. What's worse is that it is quite possible that the Obama administration may be more corrupt than the Bush administration. Here is a list of some of the shadiness, and he hasn't even been in office a month yet.

Perhaps to distract from all of this, the New Attorney General laid down a royal flush of race cards, calling America a "nation of cowards" on race. He said this at an official Justice Department function celebrating Black History month. This is ludicrous. Blacks comprise roughly 11% of the US population. Yet they head both majority political parties(Mr. Obama and Mr. Steele), are President and Attorney General, and are represented on the Supreme Court. What other post-industrial country can claim anything like that? The closest is Israel, which is also vilified for being racist. Has an Arab run France? Has anyone from the Indian subcontinent headed Britain? Has a person of African descent run any country in Europe? Quite honestly, this is shameful and Mr. Holder should resign.

It's Been A While

2009-02-12T14:16:00.002-05:00

It's been a little while since I blogged, partly being busy and partly being lazy. Here's my comments on the last three blog posts by someone who's not lazy, Becky:

It's a shame the 9th and 10th Amendments have been trampled so thoroughly. These are two of the most important amendments to the constitution, yet they are glossed over in public indoctrination/school. They specifically limit the powers of the Federal government to keep it contained. They have been increasingly ignored in recent years, which has resulted in much erosion of liberties.

The idiot sheriff where the photo of Phelps smoking was snapped is attempting to launch an investigation. Anyone who reads here knows how I feel about the war on Drug/liberty. This is a perfect example. We have a someone who wants to make a name for himself and is willing to trample over all kinds policies and procedures to do so. This is likely the same reason he, under the guise of the war on liberty/drugs bought a APC with a belt fed .50 cal for the police department. Speaking as someone who loves guns, and would love to own an M2, there is no reason for local law enforcement to have one, it will likely end badly.

Further shredding the Constitution, DC looks likely to get representation despite that being unconstitutional. If you want to modify the constitution, you have to pass an amendment. It's that simple.

Another One

2009-02-06T10:43:00.001-05:00

There seems to be no end to the Democratic Politicians and their spouses who feel like they don't need to pay the taxes they inflict on others...

Detention Camps In The USA?

2009-02-04T22:43:00.002-05:00

As if we didn't have enough to worry about these days, an corrupt congressman wants to establish military detention camps for US civilians on the mainland. Becky's analysis in the linked blog article is pretty much spot on.

Granted, this is still just a proposal, but this is the type of thing that must be fought tooth and nail. The wholesale abridgments of the Bill of Rights have been steadily increasing over the last century. This proposed atrocity would show that the promise of the Obama campaign couldn't be farther from the truth.

The fact is that this is one of the final pieces in the puzzle of how the US is setting up the potential for a military state. The original pieces were slow in coming but picked up dramatically with the "War On Drugs" which is really a war on liberty. An excellent example is here. I've covered the story before, but it really highlights the reason I talk about the war on drugs/liberty so much. The short version of the story is this: a small town mayor is minding his own business, innocent of any crime, when a SWAT team bursts into his house without identifying themselves, kills his dogs, handcuffs the entire family while screaming at them at gunpoint, ransacks the house, doesn't find anything, shrugs and leaves. They then refuse to apologize, officially clear them despite not one shred of evidence, comment on the story, or change policy. This is despite the fact that the only reason for the raid was a package of marijuana addressed to the couple, which was delivered by the police, who were investigating people mailing drugs to random innocent people. There is literally not one thing you can do to prevent this from happening to you.

After the war on drugs trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Bush administration added the practices of warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial detention for American citizens. With the final additions of detention camps the following becomes a very real scenario:

A terrorist ships something to you, intending to intercept it. It is identified in transit. They issue a no-knock warrant for your arrest. They kick in your door, shoot your pets in front of your children, handcuff everyone in the house while not identifying themselves, screaming instructions. They then ransack your house, dumping out every drawer and overturning furniture, then take you out to a waiting van where you, for all intents and purposes, disappear. You are taken to a detention center where it is decided you are an enemy combatant. You get no lawyer. Your family may be told you are in custody at some point, perhaps not. You may be tortured, or near-tortured. At some point, you may or may not get a hearing at a military tribunal, however, the normal rules do not apply, you may not choose your lawyer, all sorts of usually prohibited evidence is allowed, and the standard of guilt is lower. Your family will not be informed until it is over. After that, you may be imprisoned for life, executed, or released.

The above, while unlikely, is technically possible with the law and practices stretched to their limit. When we don't stand up for our rights, they are taken from us. This is the reason all infringements of the Constitution must be publicized and fought against at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion.

Obama Admits Mistake With Daschle

2009-02-03T23:06:00.002-05:00

Well, here's something I can give President Obama some credit for. He admitted that not caring about the Daschle tax fraud was a mistake. Despite plenty of opportunities, Mr. Bush was never very good at admitting mistakes.

One would think someone as astute as Mr. Obama, or at least one of his advisers, would figure out that it was a bad idea to nominate three separate people with tax non-payment issues. It cannot be repeated enough that these are pro-tax people by and large. While it may be illegal for Republicans and Libertarians to evade taxes, it is at least not hypocritical.

President Obama noted that as he had run on a platform of change, it was not good to imply that politically connected people were treated differently than the public. Of course, it will continue to be true, but if he wants to get re-elected, he shouldn't throw it in people's faces.

Do Any Democratic Politicans Pay Their Taxes?

2009-02-03T14:23:00.002-05:00

Another day, another Democrats discovered cheating on their taxes. Nancy Killefer withdrew from consideration for Performance Czar after it was revealed she didn't pay taxes on household help. It's hard to claim ignorance or incompetence when you're a former Assistant Treasury Secretary. Former Senator Tom Daschle finally withdrew from his HHS nomination after he realized it mattered that he committed tax fraud.

So far the recent list includes at least:

1. Rangel
2. Geithner
3. Kennedy
4. Daschle
5. Killefer

Yet, according to Vice President Biden, paying taxes is patriotic. So does that mean a large portion of the Democratic party is not patriotic?

No More Olympics For Phelps Over... Pot?

2009-02-01T01:11:00.002-05:00

So it looks like Micheal Phelps may be in a lot of trouble due to a picture of him smoking a bong. This simply shows the irrationality of governmental bodies when it comes to drugs. Why should something he does in his recreational time prevent him from competing. There is no allegation that he swam baked, but under the rules that has no bearing. Even if he did, does anyone really think it would help him?

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that the real reason governments have pushed to use sanctioning bodies to punish illegal recreational drugs is because it disproves their lies about the dangers of these drugs. They want to portray these substances as being ruinous to health and success, and when athletes show that not to be the case, it undermines the propaganda. Remember, this is an organization that profits from two of the most lethal drugs there are, tobacco and alcohol.

There will likely be an outcry that Phelps is a horrible role model. This is hypocritical. How many athletes drink openly? Which kills more people by itself? As far as I know, no one has ever smoked themselves to death with marijuana, but plenty of people have died of alcohol poisoning.

Or will this be an example of real change brought about by Mr. Obama? Remember, he openly admits having smoked marijuana many times. He even promised to try to decriminalize it before he got too mainstream.

The old lie that marijuana will ruin your motivation is dead. What, if you smoke you mind end up only being President? Only winning 14 gold medals? Only starting in the NFL like Ricky Williams and dozens more?

It's time for the lies and hypocrisy to end. Banning performance enhancing drugs is one thing. But drawing capricious and arbitrary lines regarding recreation is ridiculous.

Another Dem Avoids Taxes

2009-01-31T11:15:00.003-05:00

Now it looks like former Sen. Daschle didn't pay all his taxes until the scrutiny of higher office. It's amazing how many Democrats avoid paying the taxes that Vice President Biden called "patriotic". Does this mean they are unpatriotic by the definition of their own party? It increasingly seems as though senior Democrats don't like paying their taxes. Guess what? No one does. But not everyone votes consistently to raise taxes. It would at least be ideologically consistent for Republicans to avoid paying taxes (though it's been a while since one's been accused). But Democrats claim that taxes are necessary and good, then avoid paying them. Talk about hypocrisy.

Starve The Enemy

2009-01-30T10:43:00.002-05:00

The FBI recently reported that 80% of the crime in the US is committed by gangs. Yet, this is coming after decades of astronomical increases in funding for law enforcement, and serious compromises of the Constitution. Indeed, the most powerful weapon in the government's arsenal is RICO, who's constitutionality is, at best, questionable. Still the only solutions ever proposed is more money spent and less rights for everyone.

So what is the solution? The surest way to deprive the gangs of funding. What is their principle form of funding? The illegal sale of drugs. While they may engage in high-profile robberies and other crimes, for the majority of gangs, the bread and butter support is wholesale or retail sale of drugs. Without these profits, the gangs, and correspondingly the crime they commit will shrink. This is on top of the violence that substitutes for the rule of law in the drug economy. When you can't go to a court to enforce a contract, you are forced to go to a gun. With legalization, all of that violence disappears overnight.

The saddest part is that we've already been through this once. Prohibition of alcohol had roughly commiserate effects. The criminals made windfall profits, while crime skyrocketed along the same lines. They caught on more quickly back then, and reversed Prohibition after only 13 years. Here is what one of the most successful men in American history, John D. Rockefeller, who had originally supported Prohibition, said at its end:

"When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before."

Another Reason Not To Eat HFCS

2009-01-28T11:20:00.002-05:00

Despite what the cheesy ads say, High Fructose Corn Syrup is not good for you. Aside from common sense telling you something so modified from its original content should be avoided if possible, there are several known health risks associated with HFCS. Most disturbingly, it has been linked to severe liver damage. It has also been linked to decreased leptin production (which can lead to obesity) and a type of compound which is thought to do much of the damage from diabetes. Now, it appears that much HFCS is contaminated with mercury.

HFCS is the result of the high subsidies on corn and the high tariffs on sugar. With corn so much cheaper than sugar, it was cost effective to massively modify corn into sugar. This is also the reason US ethanol sucks, and overseas ethanol works. Ethanol here is made from corn, because it's subsidized. If you make it from sugar, it's much more efficient. One of the cures for HFCS is free trade. Ironically, many of the people most concerned about HFCS also hate free trade. These subsidies and tariffs were efforts by both parties to buy votes. They also illustrate how little difference there is between the parties. But I digress.

The other irony with HFCS is due to people simply hearing that HFCS is bad for them, then embracing the idea without doing their own research (it'd take about 5-10 minutes using Google). The idea that people won't drink soda because it has HFCS but will chug fruit juice all day is the most ironic. First, a good chunk of what people call fruit juice is loaded with HFCS. Second, even if you're getting pure fruit juice, think about what it is. It's all fructose, the very thing you were trying to avoid with the HFCS. It'll have the same effects, or worse, than soda. Fruit contains a multitude of nutritional compounds, many of which are left behind when it's juiced, such as fiber. Drinking juice is very different from eating fruit.

HFCS won't kill you (quickly), but if you're trying to get healthier, it's probably something to avoid.

Assorted News

2009-01-27T18:53:00.002-05:00

Not many huge stories these days. Here are a couple that are interesting:

Consumer confidence is as low as it's ever been. That's probably to be expected, though the effects are brutal. Consumers seem to be acting counter-cyclical to how they should for the economy , which is to say they're hoarding cash when it's bad and borrowing too much when it's good.

Mr. Obama and the Republicans are playing nice so far. They may have found a common enemy in the hard left of the Democratic Party that is in power now.

Apparently drug money saved the world banking system.

As always Becky is speaking up for liberty.

NY Senator Silliness

2009-01-23T14:31:00.002-05:00

After much speculation and suspense, the replacement for Sen. Clinton has been announced. There are a couple of interesting aspects here. Caroline Kennedy did not get the job, shockingly, even though the Democratic party, as much as they claim to be against privilege, have even more nepotism than the Republican party, possible due to their political machine roots. Kennedy apparently also had tax problems, which is endemic to the Democratic party these days. Apparently that's why they don't mind raising taxes, they just use their political connections to avoid paying them. Seriously, the list is getting kinda long. Rangel, Geithner and Kennedy so far have all had similar issues, and I think there is a least one more that is slipping my mind right now.

The position instead went to yet another moderate Democrat. While I am personally pleased with this(she was endorsed by the NRA), I wonder when the real consequences for the Democrats are going to start piling up. There have already been signs of it, but the fault lines for a real split are there.

I'd love to see the moderate parts of both parties form a unity party, like Kadima in Israel, the left start calling themselves what they are, socialists, and for the right wing of the Republican party join with the Libertarians, though I'd be shocked to see that actually happen.

It will be interesting to see if President Obama does face a rebellion in is own party, and if so, how he deals with it.

Terrorists Wiped Out By Plague?

2009-01-18T23:26:00.002-05:00

So apparently an Al-Queda group has been wiped out by the Black Death/the Plague. What is curious is the article is basically optimistic about the situation, portraying it essentially as divine judgment. It would seem to me that the most likely reason for the terrorists being exposed to it would be an attempt to weaponize it, which, though the plague can be treated, should hardly be downplayed.

Why You Don't Mess With Israel

2009-01-15T23:53:00.002-05:00

Copious Dissent posted a video of an Israeli defending himself from a grenade by throwing the grenade thrower onto it. I have no idea if it's verified, but either way it's pretty cool.

Global Warming Or New Ice Age

2009-01-15T12:06:00.003-05:00

As many of my readers know, one of the few things I am ambivalent about is Global Warming. I think there may be climate change going on, but I don't know how much humans have to do with it. Talk about wishy-washy. The current weather isn't helping much. It is historically cold in much of the nation. The Russians think we are entering into a new Ice Age, but then again, they also think the US is going to split into six countries.

It is likely that the recession and the cold winter will put a damper on the talk of Global Warming. If the proponents of it are smart, they will fully switch to climate change. After all, only thirty some years ago we were talking about global cooling.

Many of the solutions proposed to fight global warming are foolish, extreme or will choke out business. However, many are good ideas regardless of the climate change impact. Hopefully, the new administration will be able to divine the difference.

Links

2009-01-12T22:47:00.002-05:00

Just wanted to post two links I enjoyed from other blogs:

Becky, one of my favorite bloggers, writing about the War On Liberty/Drugs, one of my favorite topics.

Copious Dissent posted a video by Thomas Sowell, who has an interesting take on public schools.

US Declined To Back Bombing Iran

2009-01-11T11:08:00.002-05:00

So, as I expected, Israel wanted to bomb Iran before the end of the Bush administration. President Bush declined support due to possible backlash in Iraq. Instead, he assured them that the CIA was undermining Iran's nuclear program.

This is classic US policy in the Middle East. Aside from being an easy way to shift blame away from their failures, why did the phrase "Death to America" originate in Iran? Because of the American government's support of CIA action in Iran, suppressing dissent. Intervention in other countries, more often than not, results in unintended consequences. It should be done only when there is absolutely no other choice. It remains to be seen what consequences will result from the intervention in Iraq.

If military intervention is going to be taken, it would seem that a good reason for it would be that a country with the slogan "Death to America" is going to produce a nuclear weapon. It will be interesting to see how Mr. Obama handles the situation, and perhaps even more interesting to see how his handling is perceived.

Craziness

2009-01-09T00:32:00.002-05:00

Two random news stories caught my eye today.

First, virtually all of the flu in the US is immune to Tamiflu, the drug most commonly used to treat it. Obviously, this is not good. More interestingly, this did not occur due to overuse of the drug(for once) but just a random mutation of the virus. I'll resist the urge to get out my preventive medicine soapbox on this.

Second, Alaska is having a winter so cold it blows my mind. It's staying at -60 for weeks at a time, so cold that engines won't run. You know it's bad when Alaskans are complaining about the snow. My first thought was, of course, so much for global warming. My second thought was, how do you deal with that kind of crazy cold? I'm not particularly cold-sensitive, I'll wear shorts and a hoodie on 0 degree windchill days if I'm just driving somewhere. But its my understanding that at -40, if a part of your body is uncovered, you lose it. -60 is hard to fathom.

Dem Unity Straining?

2009-01-07T01:34:00.002-05:00

Controversy over the Obama CIA appointment before he has even been inaugurated is the latest sign of Democratic unrest. Fault lines in the part have been showing ever since the DNC's strategy of using DINO candidates in 2006. The infighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns didn't help a bit. In the debate on the bailout, party lines were muddled. Now, with Mr. Obama moving increasingly towards the center, he may be forced to contend with a situation that also faced another young, idealistic Democratic Senator turned President, that of dealing with a fractured party in addition to an official opposition. Mr. Obama's play to the center may reduce direct friction between the factions, but will also win him few allies. One interesting thing to watch will be the response of the Republican party if the Democratic Divide does emerge. They would be wise to stay out of direct conflict and instead build the image of their party which has been so damaged of late. Their choice may shape the Republican party for some time to come.

Innovation Over Handouts?!

2009-01-05T22:03:00.002-05:00

Once again, an Asian car company has come up with an innovation to drive sales. Hyundai has a new promotion where, if you lose your job, you can return the car. This is aimed at people who still have a job, yet are too anxious to buy a car due to the economic downturn. It is still too early to tell if this will be a successful strategy, however, it highlights something severely lacking in today's economy. Everyone has been focused on getting government handouts and "managing expectations". However, two sure keys to success in the free market are quality and innovation. Hyundai has these down. They have chosen to at least try to determine their own destiny, rather than depend on charity. Regardless of success, kudos to them for trying to make something happen, rather than sitting around and whining.

Components Of Stimulus Emerging

2009-01-05T01:03:00.002-05:00

Some of the components being discussed for the upcoming stimulus package are interesting. Most intriguing of all is that Mr. Obama apparently wants to pass his plan with over 80 votes in the Senate. How? Something for everyone. Big tax cuts and up to 600,000 new government jobs. This seems to be a continuation of the theme of his Presidency so far: Unity at any cost. The Republicans are being bought off at great expense, and the Democrats are getting only a fraction of what they want.

This is a strange reversal of the campaign, where the right(and myself) warned that we didn't know anything about Mr. Obama, and that he might be a closet socialist. Well, we were right and wrong. Nobody did know what Mr. Obama would do, but apparently he was a closet moderate republican! Even more bizarrely, much of what he looks likely to propose is right out of the things he criticized about the McCain campaign.

Though it is still extremely early, it looks as though the Obama presidency may be the exact opposite of what was expected: ambivalence.

Rush Job On Stimulus?

2009-01-04T11:25:00.002-05:00

While at this point no one except anarcho-capitalists(not that there's anything wrong with that) opposes some form of stimulus package, the trickier question will be what's in it. However, carrying over from the Bush administration, we may not know until after it's passed. It now looks likely to race through the House before going into the pork-stuffing plant of the Senate, where the Democrats will need to buy some votes.

Most of the measures being discussed are not that objectionable so long as they are temporary. The follow up question will be what will be done to ensure long term growth? The two policies are very, very different, and the proposals seen so far by the Obama campaign are not the most encouraging. Raising taxes and imposing red tape is hardly the way to ensure a thriving economy.

Until this country renounces it's policy of bubbles, it will have one crisis after another, as that is what it is set up to do. There are worse things than continual rises and falls in the market. However, when every fall is an excuse to spend money we don't have, the rising will eventually slow or stop.

War In Gaza

2009-01-01T22:49:00.002-05:00

The reason why I have not yet written about the Israeli offensive into Gaza, besides the fact that it's the holidays and I've been spending time with loved ones, is because, unusually for me, I don't have a clear cut answer. However, since the story is growing rather than going away, with the latest twist being that Israel's nuclear plant may be a target, I thought I would offer my two cents.

Let me start by saying I generally side with the Israelis. They have acted with much greater restraint than I would have in their situation. However, they hurt their cause so much with their poor PR. This may be helped with the new IDF youtube channel. It certainly is a unique perspective. However, it will not address the basic issue that Israel will always struggle as long as it tries to be both victim and victor. If you're going to attack, completely destroy your enemy. Mercy merely provides them the continued existence to regroup. If you need to deport everyone in Gaza to the West Bank in order to be safe, do it. Half measures only make you appear to be the bad guy while not solving the issue.

The Palestinians squander so much of the slanted press coverage they get. They have understandable grievances. If they made clear, reasonable demands and used civil disobedience only, they would have prevailed long ago. Instead, they resort the terror, which de-legitimizes them.

The worst part of watching this mess is knowing it will likely not be solved in our lifetimes. We are doomed to watch the same battles over and over with only the details changing. I sincerely hope that I am wrong in assuming this.

UAW Execs Living It Up?

2008-12-28T02:00:00.002-05:00

With the US auto industry crashing and burning, arguably because of the outrageous demands by the the UAW, surely the union is conserving every penny of the union dues in case of layoffs, right? Nope. They're spending money on a lavish retreat, only unlike AIG, the MSM gives them a pass. That's right, the interest from the strike fund pays for a lavish country club/golf retreat for the UAW brass. While this is their right, it makes me even less sympathetic to their whining for money. The union all but bankrupted the big three while lining their own pockets. Pres. Bush did not force them into bankruptcy, where the union mob's back could have been broken, and you can be sure Pres. Elect Obama will do everything he can to help the unions who helped win him the election. Remember this the next time you see a UAW rep on the news whining about corporate greed and government apathy.

Merry Christmas

2008-12-25T01:32:00.002-05:00

Merry Christmas everyone. May you holidays be filled with joy, family, thanksgiving, blessings and hope for the new year.

Erosion Of Liberty

2008-12-19T01:32:00.002-05:00

Many people have asked why I harp on the War On Drugs so much. Aside from the fact that it is blatantly unconstitutional, it is also a Trojan horse to slip the erosion of our liberty past us, disguised as something that will never apply to us.

Drug war tactics were recently used on a home-based organic coop, aka the most harmless people in the world. Their account in their own words is here. As if the fact that they were harmless organic types wasn't enough, the only military aged male was not there, because he was serving in Iraq! That's right, a man who was serving in Iraq had his organic food selling family detained at gunpoint for 6+ hours and had personal property, including their food for the year, worth over $10,000 seized. The agents allegedly did not identify themselves as well as committing several other breaches of procedure. This was done by a SWAT team who ransacked the entire house.

Now, you're thinking, surely this was a dangerous group of radicals, maybe like the weathermen, or perhaps plotting some sort of civil disobedience, like chaining themselves to something. Nope. As far as anyone can tell, the charge is likely to be... running a retail establishment without a license. Not only that, the family claimed to have sent letters asking for the correct paperwork for over a year, and were ignored.

Now there is a lot of conjecture that this is a part of the government's plan to control food and to support Big Ag and Big Retail. I'm not going to get into that, though I think those claims may have some merit. The real issue is that everyone who takes the War On Drugs(/Liberty) lying down is guilty of contributing to this. It's just like the old quote about the Holocaust by Martin Niemoller:

When the Nazis came for the communists.
I remained silent;
I was not a

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a .

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Thankfully, what we are facing is no where near the Holocaust. It doesn't compare as far as the atrocities, and honestly, I questioned whether to use this comparison. The crimes aren't comparable. But the progression is.

As far as civil liberties, they came for the druggies, they came for the Arabs, they came for the gun owners, now they're coming after the most harmless people in society. If you don't speak up for the civil liberties of people who aren't like you, who will speak up for you?

Speak up for liberty. Write the Governor of Ohio.

MSM Double Standard

2008-12-16T19:11:00.001-05:00

Copious Dissent has a great article on media double standards. He lists five current examples which are extremely difficult to refute objectively. All the more reason to broaden your sources for news.

Eye For An Eye

2008-12-15T00:54:00.003-05:00

Iran is going old school on punishment, requiring a scorned lover who doused a woman with acid, blinding her, to himself be blinded by acid. Since one of my faithful readers asked me for my thoughts on it, here goes.

I support the death penalty. I personally believe it should at least be an option for all violent crimes such as robbery, rape and murder. (Yes, there are many cases of innocent people being put to death. Yes, the justice system needs to be improved. But that is a separate topic.) If a person is guilty with overwhelming evidence, the death penalty needs to at least be on the table.

However, the why is what is important here. I believe in the death penalty not as punishment or deterrence, but as prevention. Dead people can't hurt anyone. Punishments such as, in this case, dripping acid in the eyes, do not prevent crimes, but simply seeks to even scores which can never be evened. To me, this is unproductive and simply creates misery without fixing anything. It is unlikely that an act as irrational as throwing acid on a person can be deterred.

At the same time, there is an argument for corporal punishment for some crimes. I know my liberal friends will argue this point, and I agree, it is mostly speculative at this point. The crime/punishment in many countries is a chicken/egg deal. However, I have to believe, for a certain category of crimes it may work very well. These crimes would need to be not governed by emotion, as there is no deterrence that will work there. Crimes such as car theft, burglary and certain extreme DWI's would fall into this category. I simply have to believe that public flogging for these offenses would reduce their number. It is likely to be an non-issue due to many reasons, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

As far as my direct reaction to this incident, it's simple: kill him. People like that can't be allowed to live. The chance he may reoffend is too high to risk.

The Islamic world also must realize that things such as the original incident here scar it's name far more than terrorism. There is no excuse for any group of people to treat other groups of people as property to be owned or destroyed based on their own emotion.

I also find it ironic that so many intensely traditional groups decry modern society/the media/Hollywood for "objectifying" women by showing any sexuality. It seems pretty obvious that the worst danger to women is the reactionary three part classification of women as relative/wife/whore. This is where the view of women as property comes from, and it is the view of women as property that creates the worst offenses towards them.

Above all, it is a tragedy that we are even having this discussion.

Off-Message

2008-12-12T01:15:00.002-05:00

It looks as though Mr. Obama will not make it through the Blagojevich scandal unscathed. Though there is still no indication that Mr. Obama will be implicated in any of the shadiness, the hope of this fading away quickly is itself fading. There are continual suggestions that the Obama camp must manage. It is a horrible sign that Rham Emanuel is hiding behind "no comment".

The real damage here is the distraction. Mr. Obama has received near universal approval for his action thus far. He does not need a scandal this early, especially one that threatens to typecast him as a typical Chicago politician, and worse, undermines his key campaign theme. In a worst case scenario, such as Mr. Emanuel being forced to resign, this could cast a shadow over his entire presidency. Even less grave outcomes will hurt his thus far stainless image with voters. Mr. Obama needs to deal with this aggressively and quickly. It is a failure of his camp that he is dealing with this at all.

More Illinois Corruption

2008-12-09T23:13:00.002-05:00

The Governor of Mr. Obama's home state, Mr. Blagojevich is charged with what the FBI called a "political corruption crime spree". The Nixonian accusations run the gamut from bribery to intimidation of the press. The FBI, granted somewhat self-interestedly, is making this out to be one the largest, clearest corruption cases in recent history.

The more interesting questions are about the links between the arrested Governor and the President-Elect. The two come from the same party apparatus and have worked together for some time. In fact, Obama aides and loyalists are now falling over each other to recant previous statements of closeness and discussions of matters under investigation.

It is unlikely that Mr. Obama will be implicated in any wrongdoing. However, his comments on the subject thus far have been shamefully weak. He has thus far only made wishy-washy statements expressing "sadness".

This is inexcusable. As a candidate who ran one "change" Mr. Obama should strongly condemn the actions "if proven true" and should bend over backwards to help the investigation. Coming from a state the FBI calls one of, if not the most, corrupt, Mr. Obama carried the burden of proving his campaign slogans.

Another Wave Of Speculation On Israel Bombing Iran

2008-12-06T11:18:00.000-05:00

There are new reports that Israel is prepared to bomb Iran with or without US assistance. While the actual reports may be probes at judging Iranian or other responses, the news continues to confirm that military options are now off the table. Israel believes Iran will have the fissile material for a bomb by late 2009. Some believe that the current government will fall before using the bomb, likely sparked by the effects of the falling price of oil. In any case this has the potential to be Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton's first major crisis.

Gun Sales Keep Soaring With Obama Presidency

2008-12-05T10:09:00.000-05:00

The centrist course and moderate rhetoric aside, many Americans are still buying guns in preparation for what they believe will be an Obama administration attack on the second amendment. Sales, and prices, of possibly banned guns have skyrocketed since before the election. Some models are actually on waiting lists so long that could end up not being filled if legislation did pass. I have talked to gun shop owners who have told me manufacturers are completely sold out of models. Ironically, Mr. Obama's election has been a huge financial boost to the gun industry. Most ominously, guns sales are up the most around Chicago, where they know Mr. Obama best. Hopefully, Mr. Obama focuses on the economy, instead of eroding the rights of Americans.

Small Bright Spots In The Economy

2008-12-05T01:23:00.000-05:00

While it is doubtless the economy is struggling, there were some glimmers of hope. Initial jobless claims were down, Wal-mart sales were up, and oil is still falling. Combined with Mr. Obama appearing to take a centrist approach to the economy, there may well be hope for a end to the recession sooner than many had feared.

Big 3 Showdown

2008-12-04T11:31:00.003-05:00

The heads of the Big 3 Detroit automakers are in DC today for hearing on government financing. Of course, one of the reasons they are there in the first place is because they focus too much on lobbying Washington for favorable treatment and money, and not enough on running a solid company. So far this year they have already spent $50 million on lobbying Washington. That amount of money is fairly small, however, it is more about the mindset. You can't, or at least shouldn't, run a company by sucking up to Washington. Ironically, Detroit can't even pick a winner in Washington. Rep. Dingall, who they have lavished millions on, lost the chairmanship of a committee long used to protect the Big 3.

The situation does look dire. There is talk of a pre-packaged bankruptcy, which may be more palatable than the regular kind. In an extremely ominous sign, the UAW is ready to make wage concessions. That is a definite sign the end may be near.

Chambliss Blocks a D60, But At A Price

2008-12-03T10:00:00.002-05:00

Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) has won his runoff election, thereby blocking the Democratic party from achieving a filibusterer proof majority in the Senate. There is now one legislative check on the power of the Democrats as a party. Though Mr. Obama so far shows every sign of governing from the center, it also acts as a check on Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi, who may not be so moderate.

Mr. Chambliss is likely a good man, and we agree on more than a few issues. However, some of his failings illustrate why the Republicans are now in the minority in both houses, have lost the White House and look likely to struggle to change the situation barring a failure on the part of the Democrats.

Many of Mr. Chambliss's weaknesses are stereotypical of a Republican Party that is increasingly dependent on a small group of reactionary political illiterates to win elections. His son is a lobbyist for an issue on which the Senator is one the committee for, though he is allegedly barred from lobbying his father. Mr. Chambliss advocated "arresting every Muslim who crosses state lines", though he later apologized.

Worst of all was his 2002 election tactics. Mr. Chambliss dodged the draft for the Vietnam War by receiving 6 deferments for various issues. He is what is known as a "chicken hawk", one who dodged the Vietnam draft with connections, then voted for the Iraq war and impugned the patriotism of anyone who opposed it. The Bush administration was full of them. However, Mr. Chambliss took it to another level.

His opponent, Max Cleland was a decorated Vietnam Veteren, who lost three limbs in the service. Mr. Chambliss, referring to votes cast by Mr. Cleland to protect worker's rights in the new DHS, accused Mr. Cleland of being soft on terrorism and the war, and implicitly attacking his patriotism. That's right. The draft dodger attacked the patriotism of a man who not only served with distinction in Vietnam, but left three of his limbs there! John McCain(R, AZ) said the ad was "worse than disgraceful, it was reprehensible" and Sen. Hagel(R, NE) said it was "beyond offensive to me".

At the core, the Republican party is based on solid ideas. In fact, these ideas should resonate with young voters, who are independent and grew up with no expectation of job security. However, the party needs to make a conscious choice to renounce the fear based mudslinging, xenophobia and jingoism that it has recently relied on.

The Republican Party needs to lay out a clear, positive vision for what it stands for, and then mobilize for the 21st century. If it does not, it is destined to be the permanent opposition minority.

Northern Command

2008-12-01T23:45:00.002-05:00

Traditionally, the Northern Command, which is responsible for the United States, has not been assigned troops. That is because the US does not use troops for law enforcement, and we weren't exactly worried about getting invaded by Canada or Mexico.

That is changing now. There will now be 20,000 troops deployed to the US to prepare for a large scale event. They will allegedly be used only for that purpose.

I am torn about how to feel about this. On the one hand, what is stated as their mission is completely harmless, and seems to be specifically tailored to meet the objections of people like me. There will be minimal troops tasked to security, and they will allegedly be only for the defense of the unit.

However, this is a dangerous precedent, and the type of event that has been used elsewhere to transition to using the military more and more against civilians.

So far the plan seems to be sound. However, as has been stated many times and observed less, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Obama Continues Moving Toward Center

2008-11-30T10:53:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-30T02:05:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-11-27T09:54:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-26T20:07:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-25T23:13:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-24T23:39:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-24T05:09:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-23T08:18:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-22T11:58:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-21T07:49:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-20T17:05:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-20T07:57:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-19T17:43:00.000-05:00

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

2008-11-19T09:21:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-11-18T22:18:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-18T00:09:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-17T00:03:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-11-15T01:34:00.002-05:00

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)

2008-11-14T13:48:00.003-05:00

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

2008-11-12T18:03:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-12T10:22:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-12T10:21:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-12T00:58:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-10T23:51:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-08T09:43:00.002-05:00

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

2008-11-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

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.