The Peace President

Just want to rant for a second. One of the justifications my mother gave for voting for Obama was that he gave a speech against the Iraq war. I replied that he was an opportunist politician, implying that he had no real intentions of ending any war. I stand correct, though I have no opposition to increasing troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. My official position is that Iraq, and possibly Afghanistan, should become independent colonies of the United States; like Puerto Rico or South Korea - and that an increase of troops is appropriate to secure this. And; that we should never have gone to war originally.

TODO - I will likely blog about the following in the near future: inheritance, meritocracy, and capitalism; guilt, debt, and politics; Orwellian redefinitions, especially with regards to capitalism and bailouts.

Though I am hoping that one of my resources will beat me to the punch and save me the effort.

MIT Climatologist Disproves Global Warming CO2 Link

In case you hadn't heard.

Social Engineering

I've had several experiences lately that have convinced me that this administration is playing no-holds-bared social engineering. I mentioned the case where I was politically screened during a job interview.

Another example. I was on an interview with a tech company that is creating a product to enhance internet broadcasts of Obama's online speeches. They openly declared their socialist leanings and were perturbed that I wouldn't work for them for the salary that their other software engineers were making - they decided I thought I was better than everyone else, essentially that I was a capitalist pig. But even during the interview process I had solved several of their most pressing technical problems. That's why capitalism works. If I was an average software engineer, I would be satisfied with an average salary. But as studies have shown, it's typical to have a 10x difference in productivity among software engineers (and teams), and I have worked my way into that higher productivity category - I expect to be compensated for my extra production.

Currently I work for a company where, I believe, middle management is being chosen for their demographics, not their competence - and I'm wondering what strings are being pulled to make that happen.

If It Ain't Broke, Convince the Population It Is, then Break It Through Your "Fix" To Set Up a Dependency

I went to the Emergency Room on Saturday. I thought I had a nasty bug bite, but it turned out to be an infected follicle. Remember, I live in one of the most expensive places in the US if not the world.

The competent staff checked me in. I waited for about 10 minutes. Was seen by a highly trained registered nurse for ~5 minutes. Waited another ~10 minutes, then was seen by one of the most highly skilled professionals in our society. He spent ~10 minutes with me discussing options and writing a prescription. I have very inexpensive insurance ($50/month) with a 50% copay: it cost me $100 and my insurance $100. I immediately went to the pharmacy and bought medicine that is the result of thousands, maybe millions, of hours of R&D and was again counselled by a highly skilled pharmacist, that cost me $20.

Are you F'ing kidding me? You can't have a nice night in the Bay Area for $120. I went on a date a few weeks ago at a very modest Italian restaurant and paid over $120. I recently bought three work shirts for ~$120. I had to register my car and get a smog check recently: $120.

If your mechanic fixes your car, pay him. If your gardener mows your lawn, pay him. If your lawyer wins your case, pay him. If your doctor makes you well again, pay him. If you teacher teaches your kids ... let the government pay him? I do NOT want the government involved in health care, 'cause their going to make things WORSE, not better, as Schiff explains via government meddling in education.



UPDATE
Just got the final bill from the hospital: $355 with $85 copay. Not the deal I described, but I believe that if I (could have?) had shopped around like a good consumer I could have received similar service for the amount originally described.

Need For State Banks

I hate Michael Moore. He is the ultimate bleeding heart liberal whose holier than thou philosophies are so detached from reality that were he to champion perfect positions for the next 80 years he could not undo the damage he's done.

That being said, I agree that we need localized banks (point 4).

We didn't have a central bank originally (1776) for a population of ~2.5 million, which is less than 1/14th the population of California today. End the Fed.

Shiff Calls Democrats Nazi Vampires

Will bring garlic and stakes if he's elected to the Senate.

Freedom is Radical

There are a lot of people, young folk especially, who want to find a cause to stand behind. I want to tell you, now more than ever, freedom is the most radical stance you can take - and it needs you.

Freedom is the idea that you are beholden to no one and that you can do whatever you like so long as it does not impinge on your neighbour; particularly their life, liberty, and property. It's the freedom to make mistakes and learn from your mistakes. It's the freedom to take risks. It's the freedom to fail, and the freedom to succeed. It's the freedom to claim as yours decisions that affect your life. It requires, though, that freedom loving people fight ideas, and unfortunately sometimes the physical manifestations of ideas, that would enslave us. And that is radical, and noble.

You Can't Have War Without Collectivism

Nazi Germany was Socialist
They were beaten by one of the most collectivist US presidents ever

Collectivist power comes from a common goal. At best that goal is to provide services for the people, with only the inefficiencies of a monopoly. At worst, and more commonly, it villainizes an "other" against which the collective must unite to defeat. At best that other is an abstract daemon, such as an environmental problem. At worst, it is a foreign people easily and advantageously scapegoated for the benefit of the leaders.

Concomitantly, history teaches us that any people that does not defend itself will be conquered.

Objectivism v Collectivism aka Rand v Marx aka Capitalism v Socialism: slippery slope

Your need does not create an obligation in me v From each according to his means, to each according to his need

I have a right to produce and disperse the fruits of my labor as I see fit, including giving to charity v I have a right to the fruits of your labor because of my need or because I am a member of a disadvantaged group

I choose to work because I benefit directly and because I can improve the lives of the ones I love, repay those I'm indebted to, and help those I deem worthy v You may work and we will decide how the fruits of your labor are disbursed, you may even get to keep some

I am a free man and choose to work to not only survive, but thrive v you are our slave as evidenced by our ability to tax you on threat of imprisonment

Collectivism in vivo: Harsh Climate v Tribalism

I've been thinking about how we got into this collectivist mess and, as with many things in homo sapien, it is likely a combination of nature and nurture, with natural selection as the guide. So what forces were brought to bear upon us to create such an abomination?

My guess is that there were two primary drives: survival against harsh environmental conditions and survival against other tribes. The environmental version probably had it's greatest effect in the northern climes where communal living is more necessary. Imo, an Viking would be much less likely to survive on his/her own than someone living along the Nile. Everything in the North seems to be communal: hunting large game, surviving the elements - imagine living through below freezing temperatures for long periods without communal support. In the northern situation you have vast resources, but need a collective to realize them. I believe we see this type of collectivism in the environmentalist Hippie and Global Warming Fan Boy group think that has occurred recently. This collective also has fewer small tribe conflicts because they are more likely to feel brotherly love, but large wars are still possible when large cultural and genetic difference reduce personification of an objectified enemy (think world wars).

Collectivism born out of tribalism on the other hand would have smaller communes, and would be much more belligerent and war like. The enemy, by necessity, would more easily objectified with a smaller set of differences required to objectify. Personal loyalty would be highly prized and continually tested, with even mild dissension villainized. Think of rising stars in (collectivist) political parties, gang members, even sports teams.

The difference I see between them is that in the first you would naturally tend towards inter species win/win (even out of species win/win with domestication), while in the later you tend towards win/loose.

Constitution & Decl. Independence Kinda Like 10 Commandments

You cannot break the law, you can only break yourself against the law.

When Moses brought down the tablets, what was inscribed on them did not impart laws that benefited him directly. Rather, they were laws that he had interpreted from a higher power as a benevolent gift to all his people.

Similarly, imo, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were revealed by our fore-fathers, not in defence of a power grab, but as a practical solution to the impracticality of British governance at that time. When the Declaration declares:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

They're not whistling dixie, they are declaring that the individual has power, and anyone who denies that truism is destined to break themselves, be it one who depends on the violation of another, or one who allows themselves to be violated: you will be punished if you do not acknowledge the law.

So my request of you is to bring yourself more in line with the law - the real law - to stop breaking yourself and others against the truth - and once the truth has been revealed to you, to reveal it to others.

Response from Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey on Fed

I recently messaged my congresswoman, Lynn Woolsey, thanking her for backing Ron Paul's HR 1207 and asking her to help limit Fed powers. This is her response (modified slightly):

July 30, 2009

Dear Ranter:

Thank you for contacting me about the Federal Reserve System. I
appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me on this
issue.

Like you, I believe we must support monetary policy that promotes
better economic performance, accountability, and transparency. The
Federal Reserve System is the central banking system of the United
States and its purpose is to address banking panics, strike a balance
between private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of
government, manage the nation's money supply through monetary
policy, and contain systemic risk in financial markets.

As the Federal Reserve takes unprecedented action to stabilize our
economy and financial markets, we must increase transparency and
oversight of this institution. That's why I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 1207,
the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, which would eliminate
restrictions on General Accounting Office (GAO) audits of the Federal
Reserve. Additionally, it would enhance transparency by opening up
Federal Reserve funding facilities, like the Primary Dealer Credit
Facility, Term Securities Lending Facility, and Term Asset-Backed
Securities Lending Facility, to Congressional oversight. H.R. 1207 has
been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services. You may
be interested to know that S. 896, the Helping Families Save Their
Homes Act, permits audits by the GAO of a limited number of Federal
Reserve emergency activities. I voted for this bill when it passed
Congress, and it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on
May 20, 2009. Be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as I
continue to work to strengthen oversight and transparency of our
financial markets.

Again, it's good to hear from you. The people of Marin and Sonoma
counties are the most important voices I listen to as I serve in Congress.

Sincerely,

Lynn Woolsey
Member of Congress

PS - Visit my web site and sign up to receive e-mail updates on
legislative issues that are important to you. The address is:
http://woolsey.house.gov/emailupdates.asp .

Response From Senator Feinstein On Fed

I recently emailed Senator Feinstein, asking her to reconsider her position on expanding Fed powers, and to ask that she support S.604. Here is her response (slightly edited):

Dear Mr. Ranter:

Thank you for contacting me to express support for legislation to increase transparency at the Federal Reserve. I appreciate your interest in monetary policy and welcome the opportunity to respond.

The Federal Reserve was originally established in response to the country's need for a sound and independent central bank to manage decisions relating to U.S. monetary policy. I understand your concern with some of the unprecedented steps that the Federal Reserve has taken recently to ease the flow of credit and stabilize financial markets.

On March 16, 2009, Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) introduced the "Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009" (S. 604), which would require the U.S. Comptroller General to audit the Federal Reserve System before the end of 2010. This bill has been referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a similar bill (H.R. 1207) in the House of Representatives. Please know that I will keep your support for this legislation in mind should it come before the full Senate.

While I recognize the importance of accountability in the operations of the Federal Reserve, I strongly believe that monetary decisions should be made independent of political influence or motives. You may be interested to learn that I supported an amendment to the Congressional Budget Resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) offered by Senator Sanders requiring the Federal Reserve to disclose how it has disbursed emergency economic assistance to financial institutions during this severe economic crisis. Be assured that I am carefully monitoring the actions taken by the Federal Reserve to help stimulate our economy and unfreeze credit for businesses and homeowners.

Once again, thank you for writing. I hope that you will continue to share your views with me. If I can be of any further assistance, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours, Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ENewsletterSignup.Signup.

Support Gary Clift

Please consider supporting Gary Clift in his run for congress in a special election. While he has many quality arguments, I support him primarily because he will back HR 1207, because he's a libertarian, because he backs the constitution, and because he's endorsed by Retake Congress.

Capitalizing on Cool

My cousin works for a shoe designer. They started off very small, but had original products that their customers loved. Then they hit it big, and stores like Macy's and Nordstrom wanted to carry their brand. They went to China to scale their manufacturing.

Much of the doom and gloom in the economy has been warranted: our manufacturing sector is dying and we are in a huge debt hole. Our politicians are bad jokes and our values are scripted from Looney-Tunes cartoons. But, that's actually been the case for some time in the US, even if it's more pronounced and a heavier weight today. I still believe that, while the American brand is damaged, much of the world thinks of us as pretty f-in cool, and that's partly because we imagine products that are golden.

The entrepreneurs we need will be creating the next iPods, walkmans and boom-boxes; levis jeans, Air Jordan's, and leather jackets; coca-cola, malbros, and bubble gum. If it's cool, you can sell it. Should the dollar continue to decline against gold, it may become profitable to again manufacture these products at home. Gold is valuable (largely) because people think it's valuable - the same has been true and can be true of American products even if their manufacturing costs are low.

That is, until consumerism is replaced by a new world utopia and fads are replaced with morals (that was meant to be funny, but it's just kinda sad).

Support Liberty - Through Lessened Financial Independence?

If you're a libertarian like me, we understand that part of being free is being financially responsible. If I donated to every cause I felt had merit, I'd quickly be a pauper. I may end up that way regardless, but I'd much prefer that it happen slowly.

But money talks. At some point before the 2010 election I will donate to or volunteer for one or more of the following, and I encourage you to do the same:
Rand Paul for Senate
Meg Whitman for Governor of California
Peter Schiff for Senate
Campaign for Liberty
Whoever runs against Barbara Boxer, unless she starts championing liberty (like getting behind S.604)

A Detailed Analysis Contrasting Crony Capitalism to a Communist Oligarchy

Trifecta of Corruption

Sorry if you already figured this out, but I haven't heard anyone say it yet: auditing the fed should include investigations into Goldman Sachs, and probably the treasury.

Make Money Like a Capitalist: the Labor Market

I'm a big fan of Peter Schiff. I can think of better people to be Senator, but I definitely like him over Dodd.

In his latest vlog, Schiff talks about how an increase in the minimum wage is bad for everyone, and I agree. But he only tells half of the story, probably because he's an employer.

If you really want capitalism to work, you have to have mobility in the labor market. If you are "loyal" to your employer, you're not making the most amount of money for your work, and you're depriving a company who values your talents more - i.e. can make more money from your work. This is a suboptimal situation for all parties (except for your employer who had a monopoly on your labor).

When people (en mass) forget that they can switch employers, all sorts of bad things happen: wages fall, unions form, and people start talking about implementing or increasing a minimum wage.

This is how it works: You're making $10/hour from your employer making widgets. The widgets you make in one hour are worth $30, but your employer needs sales staff, etc; and he's not very good at running his company, so he only ends up making $1 from your labor. His competitor is better at running a company and can sell the widgets you make in an hour for $40: he offers you $20 an hour and you both make more money. Eventually your old employer figures out that he needs to pay his employees more to keep them, or they'll all go over to the competition, so he gives them a 75 cent raise, starts running his company more effectively, and the friend that you left there can now afford milk for his baby daughter.

So you see, it's in your interest, and better for the market as a whole, to shop your skills every 3 to 6 months.

Other notes: job cartels can form to artificially push down labor costs - like if the two employers I mentioned start working together to avoid price competition. If you read my previous posts, imo government needs to step in, otherwise, a union is in order.

The Son of a Eco-Terrorist Mafioso Don

I'll probably never be able to fully describe how far left the household I grew up in was. I mean, my father actually encouraged me to smoke marijuana. That's right, encouraged me.

Sorry, short term memory loss - this blog is not about dope it's about ... about ... about ... oh yeah! no, wait. Eco-Terrorism, that's right.

This how the con works: first, you round up a bunch of good intentioned proletariats and start paving a road with their intentions by accepting donations to save mother nature. You do want to save mother nature don't you?

Then you start making a fuss by dragging your children out in front of town councils, state legislatures and the like and making them cry. (That literally happened to me - my father got me to cry in front of a town council to stop a hydroelectric project).

Then you hire a well meaning, dope smoking (hehe, dope, 'member ... dope), attorney or five to block something like tuna fishing or logging or farming. Industry has to hire their own attorneys (their side usually prefers coke over shwag, and they wear loafers instead of Birkenstocks). Once your side starts winning lawsuits, or just cost industry enough in snow and footwear, you start settling out of court to look the other way - and you're in patchouli oil, incense, and yoga lessons for another 6 months.

But it's all just a lecherous protection racket. None of it produces food for anyone, or electricity, or wood so people can build houses. It's mostly just a giant drag on the system and forces good, hard working people to make due with less and work harder so that a few hippies can feel self-righteous and get stoned.

If You Can't Sell It, You Don't Own It

There's been some talk about how the US taxpayer now owns GM, banks, etc. The logic is something like: the government owns X, and since the government is for and by the people, the people own X. BS. The people used to own these institutions through stocks and bonds, which they were able to sell on the open market if they chose - but in many cases these people have been wiped out. The only people, now, who can sell your stake in these institutions are people who work for the government.

There is, of course, a way out of this - issue stock to the taxpayers whose money you stole to fund the bailouts. This won't happen, of course, because our government is now fascist.

New World Currency - Mark One for the Conspiracy Theorists

We're starting to hear calls for the IMF to create a new reserve currency. Imo, this is bad for the US, US allies, and the world, in that order.

People have been talking about hyper-inflation for a while, but it hasn't hit yet. Between Washington's proposed social programs, wars, bailouts, and money creation, our paper money should be worthless at this point. If China, India, and other debt holders drop the dollar, it will hit. A new reserve currency would help accomplish this.

But what's really going on? I think (international) bankers are jumping ship. The Fed audit has them scared, they've drained the dollar of its value, and now they want to move on to something bigger and better without accountability and traditional US morality hindering them.

Stealing through money creation only works when there are a lot of people holding that currency. At first it was all US citizens, then other countries started pegging to the dollar and holding the dollar. In the current situation, where the US in in debt and the rest of the world holds dollars; when we create money we're stealing from the Chinese and guys stuffing dollar bills under their mattresses in Mexico.

Oh, and before I forget - all the foreclosures we've had are basically a way to steal from the international community who bought our securitized debt obligations (mortgages). Though the bailouts reduced that theft.

So, the world's pretty mad at the US right now. And they should be. But a new reserve currency is a bad idea for everyone. The new currency would give bankers more opportunity for abuse, not less. In the US there are still folks like Ron Paul who are trying to hold the bankers responsible. He's getting a lot of support domestically and, I believe, internationally. As soon as you move to the new currency, it becomes much more difficult to hold the bankers responsible. Which is what they want, and is probably why there are so many otherwise bad ideas coming out of Washington right now: they're trying to scare world leaders into a new currency that will be easy to abuse. Don't do it. Help the US keep the banksters honest - don't play into their hands. My advice is to dump some of your dollars, which will cause inflation and force the US to work instead of steal; buy durable goods and commodities; and diversify your currency holdings - but you're already doing that, aren't you?

Going the Wrong Way? - On Prohibition and Tobacco

Some are pushing for legalization of ganja. BHO just broke a pen record signing a tobaccy prohib res. My friend once failed a drug test and had to go to rehab or loose his job. Hint, hint.

Why N. Korea - Why now?

Been thinking about this N. Korea thing. Last time we fought them it was a cold war proxy fight with "communism" aka China (maybe Russia, too). China's kinda peeved at us for inflating the currency (remember the Geithner trip?). So, methinks this is about holding the US accountable for trade shenanigans; notably money creation and protectionism.

People have been saying it for years, but China (and India to a lesser extent), is about to start making waves. I see Russia aligning with the US, Europe, and Australia in a very dirty new war. It may be carried out covertly through spies, economics, and sabotage but it may escalate to widespread, but contained, battles including limited nuclear warfare.

But what's new about that?

Free Market Caveats

I want to rant a bit on some of the edge cases of capitalism. Socialist politicians love this stuff, because they can say, "see, see - capitalism doesn't work here". But capitalism is still the best system I know of for the real world, and hopefully this will help you argue around the edge cases.

List of Problems:
Monopolies
- natural monopolies
- competition
Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
Charity

Monopolies
Natural Monopolies
There are two main problems with monopolies: natural monopolies and competition. I define natural monopolies as: any industry that is impractical to reproduce. These are things like streets, gas, electric and water infrastructure, security (police, military). It's just silly to think that there should be at least two roads between every two destinations, two or more power lines going from an electric power plant to your home, etc. Imo, these rare industries need to be wholly owned by the government, but maintain a close parallel to a competitive market (no "free" electricity). I also think those industries should be owned at smallest appropriate level: town streets owned by the town, inter-city highways owned by the state, no roads owned by the national government (though interstate air travel should be run at the national level). The inefficiencies and corruption that occur in government run enterprises are offset by the impracticality of duplication, though border case industries might continually cross the line when managed by very inefficient or very corrupt governments.

Competition
Most goods and services do not fall under the above "natural monopoly" definition. Think clothing, cars, food; and yes, even medical services. The best way to serve the population here is through regulated competition. If you're in the market for a new car, you read up on several different models, take a few for test drives, figure out your cost/benefit estimations, and pick a car that fits your needs. Regulation is in place to keep the car companies honest: they don't display false advertising, they don't employ child or slave labor, they don't sabotage other companies, etc. If a company becomes very successful they may drive their competition out of business (think WalMart) - and this also becomes a problem for capitalism. Unfortunately, the government should also step in, in these situations, to re-introduce competition in the market. So long as there are at least two competing companies (who have not formed a cartel), the government should not intervene.

Externalizations (tragedy of the commons)
The tragedy of the commons, briefly, is the problem where, if no one owns a resource all will abuse and waste it until it is drained. Think global warming and air pollution. If you had to pay for the air you pollute when you drive your car you might drive less. This is the general goal of cap and trade: charge the polluters so they don't waste/abuse the resource. Unfortunately, the implementation of these tragedy of the commons solutions are prone to corruption, and even perfectly executed solutions usually have at least a short term negative impact on the economy. I don't have a better solution than fines/taxation for solving the tragedy of the commons problem, however, I do recommend using it sparingly and making sure the cost/benefit ratio is well on the benefit side of things. You probably won't see many complaints about cap and trade on this blog - even if it turns out to be a bad idea, there are bigger fish to fry.

Charity
Ah, the heartless capitalist. Liberals love this argument, and it gets them a lot of votes. Take hurricane Katrina. Everyone complained that GWB didn't do enough soon enough; or that he hates black people; or the poor; or Jazz music. BS. I don't want Washington involved in state matters. Those guys lived in a hurricane zone and had many warnings that their levy system was vulnerable: you reap what you sew. But, the American people are very forgiving and loving: I know people who went down there, people who volunteered their time and money. That's when America is at its best - not when we're guilted into something, not when the people of California have their taxes increased to pay for the sins of Louisiana, but when we volunteer and donate our labor and savings towards causes we believe in - that's when America shines. We can't do that, though, when our government steals our productive potential from us by interfering in the free market.

My Email to Senator Boxer - Opposing Fed Powers

I recently wrote Senator Boxer (D - CA) asking her to oppose the newly proposed regulatory powers for the Federal Reserve. Here's the response I got (slightly modified):

Thank you for contacting me regarding the recent Senate hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Shortly after the hearing, I called General Walsh, and we had a friendly and productive conversation. We expressed our respect for one another and our determination to work together to protect our nation and communities from natural disasters.

Thank you again for writing to me. Please feel free to contact me in the future about this or any other issue of concern to you.

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

The Disingenuous Left: Public Option Intellectual Dishonesty

The argument from the left, that the private insurance industry can compete with a "public option" is intellectually if not blatantly dishonest. Here's an analogy for you: A guy from the government comes up to you with a gun and says, "You can spend a year in jail, pay a $10000 fine, or pay $100 which is good towards our insurance which costs $150". "But I already have insurance, it only costs me $100, and I'm happy with it". "That's fine, you can keep your old insurance, but you still have to pay us $100". "So I have to pay $100 regardless, which makes your insurance (which I'm not happy with) only cost $50 vs. my current plan which will still cost me $100". "Yep". "Gee, thanks for robbing me of $100 and giving me something I already have". "That's what we do at the government, you're welcome".

I Forgive Mark Sanford

I'm not from South Carolina, but I hate the idea that a weakness he shares with JFK and Clinton might keep him from being my president. Here's more about him.

Love vs the Nanny State: On Socialized Medicine

There's been a lot of debate lately on private insurance vs socialized medicine. This is the wrong debate because both are different versions of bad when we need good.

Let's take an idealized, individualist, capitalist approach first. I work and save up (real) money. Something bad happens to me. I go to a doctor and ask how much it would cost to fix me. I then decide if I want to spend the money on this doctor's cure. I could not spend the money, leaving it to the people I love if I'm terminally ill, or just suffer with my ailment because I would suffer more from the loss of my money. It's my decision.

There are other options, though. I rarely write about interdependencies (read 7 Habits) because if you don't understand independence you'll never get interdependence right, imo. But it applies here. In addition to my own concern for my well-being, there may be others who have an interest in keeping me alive. My parents may want grand-children. My employer may want to keep a good employee. My wife may want to keep her husband, and so on. All of these people who have an interest in keeping me alive may choose to donate or loan the money needed for my care. It's their decision - it's their money. Imo, this is the most valuable insurance you can get: the love and respect of those around you, therefore, instead of paying high insurance costs, or higher taxes, I highly suggest you invest in time and rich experiences with your loved ones.

Now, contrast that last investment with the two options currently being debated. With private health insurance you're paying someone regularly who has an interest in discontinuing service when you need them the most. This isn't too bad, because you can choose to not pay for health insurance. But with socialized medicine, you can't opt-out: if you choose to spend money on your children rather than taxes you'll be prosecuted for tax evasion. You've lost your freedom to do as you choose with your money, and lost the ability to invest in a more effective form of health insurance: love.

Que Bono? Baby Boomers are rapidly loosing their worth in America's economy. They're becoming productively obsolete and an enormous health care liability. If they were to go directly to their children with the cost of their treatments, they would be greeted with more "no"s than when those same children were pried from the toy store at the mall thirty years ago - put Viagra on your Christmas wish list and maybe if you're a good senior citizen there will be a present in your stocking. Instead they're legislating their health care burden onto their children, making it illegal to refuse care for the hedonistic and over-privileged 60's generation.

Campaign for Liberty is running a petition to stop the legislation, please help.

Social Engineering World Conflict

Hey Tehran, I heard Kim Jong Il disrespected the Koran. I even heard he drew a picture of Mohammed, peace be upon him. And he thinks Ahmadinejad is better than Mousavi, or the other way around ... really whatever ticks you off more. JK

My Latina Child Abuse Story

Until I was 5 years old, and my sister was 3, we had a 15 year old, female, white, babysitter named Vallerie. I loved her. I thought she was beautiful - gorgeous, really. Blond hair, blue eyes. She helped to teach me to swim. I felt as comfortable in her arms as in my mother's.

But when I was 5, and my sister was 3, my parents decided they needed to improve their progressive credentials. We got a new, 15 year old, female, latina, babysitter named Maria. She was also beautiful. The first night she sat for us my sister and I fell asleep watching TV with her on the couch - my sister proped up against her right arm and me leaning against her left.

The second night she watched us, Maria took me aside, "if you're a really good boy tonight I'll put your sister to bed early and we'll play a special game". I tried my hardest to be a good boy and imagined a game that would be more fun than playing GI Joes and Legos combined. Finally, she put my sister to bed, closed the curtains, and sat me down on the couch. She threw a blanket over the two of us. "Now get undressed like you're going to bed". She was also getting undressed. "Take your underwear off, too".

She performed fellatio on me. Then she had me suck on her nipples. Back an forth for about 20 minutes. Weird game, I thought. It wasn't very fun, but it felt good. She told me to not tell anyone about the game. The next time she came over we played again.

One day I decided to show my sister the game. My mom walked in on us. To her credit, she stayed fairly composed. She asked who taught me the game. I told her. Vallerie returned as our babysitter from then on. My sister and I couldn't be left alone any more because we'd start playing with our genitals. I was screwed up about sex until I was 25.

Not all latinas sexually abuse children. I have known, befriended and loved several who have been stand-up citizens. But Maria increased her wealth of experience by taking advantage of me when I was a 5 year old boy. I was never sexually abused by a white male (though I'm sure that there are white male child abusers). However, when Sotomayor says that she has experiences that a white male doesn't have, this experience flashes through my mind.

I wonder if Letterman would make sexually inappropriate remarks about Palin's children if he found his child's babysitter sodomizing his son. I even have a joke for the babysitter, "Hey Lettermen, let's get off of celebrity children, I just ...". Or is it that it's OK to abuse white children sexually and in the media? When will he start joking about the Obama kids?

Tasty Rants

I don't know this guy, but I like the way he rants.

Why the Right Should Support Gay Marriage Only, and Why I Want the Government Out of Straight Marriage

As a libertarian, I want a small government that doesn't interfere with me and my freedoms. As part of that non-interference, I want the government's nose out of "straight" marriage.

I have worked with many Indians (from India) in my time. According to them, in India, if a man wants a divorce, he raises his hand to his wife's face and says, "I divorce you". If this was all it took, I'd be much more likely to get married, since it wouldn't be much different than the way I separate from girlfriends now. Instead, I've been avoiding marriage like the plague, in part because of the separation and alimony horror stories I've heard.

As a more graphic reason for avoiding government run marriage, watch Braveheart again. How would you like the right of prima nocte enforced? Wanna keep the rulers out of your affairs now?

Personally, I want this "freedom from government" for homosexuals, also. And for the Mormons who want polygamy, too. I mean, why do you want to give control over who you can marry to the government? Anyway, let's contemplate the scenario where only gay marriage is regulated by the state.

All of a sudden, extremists can target this group for taxation, persecution, concentration camps, and homosexual prima nocte rights. So by registering yourself with the state, you open yourself up to a whole mess of hardship. Welcome to marriage - and I though alimony was bad.

Instead, let's keep the government out of our business. We have laws for communal ownership, child custody, and the like. Let's stop letting government regulate our relationships; get their noses out of our business and our bedrooms, and prevent them from screwing up our lives.

Why I'm Pro-Choice

I am pro-choice for philosophical, contractual, and practical reasons.

Philosophical
I'm a big fan of Ron Paul: we're both libertarians and we both respect Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy. He is, of course, pro-life and I see that position as a contradictory to his principles. One of her assertions was, roughly, that one person's need does not translate to an obligation on another. This is used to justify the rebellion of producers against the oppressive collectivist leeches. I see no difference when the leech is now called an embryo - its need for a host does not obligate the host. Now, one may say that the circumstances of pregnancy are different: the sexual act is involved and parents have a responsibility for their children. The first is only relevant if you believe sex should only be performed for procreation - which doesn't jive with Randites (or me) or that birth control is 100% effective. The second point (responsibility) is already defeated by Rand principles, but I'll also address it next.

Contractural
The parent child relationship is essentially a contract: parents have children in order to be more happy. In return, they provide the child with life and the opportunity to also be happy. Happy children are a blessing, so it usually all works out. However, if the parents do not view the child as contributing to their happiness, it's a bad deal: either they made a mistake, they were duped, or the child isn't holding up their end of the deal. If there's a bad contract, there is no obligation on either side to be held to it.

Practical
It is impractical to enforce anti-abortion laws. If a women doesn't want a child, she'll find a way to abort it. Whether it's back-alley abortions, pins in the head of the unborn, beatings to the uterus, or abandonment - women have ways of removing an unwanted fetus. If abortions are legal and tolerated we will only endanger one life (the leech) and not two.

A couple extra points. I don't want women to have abortions. I believe that no woman wants to have an abortion. I believe that one of the best ways to prevent abortions is to give a woman an alternative - I'd like to see some sort of fetus transplant technology emerge, with pro-lifers putting their money towards practical alternatives instead of protests. I further believe that some women have abortions for socio-economic reasons that can be avoided or ameliorated, and that much of the anti-abortion/pro-life motivation is targeted on these abortions. I believe that those socio-economic pressures are leaving certain demographics with a low birth rate through abortion and traditional birth control, and that this represents a very insidious form of demographic-ocide which may be fuelling the radical pro-life right. OK, I'm ranting.

The Extreme Bigoted Left

I was on a job interview not long ago with a company that handles IT for non-profits. Now remember, I live in one of the most far left areas in the US, if not the world. I was talking to the CEO and he made a few comments like, "we try to avoid extremist organizations", and "we want to make money, but we also want to live in a community that agrees with us".

This got me to thinking, "Why don't you set up some guidelines such as: we won't support organizations that hurt humans or leave people financially destitute". He didn't like that since he would be interested in supporting "monkey wrench" style spiking of trees (they can hurt or even kill loggers), and PETA protests of ranches.

OK, "what about something like Bristol Palin supporting abstinence only education - it doesn't hurt anyone, improves public discourse on the issue, and may help her reach out to troubled teens?". "No, no, I wouldn't take on a charity like that - I don't think abstinence only works and it doesn't agree with my politics". I would take it on: you're supporting the first amendment, their proponents may get desperate and turn radical if not given a respectable outlet, and hell - they'd be payin' us.

I didn't convince him, and I didn't get the job. So be warned: it's not just Carlos Bledsoe and Bill Ayers; it's CEOs in some of the largest cities who are advocating violence for the extreme left, and performing political screening in their hiring process.

Let the F'in Market Clear!

I've been wanting to buy a house for a long time. I'm sure that there are a lot of people in my position. Instead of giving tax breaks and keeping interest rates low, the banks need to let the market clear.

My understanding is that the banks are only allowed to keep a small number of foreclosed properties on their books at any given time. Looks like that's not being respected. I don't know how they're getting around it, but I'd like to start seeing fines and/or eminent domain (imo it's better to use eminent domain against banksters than against people who had a plane land on their property).

Selective Enforcement

I have a Latina friend who recently became a citizen. She knew about affirmative action, equal opportunity, laws against sex discrimination, and separate but equal illegalities; so she was excited when she found out about a wonderful career opportunity. This business was made up entirely of men, so she should have an advantage due to her sex. There were almost no latin americans represented, so she should have a case there (plus, she was a Latina, so the wealth of her experiences should give her an advantage). She had majored in the subject in college where she had excellent grades and had been given many awards in the field. She'd been been in an serious debilitating accident recently, and got handicapped parking approval, but her day to day functioning was not impaired. When she applied, though, she was scoffed at.

This was for a position as a professional basketball player in the NBA. They do have the WNBA, but we all know that "separate but equal" is illegal (which is why I am against separate men and women restrooms and locker rooms). I recommend a strict quota - that at all times there be 2 men, 2 women, and a hermaphrodite in play for a team. Since we don't want any "equal work for equal pay" problems, we will require that every player in the NBA be paid exactly the same and endorsement money be equally disbursed. Rosters must contain a strict quota of all ethnicities in proportion to their representation in the nation's population. Further, because of the historical discrimination against the physically disabled and the vertically challenged, teams must have one of each in play at all times. If a team fails to find worthy candidates that meet the criteria mentioned, we will change the worthiness tests on which the candidates are evaluated until the desired candidates are approved. This will also be enforced at the collegiate and high school levels.

I wonder how Sotomayer will do on Obama's basketball team.

More Fed Destruction

http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3648-4049

Congress could take back the power to create the national money supply by:
(a) Nationalizing the Federal Reserve.
(b) Reviving the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a government-owned lending facility used by Roosevelt to fund the New Deal. Rather than merely recycling borrowed money as Roosevelt did, however, the RFC could actually create credit on its books, in the same way that banks do it today, by fanning its capital base into many times that sum in loans. Assuming $300 billion is left of the TARP money approved by Congress last fall, this money could be deposited into the RFC and leveraged into $3 trillion in loans. That’s based on a 10% reserve requirement. If the money were counted as capital, at an 8% capital requirement it could be leveraged into 12.5 times the original sum. That would be enough to fund not only President Obama’s stimulus package but many other programs that are desperately short of funding now.

I'm a bit worried about competing bills that will water down and/or distract from HR 1207.

Hannity Comedy Scetch

This is what I want to see: Hannity waterboarded hoax style ala Mancow with interrogator yelling, "Tell me your name". He says, "F you". Repeat. They let him go. Dry him off. Give him a cookie. "Oh, my name's Sean Hannity, how do you do"? Followed by one or more of the following memes: oh, hi; dramatic rodent; or keyboard cat.

Vinegar v Honey

So I hear N. Korea is posturing. Just an idea: strategic foreign exchange. If you want to improve relations with another country, let your teenagers to party together. They have one very common bond - disdain for their parents. Send some friendly kids from the US, S. Korea, and Japan over the wall. Invite their children into your home. If they kidnap a few of ours, meh, at least you don't have to pay tuition.

Oh, and Sotomayor sucks.

Maddow About to be "Becked"

Rachel Maddow has been one of the few voices that I have actually listened to on MSNBC. Initially I disagreed with her, but respected her for speaking her mind. I stopped watching her when I perceived that she had stopped being honest with herself, but instead was towing the MSNBC political line. With this entry on Obama's security speech, she may have started to be true to herself again.

I had hoped that she would return. I think, though, she's about to get Glenn Becked - if she doesn't get in line with NBC politics, she's gone. I think her viewpoints are actually libertarian, and unfortunately Fox is co-opting the libertarian movement and I don't see her getting welcomed into that fold. If we had a true libertarian party, or strong libertarian media outlet; one that welcomed both former Democrats and Republicans, then there might be a place for her.

define:irony

irony: A dramatic device that reveals a paradox or incongruence, usually in the form of a rebellion against the expression of a character flaw that the protagonist also possesses.

define:torture

Just gonna put my $0.02 on this. It's fairly clear that: torture lies on a continuum and that people have different sensitivities. Some people don't consider anything torture that doesn't involve genital electrocution, others draw the line at a poorly played piano concerto. For me, eating a peanut is enjoyable, but the movie Firewall built part of its plot over a child's allergy to the legume.

In my life, I was spanked with a belt and slammed into a wall (giving me a black eye) by my self-proclaimed pacifist father. I was beaten up by a gang at my high school. I've been handcuffed, placed in uncomfortable positions, been stripped and had my genitals stared at, by police officers and never found guilty in a court. I've had a gun pointed at my head. I've gone through economic hardship leaving me destitute. I've worked for awful people who've tried to undermine my self esteem. I've been threatened and ostracised for quietly speaking my truth.

Sorry for the big dose of negative, but what I'm trying to say is, "shit happens". It especially happens in war. I suggest that we prosecute every bully in every school in the US who has dished out a swirly before we go after the previous administration for performing the adult equivalent on terrorists. That will never happen because half of the Democratic thugs would be doing time.

I suggest we give the previous administration the benefit of the doubt: that they were acting with the best intentions, and may have erred on the side of being, "too rough on the bad guys". And I back Coulter on partial birth-aborting terrorists instead of American babies (I am pro-choice, but if I had to choose between them ...).

Now, that should end this post, but I want to add a couple tangents. First tangent is the hypocrisy with the Japanese after WWII. The winners make the rules. If the Japanese had won, they would have prosecuted US officials for dropping atom bombs or burning up their civilian's wooden houses. That's one reason why it's very important to win, and why the hate crime bill is in congress right now - if NAMBLA had donated to Barney Frank's re-election campaign like he'd asked, I think you would be seeing different groups protected. If you don't want to prosecuted for water boarding, don't lose an election. The republicans lost, they may be prosecuted - hopefully some day it will work differently.

Second tangent is that the rest of the world right now may believe that the US is/was acting as a world bully/Nazi/asshole. A trial that shows that we can hold ourselves up to our own standards (accountable) may restore some of our credit. The cost/benefit of doing this, the moral quicksand that it presents, and the raw fairness of it escapes me.

Finally, "would they do it to me"? I think this is a question going through the liberal mind right now. They know that conservatives don't like them. They know that the conservatives water boarded one enemy. If I am considered an enemy, will I be water-boarded? And I think this continues from the last, "world view" tangent. Bush once said something like (I'm being lazy), "you're either with us or against us", France was against us, the terrorists were against us, we water-boarded the terrorists, we will water-board the French. But the reality is that enemies also fall on a continuum.

update (5/16/2009):
I realize that the above statements sound "pro torture", but that was not my intent. My goal was to help with the definition of torture. I was suggesting that water boarding might fall in a grey area, where some consider it out of bounds, but others don't; and that I might give our officials a pass if they authorized it. The atrocities at Abu Graib, and the IRF-ing at Gitmo clearly cross that line and the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

I also believe the administration must go after low hanging fruit first and both use and set precedence. Since there was a water boarding precedent set in WWII, it's easy to define, it doesn't play an obvious role in subduing immediate prisoner violence, and cannot be confused with a cavity check, it may be the best vector for cleaning up this mess.

I still think (depending on intensity) that I'd rather have my head dunked a few times rather than have chemical irritants shoved in my anus, my eyes poked out, my head slammed repeatedly against concrete (leaving permanent brain damage), etc (follow the link above).

Finally, a hypothetical question. There are two demons and a saint. The saint is not powerful enough to take on either demon, let alone both. Is it ethical to pit the two demons against each other, then destroy the weakened survivor? (two demons: torturers and terrorists; saint: American citizens)

Bi-Partisan Fed Destruction

So I've been peddling HR 1207, the resolution to audit the Fed (and you can push Pelosi to schedule debate on it here). But I was thinking about the nationalization of the banks and the stress tests, also. Now, I am no fan of the liberal agenda, but the way I see it right now, nationalization of the banks is just a different means to the same ends of returning the power of money creation to the people. I believe it is: if you're a Republican you can get behind Ron Paul, if you're a Democrat you can get behind Obama.

The next question becomes: Is money creation best left to the politicians in Washington? Should states be able to create money? Municipalities? The UN? Yourself? All of the above?

Killing Cancer with a Smile

This cartoon got me reminiscing about my time as a cancer researcher.

Why did I quit? In short, it didn't make sense for me to save thousands of lives if the one I was leading wasn't worth living. I hate lab work and I wasn't making any money ... so I said "forget it". I wouldn't have gotten credit for anything, anyway.

But there were a few ideas I had for cancer treatments that I never expressed. Unfortunately, I've forgotten all my key words, so this is going to sound a little odd to anyone in the field.

First, we know that we can make antibodies for just about anything. You put a foreign protein in some lab bunnies and shake them, and viola, you have antibodies that stick to the foreign protein. So you do that with your cancer cells, then screen for antibodies that stick to the cancer cells but not the healthy cells. This should work for both common types of cancer and one-offs.

Now, you might get away with just injecting this crap right into the patient. The affinity of the antibody for the malignant cells might be enough to trigger the hosts' immune system.

If not, you can either: add a carbon chain and at the end use one of your "killer blocks". You know, one of those chemical clusters that kills just about anything. The antibody will attach to the cancer cell, then the killer crap will do its work.

Not satisfied? Use the antibody as the attachment vector for a virus. You know how HIV only attacks white blood cells. Do a little swap and replace the "white blood cell attachment do-hickeys" with your antibody ... do-hickeys.

Best of luck. Remember to get out of the lab occasionally.

Please Consider Supporting HR 1207

end the fed protests April 25th

We Need Better Ways To Protect Ourselves From Our Government

This has happened to me, too, though the consequences were not as severe. I was held for two days in Marin County for not agreeing with a police officer that I was DUI (I was stone sober).

I was also detained for 4 hours in San Francisco for pointing out that an officer was threatening me with an arrest for not wanting to give any information I wasn't legally required to provide.

Do not mistake my statements to mean that I think we don't need law enforcement, we do. But we need officers who will uphold the word and spirit of the laws, not thugs who abuse their position. We need to improve our ability to weed out bad apples before they cause harm, to detect bad apples that have gotten in, to remove or rehabilitate apples that are going bad, and to provide antidotes to those have been poisoned by the rot.

Finally, I want to point out that he was on a stretch of road that is riddled with violent crime these days. What if he had been a bad guy? What if he'd had a bomb in his trunk? What if the actions taken by the officers was the best way to ensure their safety against violent retaliation they've experienced in similar circumstances? Should we consider parts of the US more like war zones, and assume that in a war, you must take sides - and that in these regions you either need to side with the authorities or the outlaws? I think that's a more common sense solution: expect to be treated differently by police in different regions and under different circumstances. Pick your allies, enemies, and your battles. Realize that some environments may necessitate violation of the word of the law to fight for its spirit- but never loose sight of the goal of a country by and for the people. This requires balance of priorities: in my opinion the balance has shifted too far towards security and too far from freedom. I think the guy in the video would agree. I would also recommend that authorities learn to pick their allies, enemies, and their battles. Did this guy really come off as someone with a bomb or a person in their trunk? Even if he was doing something technically illegal, do you think it was worth violently violating his rights to prevent him from doing it? He just doesn't come off as someone who wants to do wrong. OK, I'm ranting ...

Hypocrite: Stewart Thinks it _is_ OK to Use (Military) Force ...

... so long as it's "our guy". Was there a UN resolution on pirates backed by France? Did congress declare war on Somalia?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=223907

Yep, Tea Time

I went to the Napa Tea Party, briefly. I think the San Fran one would have been too risky. It was a bunch (~50) of middle aged folk and their children waving flags and holding signs like "honk if you ..." - where ... was "want lower taxes", or "want less government spending", or the like. Lots of people honked. I saw one "impeach Obama sign", but didn't see anything like "audit the federal reserve", or "stop creating money with the Fed" like I'd hoped. They were happy and peaceful and boring for the most part. I'm not sure it accomplished anything, but I'm glad I went.

Davey Crockett + 1

... the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right: to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive, what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

http://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com/2009/04/15/davey-crocketts-words-again/

Time for Tea?

I have recommended in previous posts that you go to a tea party. And if the world was a perfect place, I would not have to qualify that statement. However, I'm reminded that the original tea party participants were relatively anonymous, disguised as American Indians. You will probably not be anonymous, but rather may likely land yourself on international news. And you may be arrested.

If you think you can do more good for yourself and your way of life refraining from tea party participation, you may be right. I live in one of the most radically left regions of the US, and I'm second guessing the wisdom of participating, myself.

Stewart Pelosi Interview

Stewart Pelosi Interview

She admits that the Fed is creating money out of thin air, as Ron Paul has been talking about, and (imo) implies that the Fed printed the money for the bailouts and the recovery package.

This is why I recommend going to a tea party tomorrow, April 15th.

I'm not strictly opposed to money creation. Like the use of (military) force, I believe it's a powerful tool that should be used under particular, well thought out, extreme, circumstances. The only use I believe it should be used for now is to slowly pay down the national debt and the interest on that debt. It currently appears that money creation is being used to finance an ever larger government, to fund the extravagant lifestyles of insiders; and that honest, productive work is being systematically devalued, even mocked. If prudence, frugality, and trust are not restored; and if cronyism, inflationary theft, and boondogglers remain, I'm afraid the US is headed to further decline.

A Monetary Solution for the US

Skip to 3:11 for his recommendations.

Tea Party

Please consider an act of patriotism and capitalism by attending a tea party protest on tax day: http://taxdayteaparty.com.

Meg Whitman for California Governor

From what I've read so far, I think Meg Whitman's principles are well aligned with mine, and probably those who follow my blog. I recommend that you look at her website and decide for yourself.

IMO, she needs personal stories of how her policies will translate into a more prosperous constituency - the speeches and articles I've read so far deal in the abstract. She'll need a tear jerker and a poster boy if she's gonna win this thing. She's got to have some "Mom and Pop" eBay sellers she can bring forward to put a face on tax policy and small business.

A last note: it may be difficult for me to be impartial about the Whitman campaign, so I probably won't blog about it as often as I might otherwise, and please take my posts with a grain of salt.

More Coming Out About New Administration's Ties to Housing Meltdown

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02172009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/rahms_rent_is_just_the_tip_of_ethics_ice_155536.htm

The bad economy is because of Republican failed policies.

-- Ministry of Truth

Stimulus Politics aka Creating a Welfare State

Paul Begala has elucidated the real motivations behind the stimulus bill better than I ever could: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/begala.carolina/index.html

He likens the stimulus package to steroids, and I think that's a great analogy. In sports, if you take steroids you gain an advantage over your opponent. So, without laws and regulations, all professional athletes would have to take steroids to compete.

Now, imagine that the Republicans are athletes who think that no athletes should take steroids, and that the Democrats are users and pushers. If you don't take steroids (receive bailout money) you and your fans (constituents) will be at an unfair advantage in a crooked game. Unless all players agree to not take steroids you're hurting yourself and your team by abstaining.

What I see as worse is the bribery implicit in the Democrat's stance. Implicit is that if you back the administration's policies, you should get money; if you don't back the policy you shouldn't get money. And the genius of the argument is that, absent my previous comments, it looks like the Republican principals have forced them into a lose lose situation.

Also note that if the Democrats subsidize everything, any individual who opposes the government will be easily destroyed by removing his/her government subsidy.

Goldwater's Words Still Ring True

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/presidentsessay/presessay2004.pdf

What is Happening to Freedom of Speech?

http://www.ketv.com/news/18585512/detail.html

Stimulus IS Government Spending

So they finally admitted it. The democrats think they can spend their way out of the recession. But remember that the government is by the people, for the people. So what they are saying is that they want to tax you (or borrow against the promise to tax you even more in the future) in order to pay you to do a job.

It's simpler if you imagine that you are the only citizen that they rule. They either collect taxes from you, or borrow from someone else with the promise that you will pay back more in the future. They then use that money to get you to do a project that they want done. Maybe you think it should be done, too - but why do you need a middle man to do it? Just volunteer your time and energy and fire the middle man.

America doesn't need a pharaoh, doesn't want a pharaoh, and never has. Build your own pyramid.

Schiff + 1

An American Person Rendering Judgment

Obama's saying that Republicans need to give up their position because, "the American people have rendered their judgment."

I'm an American person. Here's my judgment: Don't pass a spending bill. Cut taxes. Balance the budget. Don't redistribute wealth. Don't nationalize private business. Don't turn the US into a socialist country. Go back to audio books.

Oh, and remember that it wasn't the failed policies of Republicans that got us into this mess, but rather you and your Democratic thugs preventing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and your leveraging the Community Reinvestment Act to force banks to make bad loans. You do remember that, don't you? That the housing bubble didn't have anything to do with lowering taxes?

Let 'em fail!

Let 'em fail in the US, also

Let the Market Clear!

I've been thinking this for a while. The masters' bailout of the banks was more about keeping real estate prices high so that their wage slaves can't buy their freedom.

Where is the Stimulus Money Coming From?

If anyone knows, please comment. Please include links. Interest rates would be helpful.

How Tax Cuts Can Educate A Child aka STFU Barney Frank

Barney Frank has been saying: No tax cut educates a child in the way that it ought to be done.

If you stop stealing a family's money, they may be able to live on a single income and home school their children; or afford a private school that the family feels is better for their child than the often inadequate socialist schools. And giving a family options on how their child may be educated is the way it ought to be done.

Pelosi Boondoggler

Obama's Dream of Bipartisan Support for Stimulus Package In House Unfullfilled

Surprisingly, opposition to the stimulus was bipartisan. 11 Democrats, Baby! They're not as sheepish as I thought.

Update:
I guess you knew that already.

F*** you, Colbert (Actually, I think he's awesome)

Sicko: Socialized Medicine Myths aka Opportunity Costs

I finally got around to watching Michael Moore's Sicko. I must admit, it pulls at the heart strings. And that's part of my problem with the film. By choosing his scenes and case studies, Moore gives a false impression: that all we have to do is implement socialized medicine and that would fix all our health care problems. It would, as he claims, reduce the number of individuals who receive below average care, but I argue here that the cost of getting everyone to average is too high.

I'm not one to say that the US health care system cannot be improved. But I do want to point out the hidden cost of socialized medicine. Socialized medicine (like any socialized program) over supplies a service (or product) via artificial demand, resulting in market inefficiencies and suboptimal global production through the opportunity cost of its implementation. Lemme 'splain.

In the film, Moore compares the cases of two individuals who have lost fingers in an accident. The American must pay a fee to reattach his fingers (if he chooses), while the other individual's socialist government program picks up the tab (and when the government is paying, of course you have your fingers reattached). The film heaps scorn on the American system for forcing the American to pay for the medical services, especially since he decides to only have one of two fingers reattached.

But the cost of the doctor in the socialist system has not disappeared, nor even been reduced. In fact, Moore goes to great lengths to document how well a doctor under a socialist system lives. The tab for his service is picked up by the government and relayed and distributed to the people. But that's basically what insurance companies do. The socialist government acts as one big insurance company, who's premiums and deductibles are paid for through taxes. But unlike in the United States, you don't get to choose your insurance plan: everyone must get complete coverage. When everyone gets complete coverage, everyone has fingers reattached. With more fingers being reattached, you have to have more doctors to reattach them (and more hospitals for the doctors to work at, and more Audis for the doctors to drive - as the one in the movie did).

If we have more doctors, we must, concomitantly, have less individuals in some other career. To make my point obvious, let's say that one of the doctors, had s/he not become a doctor; would have become a mechanical engineer, who built a better saw, which led to a sharp decline in finger cutting accidents. How many people would; instead of paying a doctor to sew their fingers back on; instead pay the same fee to not have their fingers cut off in the first place? That's the opportunity cost. And also a good plot line for the Sopranos.

I've simplified the argument, and there's more to this problem - including common corruption problems in both socialist and capitalist systems, arbitrage examples, freedom of choice, etc. But you get the idea: socialism sucks, capitalism rocks!

Obama's New America

Obama's New America. Read it.

Why Bush Shouldn't Be Prosecuted

There are a lot of things I didn't like about Bush and his administration, but we had plenty of time to impeach him. We didn't. We did elect him. Twice. Get over it.

Philisophical Differences Are Moral Differences

Obama has asked Republicans to put aside political and philosophical differences and "do the American people's business right now." But really, what he's saying is put aside your values, morals, principles, and ignore the promises that you made to your constituants and do what the Democratic majority, and Obama himself, want.

All he's doing is forcing the Republicans into a no win situation. If they stick to their guns, they look like they're obstructing an economic recovery (which will actually cause more problems). If they cave, they share the blame when this thing doesn't work and lose their political credibility as Republicans.

Don't do it! Block harmful government spending! Taxing from (and/or borrowing on behalf of) a naive or unwilling population is theft!

How Obama Could: Not Screw Things Up (Much), and Appease the Collectivists

This is how I see it. Obama needs to "do something" to show his supporters that he's working to "fix the economy". But there are two separate issues: there's the show, and there's the fix. The show needs to satisfy: "I'm doing something that my supporters think will solve their problem", and the fix is solving the problem itself. But, what is the problem?

People are saying that the problem is that we need more jobs. Well, sort of. But who really wants a job? I don't. If I could keep my lifestyle without working (and not burdening others), well, that's fine with me. I'd spend more time pursuing my own interests. But, that's not realistic. In the real world most of our needs and wants are satisfied through labor, either our own or someone else's. We usually trade the products we are most efficient at producing for products that someone else is most efficient at producing so that both parties may work less and/or have more. Note that I'm ignoring services, but the same rationale applies.

But what happens when someone in society doesn't have anything to trade? When demand decreases for the product of their labor? Ideally, they develop a new skill that is more desirable in the current market. They may, alternatively, turn to crime. I very few idealistic individuals might lower their lifestyles or perish.

Someone may step in and provide for those who can not participate in the fair exchange of goods. If the producer does this (think charities) it is a noble act: they are willingly giving from their production to help someone they value. If the government does this by taxing (or borrowing with the promise to tax later) the producer against his/her will, it is institutionalized theft via coercion – even if the perpetrators believe this is the utilitarian optimum.

The situation becomes more complex when you add in a fiat currency, long term contracts, monopolies/cartels, and inflation/deflation. I'll just describe the current problem as I see it with few extra details: deflationary pressure with long term contracts, specifically the cost of labor and the housing market. Labor contracts may be considered somewhat long term, and mortgages are very long term. When there is deflationary pressure, a company cannot charge as much for their product, so they need to cut costs to stay in business. Usually, they can expect their raw materials to decrease in price, so they don't need to cut back on quality or quantity. However, their labor costs don't adjust because of the long term nature of the contracts (and this can be exacerbated via unionization). Ideally, they could ask employees to take a pay cut, and some companies are doing this. Usually, they just axe workers in accordance with the realities of cost/benefit. These workers will hopefully find new employment, likely at a lower wage because of the deflationary environment. Fixed mortgages, however, do not adjust to deflation, and we have seen that variable rate mortgages are, curiously, not helpful either. So people must sell their houses (sometimes at a loss), or go into foreclosure, because they're not able to make payments.

I have to address one more reality before I get to a solution: why we're experiencing deflation. I don't know for sure, but my understanding is that foreign countries (China especially) are holding dollars and charging interest by investing in treasuries, companies are saving to make sure they have enough cash on hand, and banks aren't lending much (while still collecting principle and interest on outstanding loans). You may notice a problem in there: interest payments without (explicit) money creation.

Hopefully I've identified the (current) problem at this point: deflation caused by interest (and savings), combined with long term contracts only honorable through a stable or inflating currency.

With these assumptions, a “stimulus package” looks promising. By increasing government spending you'll get money to the currently unemployed, address deflation, and maybe even produce things like roads and bridges and such. The problem is that the government will either tax or borrow for the money, and the unemployed are those that normal employers have already deemed as not producing sufficiently in their cost/benefit analysis. So you end up paying people more than they're worth to produce things that consumers probably don't need or want (because if people needed or wanted these things an entrepreneur would have already capitalized on it, or for the few projects that cannot be addressed through the market (roads, etc) the government should handle it as part of it's normal function and not overcompensate/overproduce during desperate times).

So what is a newly elected savior to do? To satisfy the “show” I think he must initiate some infrastructure projects. I don't think this is the government's proper place and I think in the long run it will cause more harm than good, but I don't see a way around it from his perspective. So something like a government prize for green, domestic energy production solutions and innovations, with low interest loans to start businesses for the winners might work. I can see T. Boone Picken's natural gas vehicles, and improved solar panels coming out of this, with the businesses making consumer products and eventually becoming viable enough to get off the government tit. He might even provide grant money for contestants.

The other thing he could do is go back to his employee tax credit idea. As I mentioned, a problem for businesses during deflationary periods is the cost of labor. A tax credit per employee would decrease the impetus for businesses to shed employees, and would keep employees working at something they're good at and for companies producing products that are in demand in the market. There are problems with this idea, but this post is already too long so I'll stop here.

The previous two actions would be mostly for show. What I think would work, but will probably not be implemented, is this: gradually issue every American and business counterfeited dollars in proportion to their net worth until deflationary pressures are countered (as measured by a basket of goods). This does not redistribute wealth (domestically) since we are dealing with fiat currency, and does not warp the market, but it does counteract the deflationary pressures I mentioned previously, namely interest. It also reduces the real cost of our foreign debt, and does not increase our numeric debt. Further, it will prompt foreigners to spend our currency, thereby adding inflationary pressure. If they spend dollars on US products and services, we will see legitimate job creation. I propose a .2% distribution ASAP, doubling the amount every month, and a reversal once domestic prices stabilize. Again, this post is getting long, and I don't want to justify this solution vs the tax rebate idea, or some other proposal, but I'd be happy to respond to comments.

Finally, I want to remind you that I'm a big fan of Ron Paul. I think my solution is the opposite of returning to a gold standard. I also think that a gold standard is impractical, especially given our debt levels, though it might be practical once prices stabilize and real foreign debt is reduced. I do think this action would open up a precedent that may be abused. Further, I don't think that this solution is strictly fair to those in the world who have trusted the US to honor our debt obligations. I do, however, think that this is the best solution to actually solve the problem.

I end with this: I'm an armchair economist, and my solution is the humble exercise of a passionate amateur. I do hope, though, that my analysis and thoughts contribute positively to the marketplace of ideas.

Never Thought I'd Say It: I Agree With Rush Limbaugh

A little background: I grew up the son of two hippie liberals who moved to a rural, conservative town. My family's ideas and values got me ostracised more than once. About the time I was most affected by this situation, when I was supporting the rights of gay people to teach in public schools, Rush started a short-lived TV show. I saw him mocking the liberal leaders like I was getting mocked: as a one sided rant (ahem) against anything that wasn't hardline conservative. And his radio program was filled with more vitriol.

Fast forward to today. I will never again back an initiative supporting gay rights. Why? Because that courageous act that I performed years ago only distanced me from people I most identify with, and because I have never seen a gay person act courageously on the behalf of a breeder. Further, I have only been greeted with contempt and disparagement when I told homosexual people, who I had considered friends, that I was without question straight. That's not to say I will actively campaign to take rights away from gays - I won't. And just to piss you off if you're gay: I don't support the redefinition of marriage - you have as much right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anyone else does. I do, tentatively, support the abolishment of marriage in the legal system, though, moving it to a private, cultural, and possibly religous affair ...

But that's not what this post is supposed to be about. This post is about Rush Limbaugh being a voice of sanity for conservatives by declaring that he hopes Obama fails. And I now agree with him.

I haven't written for a while, because I felt defeated, and I knew that anything I wrote would be tinged with bitterness. I wanted to give Obama a chance before I started complaining. I was even, initially, duped by the calls to wish Obama success, because that seemed to translate to success for the people of the US. But I am not bitter any more, and I do not wish him success in his goals.

I hope Obama fails, because I believe the actions he is proposing will be bad for our country. I hope he fails to create a welfare state of slaves by burdening us with debt, inflating our currency, and stealing workers from the private sector to labor on his pet projects. If he fails to do those things and we reduce our overseas spending (wars) and don't incur civil unrest, he may be president over a very prosperous time in American history; or at least a recovery. If not, he will likely go down in history as the worst demagogue ever.

If he were to fail in his goals so supremely - that increased (domestic) competition with monopolies and big business surfaced to the benefit of consumers, that he effectively taxes externalizations instead of speculating on green technologies, that the government decreased its size and cost, that banks and the auto industry become less nationalized and are no longer "too big to fail", and if he allowed producers to retain the fruits of their production (instead of redistributing it), then he might go down as one of the greatest presidents. Then I could only complain that America became strong again despite his presidency, not because of it; instead of complaining that he oversaw the downfall of the brightest nation ever to exist.