Don't Ask Do Tell

This week's Libertarian Politics Live covered Don't Ask Don't Tell and specifically dealt with the question of should gays serve openly in the military. The Guests were Bob Marshall and Rick Sincere, but the biggest shocker was Eric Dondero, the founder and owner of LPL, going off about the subject, possibly in a way you would not have imagined, but more on that later.

I suggest that you listen to the show in its entirety from the link above, but I will give you the really short version. Bob Marshall was the christian conservative using a priori reasoning to basically justify his position of being against gays in the military without having to say it was based on conservative christian values. Bob Sincere was on the other end of the spectrum, saying gays should be able to serve openly, that they already serve with distinction and nothing will change if they do serve openly. Eric served  as the hysterical white male that thinks the military will be turned into effete latte sipping cacasotti if gays are allowed to openly serve, because all the real men will leave.

The point is moot now that the congress has acted and passed legislation allowing gays to serve openly. That said, I will give you my points as I couldn't get a word in edgewise during the show.

Prior to the new law, the federal government prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age. Further, denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability is also prohibited. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

So, in effect, the military was in their right not to let gays serve openly or at all, regardless of the political backlash. That said, Mr Marshall and Dondero had weak cases.

Mr Marshall's case revolved around the increased cost of healthcare for the military if gays served openly. It also revolved around the premise that if they are allowed, most of the straight military will not re-enlist. I would think it's specious to assume that the military's healthcare costs will increase because gays serve openly. What I think he assumes is that if they serve openly, they will have sex and if they do not serve openly, they will not. The implication is that if gays have sex, they will get HIV, which leads to AIDS. May be part of his thinking process is that the repeal of DADT will somehow cause a population explosion  of gays in the military. I guess we'll see if he is right on that one, but I would tell him that gays in the military are having sex, whether or not DADT exists and the risks of contracting HIV are equally there if they serve openly or not.

As far as straights not re-enlisting, well, that also remains to be seen. As someone from the largest city in America, I have had to work and go to school with people of all stripes, colors, orientations and background. As long as the situation is focused on the work at hand, it never mattered and it never did. I don't care what someone's sexual orientation is, what race they are, where they were born, what language they speak, how old they are or whatever, I will treat them with the same basic respect. Judge the content of someone's character...Anyway, it's a big world out there and if someone won't serve with someone that is openly gay, then may be good riddance. I bet the position will be filled with someone that is superior anyway.

As to Eric's argument, his was based on his own experiences in the Navy in the 1980's. He regaled, with incredible emotion and vitriole, his experiences aboard ship with gay shipmates. The case in particular was about a gay shipmate that came back drunk from leave and proceded to give oral sex to another shipmate whilst he was asleep. The sailor awakened to this and according to Eric, charges were never brought up, as the Navy was PC even back then. Eric further asserted that he could not ogle female sailors in the shower, so why do they have to allow gays as he would feel uncomfortable and what would his wife think.

Well, if a gay male sailor is ogling another sailor and making advances, it is harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. It doesn't matter what the combinations of sexual orientation are. Equal rights demand equal responsibilities and those that cross the line should be held accountable, always. If they aren't, having DADT doesn't solve the problem. It'll happen anyway and I will say, that Eric knew this sailor was gay before his illicit act, so he can't plead that ignorance or abstinence would have improved the situation. It happened. I would also add that to hear Eric go off, the thought crossed my mind if Eric was in fact the sailor that got the blow job. Did he finish Eric? :) Me thinks the blogger protests too much. I would also wonder how Eric's wife feels about him bragging on the same show that he's screw any woman or may be it was any good looking one. Between that and his insistence that the military was for men to be manly and virile, I have to again, wonder what his deal is. The military is our defense as well as the strong arm of our foreign policy. The military trains to break shit, blow things up and kill people. They also can provide logistical and support services, like they did in Haiti. If that defines what a man is, I guess so. I think Eric's definition of what a soldier is, is a little two dimensional. The military today is a volunteer one and a professional one. They are the best of the best, gay or not, and they do their jobs well. Being gay should be the least of their problems. Also, women serve in the military. Are all of them manly and virile too?

The heart of the problem for me is to preemptively tell someone that they will be punished or sanctioned before a bad behavior is committed. It presumes guilt, that if they serve openly, they will do behaviors that are unlawful, yet not adjudicatable in Eric and Bob's mind. If that is their worry, then pursue justice on a case by case basis when people do cross the line. The question,  should gays serve openly or not is specious. Do straight people have a litmus test? None of it should matter. What I will tell Rick Sincere is although I find Bob and Eric's arguments specious and a priori, I also do not believe in special privileges or special rights. My point is that it doesn't matter, it shouldn't matter. No agendas, no superior rights for anyone. The trick is, is that good enough for both sides of the issue? The problem with groups, tribes and mobs, is that they always want to be right, they want a leg up and to have the upper hand. Like Rand, I don't particularly like the mob at all and often it uses it's coercive force on individuals in spite of the facts, in spite of the truth, in spite of what's rational, in order to preserve or achieve power. Rand said "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." Of course I must add that Rand also thought homosexuality is a mental disorder, but that is another story. I also expect to get challenged as some would say there is wisdom in the mob. Well, which one? Who chooses? Coercive forces are just that, not reason. Jefferson said that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." This is the true test of what is right, decent and good, not an antediluvian mob. 

Thank you for reading this blog.

Ayn Rand, William Hickman and other idiots

Yes folks, I am back. After taking a hiatus to refresh my mind, if that is possible, I am back at the keyboard again.

Last Wednesday night I co-hosted Libertarian Politics Live with Andre Traversa. We had some great guests, which is the usual case, one that didn't show up (shame on you  Jonathan Narcisse) and Joe Carter, a blogger with First Things.

The subject was Ayn Rand and her alleged infatuation with William Hickman. I want to start out by saying that this isn't a all out defence of Rand or a blow by blow critique of Mr. Carter's assertions, although there will some, but rather a revelation of my observations in regards to Rand and those that try to marginalize her.

Ayn Rand was a screen writer in Hollywood and an author of books. She also founded a philosophy called Objectivism. It has it's adherents and detractors. Ayn Rand was a rationalist. Described as Aristotelean and at times, almost virulently anti-Kantian. For a little clarification and elucidation, I will include here a very short outline from AynRand.org or what Objectivism is:

"My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

Anyone that reads this might infer some conclusions without working too hard. Objectivism is, in many ways, anti-thetical to most organized religions, specifically Christianity, Judaism and Islam. While Religions and Objectivism may strive to help people achieve completeness, the route in which they take to such ends is quite different. Moreover, They are opposites in many aspects, but also fall short in their goal for some common reasons. 


Religion in and of itself is a belief system, possibly a philosophical system, but none the less, it requires faith as opposed to knowledge from experience, scientific method or even what could be agreed up through consensus as being true in a provable way, like the sky is blue. In that respect, Objectivism strives to deal with what we know. As she said, facts are facts. Secondly, religions in general put a deity at the highest order in a hierarchy. In the case of the Abrahamic faiths, god is the creator of all things, man is less than god and born imperfect, born into sin. With these faiths, man spends or should spend his entire life trying to become less sinful, less imperfect, and always under the authority of the creator, of god. 


With Objectivism, Man is at the top of this hierarchy, not god. In an objective sense, Rand is saying that god is not provable, and she has a point. If we go on pure rationalism, god can't be proven, neither can a life in a hereafter. Those types of beliefs require faith, not factual or provable thesis's. With objectivism, man should also strive for some sort of perfection, but instead of using faith, to use rationalism. 


The problem with both approaches is that they both can and often do, lead to failure by setting standards that do no reflect man as he really is: an imperfect being in an imperfect world where spiritual and rational exist in the same beings. Neither side recognizes the value of the other, and thinks it is the correct path in attaining some sort of human perfection. May be the real problem is the idea that perfection is attainable. I would assert it is not, so why bother with perfection. Improvement on the other hand is, but that is another topic. 


In my opinion, the greatest fear people have is death and the realization that this is all there is. In my opinion, religions serve as a way to deal with this and also help people keep on some sort of moral path that in some way protects us from ourselves. Rand basically says to heck with fairytales, one has to live solely by the power of one's faculties. In some ways this is much more difficult that blind faith in what some would call fairy fairytales. 


All this being said, Ayn Rand's greatest failure was her own ego. I think the core of her philosophy is largely correct. If you want to look deeper into a rationalist's type of though, I would suggest reading Robert Nozick, who was a philosophy professor at Harvard and he took such things to a much greater and more detailed and scholarly level. Anyway, Rand fell victim to her own ego, and in the strivance, and this is my opinion, for the divorcement of man from the tribe, she created her own tribe that was just as petty as any other. She ignored her own flaws and humanity and in my opinion, served to hurt her philosophy more than help it. 


As far as altruism goes, I would assert that people aren't altruistic for the sake of who they are helping, but rather themselves. To me it's a form of self-serving narcissism that at best is a mutualistic experience. At worst, someone is collecting on that debt, often through the use of guilt. I find less fault with the honest man who says up front he is doing anything for himself. Sacrifice for anyone outside of one's family is illogical, and any religion that would require it or even promote it, is devious at best. In that way, I agree with Rand. If someone is going to sacrifice, it should be done for rational reasons. If you do it to make yourself feel good, what is the difference between that, masturbation or even getting drunk? It's all self-serving. The best rational exercise in sacrifice I have seen on film was Gran Torino, and in that movie, the protagonist was basically an atheist at worst and agnostic at best. 


Now, as far as William Hickman goes, Joe Carter was trying to disparage and dismiss Rand based on some infatuation she had with a sociopath when she was very young. We all do stupid things, and if Mr. Carter is the christian he says he is, may be he could find some compassion in his heart for her, instead of using it as an a priori argument against Objectivism, in my opinion, primarily because it is at opposition to many belief systems, including his own. I can also tell you that while I have tried to integrate rational and objectivist systems with christian beliefs. So far I have to say it's a no go. one of them is incorrect. Ayn Rand herself said there are no contradictions, only incorrect premises. So which one is incorrect? The one where we know what we know, or the fairytale? Thomas Jefferson wrangled with the same arguments and came to some interesting conclusions with which I tend to agree. 


Thank you for reading this blog. 

And Today Makes 234

Today marks the 234th anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence. It is the day we told our colonial masters that we'd had enough of their statist control and that we would enforce our free will, our right to self-determination and exercise our responsibilities in creating a new nation.

This document was the culmination of years of abuse from the crown and also years of resistance and grievance from us, the colonies. Some would say if it weren't fro Samuel Adams and his circular letters as well as his outspoken criticism of the crown, this independence would not have come about. We owe a debt of gratitude to this man.

Just as then, now we face the same increasing statist control over our lives, we face an abusive and ever growing government and a government that is a threat to our freedom, our self-determination and free will. The question remains, who is our Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine today? Some will say Rush, Glenn will say it is himself, Sean isn't even close, and then there is Mark and Michael, the mighty mishpucha powerhouses of the right. Still, no one I can se is in the same league. The reason is simple: Read the last line of the Declaration. None of these people, including any of us writing and reading here have put it on the line like the founders. That time has not come yet and circumstances make the man. We shall see.

So here below is the Declaration of Independence. Read and re-acquaint yourself with what this day really means and think about it's relevance today.

Thank you for reading this blog.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Police Arrest Those That Video Tape Them: Is it a privacy issue or CYA?

If there's one thing I could say about myself it is that I am anti-authoritarian, which means I am pro-liberty or libertarian. This belief transcends political parties or religion and remains my prime mover if you will, that people should be free.

Ayn Rand said it well in this statement:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

She also said

"Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as "the right to enslave".  Strong words from an articulate woman.

When it comes to a philosophy that summarizes this in a way to live, Thomas Jefferson said it thusly:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Yesterday I received a message through chat from a friend of this blog and myself, Hector Portillo. Hector has a blog, The Electric Eye. Hector was one of my first readers and has engaged me in very meaningful conversation that has had a profound effect on some of my ideas. He's a very intelligent young man and we keep in touch as they say. Anyway, Hector sent me this link, Are cameras the new guns? from Gizmodo. Probably knowing how pro-second amendment and individual rights oriented I am,  he sent this to me for comment.

In the United States, most states are what they call single party consent states. Usually this means that if I am involved with a conversation or interaction, I can record it without the other members consent. In 12 states, the consent must be from all members involved in the conversation.

After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that some police in all party consent states have come up with the bright idea of using this law to cover their asses. This is what happened in one case:

On March 5, 24-year-old Anthony John Graber III's motorcycle was pulled over for speeding. He is currently facing criminal charges for a video he recorded on his helmet-mounted camera during the traffic stop.

The case is disturbing because:

1) Graber was not arrested immediately. Ten days after the encounter, he posted some of he material to YouTube, and it embarrassed Trooper J. D. Uhler. The trooper, who was in plainclothes and an unmarked car, jumped out waving a gun and screaming. Only later did Uhler identify himself as a police officer. When the YouTube video was discovered the police got a warrant against Graber, searched his parents' house (where he presumably lives), seized equipment, and charged him with a violation of wiretapping law...

Wow. And the story Continues:

2) Baltimore criminal defense attorney Steven D. Silverman said he had never heard of the Maryland wiretap law being used in this manner. In other words, Maryland has joined the expanding trend of criminalizing the act of recording police abuse. Silverman surmises, "It's more [about] ‘contempt of cop' than the violation of the wiretapping law."

3) Police spokesman Gregory M. Shipley is defending the pursuit of charges against Graber, denying that it is "some capricious retribution" and citing as justification the particularly egregious nature of Graber's traffic offenses. Oddly, however, the offenses were not so egregious as to cause his arrest before the video appeared.

Almost without exception, police officials have staunchly supported the arresting officers. This argues strongly against the idea that some rogue officers are overreacting or that a few cops have something to hide. "Arrest those who record the police" appears to be official policy, and it's backed by the courts.

Interesting. There have been incidents, according to this article, where police have been willingly videotaped without explicit consent and did not interdict or prosecute the videographer, such as when the police are doing something positive, heroic, etc. Do news people get releases from police? I don't know, but I bet not.

What makes these cases interesting is that they do rely on law that is clear and can be used to justify their actions. The question of privacy is a valid one, but I haven't seen the police exercise such concerns with the cameras in their cars, speeding and red light cameras, and certain municipalities that have installed cameras to monitor the public, including police, as in New York City and Chicago. In all these cases the police seem to go along with the program.

What seems res ipsa loquitur about this is that their actions are self-serving. We have seen many cases where police brutality has been uncovered with video and if it were not for the video, such abuse would have gone unpunished. It's an interesting juxtaposition of rights here, and if I had to take a stand, it would have to be on the side of the public. The police work for the government and as such an agent thereof with powers that extend beyond the average citizen, come under a higher level of scrutiny and a set of standards.  An individual in society should be able to use any means to document interactions with these agents of the government as a protection of their rights. I might have a slight difference of opinion if police were against red light and speeding cameras, as well as cameras in public. They are not. They are also not against cameras in their own cars, which we have seen malfunction at certain times. What I would like to see happen is the thin blue line go away. This fortress mentality has not served police well and this type of enforcement we see here does not serve them well either. They seem to forget they serve us. Since when does the servant become our master? Let me know what you think.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Iowa GOP Doesn't Get It

It what is expected to be a big year for the GOP, the outlook is so bright for back room political machine machers.

For Charlie Gruschow, a founder of the Des Moines Tea Party, whose members overwhelmingly support Vander Plaats, a Branstad nomination would be a bitter pill.

"I think I'd throw up," Gruschow said. "We talked about this (at a recent tea party meeting). One active member said if Branstad wins, she cannot and will not support him in the general election. I don't think that's the right attitude. ...

And this guy calls himself a Tea Party person? Sorry Charlie, but I am here to educate you. Look at Bennett in Utah and Paul in Kentucky. Even Brown in Massachusetts and Hoffman in NY. These races are a repudiation of GOP machine politics.  Even though Hoffman lost, he trounced a liberal candidate promulgated by the GOP machine, Mr. Potato Head Steele. How did it work for the GOP there Mr. Gruschow?

The point is, people are fed up with the GOP as much as the democrats. We are tired of RINOs who take the banner of the GOP and then screw us like any other democrat. It's become almost a one party system. Dems and Dems light. If someone doesn't support Branstad, and that is my contention, then that is their right, and may be it's a good idea. The GOP doesn't deserve my or anyone else's vote as they haven't earned it. And I have to laugh at the Des Moines Register endorsing Branstad. Always leave it to a left wing (I say left wing and not liberal, they are anathema to true liberalism) newspaper to endorse a mushy in the middle GOP candidate. Branstad will be a lot easier to take apart in the head to head campaigning that will be after the primaries, just as McCain was.

Branstad is the wrong candidate for a number of reasons: He's had four shots at it and now he wants a fifth? He's appointed the judges in this state that make law instead of sending it back to the legislature. He doesn't have a record of cutting a damn thing, not taxes or spending. He's middle of road mush, but may be that is what Iowa contains: Philosophically and ideologically challenged people. I'd like to be proven wrong, but the results speak for themselves. or Res Ipsa Loquitur. Even in rural areas where conservatism is more predominant, we have people who are pro-life yet have their hand out for government subsidies. Pragmatic at best, opportunistic at worst.

I am not a social conservative, nor am I a moderate, whatever that means, but a classical liberal, which is small government, low taxes, low spending, and keeping out of individuals lives in terms of rules, regulations and laws. An old school libertarian, Thomas Jefferson type. To be honest, none of the candidates relate to me as that in a complete sense, so even there, I have to pick and choose. Which is why, if Branstad gets the nomination, I will vote for independent Jonathan Narcisse or a write in. At least I've talked to Jon at length on my radio show and I agree with him on more things than Branstad, who will be more of the middle of the road same bullshit.

So, come June 8th, I would advise all Iowans of republican registration to vote for Roberts or Vander Platts, but not Branstad. Give someone else a shot at it, some one with different ideology and someone that isn't there to please everyone. It's too bad there is no Chris Christie in Iowa (Steve King is the closest thing we have and he won't run for governor). May be Jon, but he doesn't have the money make it happen, and Iowans aren't given to the direct refreshing honesty that Christie brings to the table where here passive aggressive has been mistake for politeness. Sometimes I really miss New York, as there is no mistake where people stand on any issue.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Is Credit Indentured Servitude? A look at modern American peonage

Originally published here 09/06/08

I was reading a blog today about the economy and one of the commenters mentioned that americans were over extended with credit. In fact, I found out that they average credit card debt for a household is around $8600. The average mortgage debt is $192,000. That's probably between $800-900 billion in credit card debt and somewhere around $17 trillion in mortgage debt in this country. These numbers may be conservative as there are over 116 million households in the US. Can you say over extended?

Even with an annual foreclosure rate of 1%, that would mean around $178 billion disappears from the economy, mostly from mortgage debt. That's not small. But the real reason for this post is to illustrate how are economy is propped up by personal debt. I don't believe this is an accident. Credit cards were non-existent 25-30 years ago. Most people I knew did not have one. If you wanted to buy something, you'd pay cash for the most part, excluding cars, and homes. Mortgages tended to be 15-20 years, and car loans were 2-3 years. Today, we have mortgages out to 40 years and car loans beyond 6 years. The average car loan debt is now between $12-13,000.

Sometime after the last inflationary bubble at the end of the Carter administration, some economists must have figured that if banks loan more money out to people, and extend the terms of the loans, they could pump money into the economy causing it to grow. A different kind of trickle down economics. On the income side, salaries would be kept at a pace such that an equilibrium is kept between consumers ability to pay and the money lent out. There have been a couple instances where there were hiccups, and then the resultant bailouts, but it has enabled corporations to flourish at the expense of the debt incurred by the average household. Look at the growth of the stock market since 1980. Even with the ups and downs, you'd have to agree that is has grown tremendously, but now we are at another hiccup.

The problem is that we are having difficulty maintaining an equilibrium between this debt, income and economic growth. In the last several years, banks have really gone too far in extending credit, particularly with mortgages. This in turn pushed housing prices higher and people borrowed even more. It's not enough that people buy what they want, but also be able to buy things beyond their dreams. Call it greed. Now that the housing market is collapsing, people that over extended themselves are looking for relief as are some of the lending institutions. Personally, I say let them rot, it's the only way they will learn.

At this point I'd like to consider the political economy if you will of this situation. Jefferson was afraid of situations like this, particularly with the government borrowing money. He feared corruption through financiers and industrialists. In many ways Jefferson may have been clairvoyant. Much of the shell game economics we see started with Alexander Hamilton, who believed in assuming debt and pushing out the time in which to pay it, where as Jefferson was more agrarian in his approach, pay as you go. On one hand, Jefferson wanted America to be unique in that we did not have a society divided by political, social or economic classes. In Hamilton's approach, I believe he sought to find a solution to problems of paying debt after the Revolutionary War without causing a depression or succession of states. I also think his risk tolerance was quite a bit higher than Jefferson's. My point here is that there is a historical philosophical approach in our democracy regarding economics and this argument is nothing new. What is different in the present is that the common man is given access to capital so easily without earning it as he receives it. Capital obtained in such fashion presents itself for abuse.

The end result here is that we have a society that in effect is in indentured servitude except that there is no debtors prison for those that refuse to pay. There are social and economic penalties for individuals, but insofar as lending institutions, they seem to get off scott free. This still leaves the vast majority of people that pay their debts on time in a condition of peonage, as they will be paying off their credit card and mortgage debt for many years to come, and in some cases, after they are gone. Unfortunately, this fiscal philosophy has found it's way to the government, which is even in worse shape. I guess you can sum it up as the free lunch mentality. The problem is that there is an end to this as the system has limits. The only way out of this, at least I think that some believe this, is to add more debtors to the system. The only way to increase this is through immigration, legal, or illegal.

The problem with this is that illegal immigration has brought new problems that exacerbate the situation. The social costs of having people her illegally is staggering. Healthcare, schools, and crime take their toll. The answer to this part of the this new problem created is amnesty, in an effort to get them on board tax-wise. Banks have not lost step as they already offer credit to illegal aliens. The problem is, if they skip, how do you catch them? It's a total loss. The side effect of all of this is that there is now a political demographic that is more open to socialism and it is changing the expectations of our society. Of course politicians will give them what they want and are already anticipating the political clout of this newly created demographic. So much for the traditional melting pot.

Again, this leaves us at a turning point at the 2008 presidential election. Where are we going from here? Do we adhere to Jeffersonian principles, do we continue on the same path we currently are on or do we pursue a different, yet equally dangerous approach with socialism? Our current path is to take on more and more illegal immigrants. Insofar as credit is concerned, I see no changes in approach with continuing down the same path. Today, the government announced it is going to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Detroit car makers are already squealing that they want preferential loans to bail them out. I see this path as a steady decline fiscally, morally, and socially. With Obama's approach, government will be used to curtail wealth through taxation, with the additional burden of government mandated and managed entitlements. In our zero sum game, it's really redistribution of wealth. With the added taxation and continuation of debt among the average citizen, in essence, we will be in a peonage system, or indentured servitude that we will never get out of. Both the government and financial institutions with cooperation from industrial businesses will basically have the population by the balls. Over time, we will loose our self-sufficiency and perspective on responsibility; we will have traded our freedom for that which neither enriches us nor makes us any safer or better off individually.

A classical liberal or Jeffersonian approach would entail fiscal responsibility. You shouldn't spend more that you earn, and you should not receive what you have not earned. What are considered entitlements should never be rights. Part of the solution would be to curtail outrageous interest rates. The government could do this. What the government should not do is bail banks out, or other corporate entities. They will never learn their lesson in greed and/or poor judgement if they are bailed out time and time again. Corporate and industrial subsidies should end. Yes, lower the tax rate for corporations to 10%, but no more subsidies. Both individuals and corporations will be responsible if it is demanded of them. The federal government should have fewer responsibilities than it currently has. I wont get into it, as you can read it in my Bona Fides, but it is not impossible to cut back the federal government 25-33% and as I have said, I would settle for the abolition of the IRS.

Between the government and financial institutions, we have fastened a chain around our neck that has a 300 Lb steel ball at the end of the chain. We cannot blame this situation on anyone else than ourselves. We elect the corrupt individuals that indenture us to the government and we take it upon ourselves to live fiscally irresponsible. The only way out of this is through individual responsibility, self-sufficiency and a philosophy of personal liberty. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, these things can not be legislated, but are learned through education and experience, and are fomented through political, social and spiritual leadership. This is where America falls short. No matter what happens this November, even if the Obamessiah wins, people like myself will have our time again. It's the nature of revolution to come back again.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Barack Hussein Obama: From Messiah to Inept in Four Easy Steps

A post from 3/17/2009:

1. Get Elected
2. Hire Clueless Socialist Lackeys, I mean Yes Men
3. Have a Democrat controlled congress
4. Follow their lead by signing every Keynesian bill into law

Props to Obama for getting elected. Not only did he make it to the top, but he was a mulatto man making it to the top. The problem is, having is a lot different than wanting. Thomas Jefferson said it best: "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. " Obama has Marxist principles, and you could argue that he is standing like a rock with them, but I would say he isn't. he's practicing an incrementalism towards socialism and he's gauging how far and how quickly he can progress, but I digress. For all his imputed intelligence, for all his hope and change, for all his marxist ideology, he really is in over his head. I would say he is more over his head than kennedy was in 1962. The problem is that he has beliefs that are not proven in praxis. Government controlled economies do not work well, particularly on large scales. He also underestimates the average american's desire to be free. Free from government intrusion, and from taxes. He over estimates the chicken little factor that got him in office. He probably truly believes that he is the answer to our problems.

Here is the scary part. There are two methods used in the business world to accomplish things: Make the right decision, or make the decision and then make it right. You could say this applies to many things in life. So, is Obama a true believer, or a gangster? If he is a crusader, he will continue to push his agenda, no matter what the reality is, and shove it down our throats. If he is a gangster, he will fall in love with power (he already has to a great degree), and it won't really matter. He will do whatever is necessary to remain in power to serve his ego. FDR is a prime example of this. Still, gangsters can still make bad decisions, it's just that the decisions suit their success more than their beliefs. Either way, if they make the wrong decision, they will likely try to make it right. I don't believe Obama has the humility to admit he is wrong. He has politicians disease.

Anyway, the bottom line is he's floundering, flailing, and looking for a straw man. His decisions will have to be made right and I am sure the membership of the journolist will do everything they can to make that happen. And now that our national debt has reached 11 trillion, He's going to have to blame someone. Needless to say though, the printing presses at the treasury will be working overtime to pay for all of it, and of course so will we for generations. Thanks America, for electing such a schmuck.

Thank you for reading this blog.

H/T to Stacy McCain

Time and Tithe Wait For No One

A repost of one of my first posts of September 1, 2008

I was driving to work last week and my thoughts drifted along into taxes, income, and work, but not necessarily in that order. Mark Wurzel, a very smart businessman, once told me that he was competing for that dollar in every man's pocket. You could apply that philosophy to businesses, religious institutions, and governments (Governments take). But the more I thought about it, I realized that money isn't the main driver here. When you look at money, it is the perception of what it can buy, rather than what it is that matters. In reality, money is worthless paper. Even in coinage, what are metals really worth? The commodity that businesses, churches, and governments want to monopolize is your time. In a perfect world, your labor on whatever you do, be that tilling a field to grow corn, running a bakery, or repairing cars, brings value to your product. The market defines that value, and depending on many factors such as supply, demand, quality, etc, will affect what your labor is worth. Still, it takes time to produce value. Time is a commodity that is limited for everyone and whose true quantity is never known. If you can control a person's time, you pretty much control their lives.

The idea of giving the product of one's labor away as a form of tribute started with the church in the form of tithes. Tithes have been around since the time of Abraham. Traditionally, Tithes were 10% of income, or worth, in whatever terms or commodity you have. This was not lost on governments, as they followed suit, and taxed its population accordingly. Over time, people have become accustomed to giving tribute, tithes and taxes. In fact, in some places today, the government for the purpose of religion taxes people and it is redistributed to the religious organizations of that country. For instance, in Austria, there is a 1% compulsory church tax. If you are catholic, the church can sue you if you do not pay it. If you refuse, basically you are excommunicated and cannot receive the sacraments. Members of the Church of Denmark (Denmark has the highest tax rate in the world at 56% income tax, which would be like working until July 23 for the government) pay a church tax that amounts to about 1%. Finland also exercises a church tax that varies from 1-2.25%. To be fair to Christianity, Islam also practices such things with Jizya, Pahlavi, and Dhimmi. In fact, in some Muslim countries, non-believers have inferior rights and have to pay tribute in greater proportion than believers.

All that being said, we've come a long way in this country. We have no official religion, no official church, and the church with the threat of any law cannot tax us. This sounds like a good thing and it is. The problem I have with taxes in general is that the government takes from you time for which you can never be compensated. I heard on the radio that the average Californian has to work until sometime in May to pay all of his federal, state, local and whatever taxes that they predate on people in that state. Our federal government did not have an income tax of any kind until 1913 and for most people; federal income tax wasn’t a consequence until after WW II. Since then, we have seen a steady ramp up in taxes, many of which are buried in utility bills, local sales tax initiatives, and fuel. I would ask by what right does anyone have to take your life, even if only bit-by-bit? Owning a human being is against the law, as is indentured servitude and/or peonage. Or is it? What is the debt? When is the debt paid? Socialists and communist will say this money serves a common or greater good. If that is so, why don't we fertilize our fields with the old, sick and infirm? That would serve a common good. The problem with common or greater good is that it creates unwanted obligations on people that infringe on their natural rights. No purported right of any man, group or government should be used to obviate the rights on any individual. The other problem with common or greater good is that it opens the door to create rights that should never exist; they are entitlements. What entitlements do you say? In the words, actions and deeds of the Obama’s and other socialists, it could be food, housing, healthcare, day-care, post secondary education, basically cradle to grave socialism.

In a current context, we find some promulgating a collectivist tone. According to Michelle Obama, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..." (Speech in February 2008). I find this an insult. What she is trying to say is that those that believe in individual rights and responsibilities, those that believe in self reliance, those that have pride in their own accomplishments and want to strive to better themselves on their own, are somehow broken, inferior, lazy, and ignorant. This is truly the shot across the bow to libertarians and conservatives everywhere, but it is not the first time I have heard this. It is preached in my church as well and I disagree with it there as well. When people are classified as broken, inferior (victims in the political context), in this political context, and possible a religious one, I think that the wanted, or needed end-result is a group of people that are co-dependent to some persons or organizations solution to the problem they define in individuals. Basically they are creating and/or defining their own customer demographic. This is heinous, if correct. In the political context, socialists wish to create a secular church of the government where people are no longer responsible for themselves, where the government provides their social, physical and spiritual needs. What is sad in a religious context is that politicians like Mike Huckabee think that certain Christian values need to be taken on by the government in terms of duties and obligations. He sees the government as an extension of what the church itself should accomplish. This is foolhardy and has no place in a free society. It is fine if churches aspire to help the poor and in need. In fact, that is what they should do, as it is not the government's place to do these things. These obligations should be voluntary, as a free will offering. If the left is correct in their assertion that we do not do enough to help the poor and in need, then the church has failed to make it's case to its members, as they obviously haven't responded in kind. May be members feel the government does this now, why should we bother? I don't believe that it is so conscious of a decision, but rather a dilution of message, values and moral direction. This happens through enculturation. At some point someone lowered the bar, and that standard was passed on.

The solution to this is laissez-faire capitalism. A further definition of what I like to call small c capitalism. Every man is his own free agent and the benefactor of his labor. He is not a slave, not a slave owner. He acts in his own rational self-interest without the violation of others. He trades with others with mutual self-interest in mind. The government's only relationship in this is that is acts as a force to protect people's natural rights to participate in this exchange. No one has the right of force through any means to take from one for himself or take from others. The final piece to this trinity is economics. As much as there must be a separation of church and state, to a great extent, there must be a separation of economics and state. In the context of today, capitalism has become institutionalized. It is as much a power like a government and at times as much a spiritual mover and fealty inspiring as a religion. There are corporations out there whose very purpose is to become involved in every part of your life, to infiltrate every aspect. Others just want your money, which uses up your time. Big C capitalism or Institutional Capitalism is just as dangerous as anything else with power, whether it is religion or government. According to Thomas Jefferson, "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country". Even in that time, institutional capitalism was feared. Power may corrupt, but it also wants to perpetuate, in any guise. With religion, you can stop participating, at least in this country. With government in this country, you have some redress of grievances, and franchisement, but ultimately, it counts for very little on a larger scale. With the economy, you have even less control. So, at this point, someone may be asking, what's all the bother with tithing, taxes, government, religion and the economy? Ultimately, my goal is to stir the pot and get people thinking. People take their time on this planet for granted. They also take their freedom for granted. The most regrettable thing is to see people willing to trade their natural rights for security, or the perception of security. Humans have become so feckless that they will be bought and sold with their own capital, labor and time. I am here to tell you that there is no free lunch. Everything has a cost, in terms of capital and liberty. If you want to be free, you will incur costs of responsibility, vigilance, and self-sufficiency. Freedom may not be for those without courage. If you want to be taken care of, your freedoms will be curtailed, as will your capital, and you will be controlled. This is egregious, as those that would prescribe and proscribe every facet of people’s lives, as if they had the right. That is truly corruption and hubris. Problems all facets of power (Government, religion, and business if you will) fear are an independent, free, knowledgeable and enlightened populace.

I believe that the United States is now at a turning point. Once founded on the principles of natural rights and freedom, we broke away from our mother country, England to form our own country. The force behind this was the taxation from England and the lack of representation before the crown. I think we find ourselves at a point where we have taken much for granted and in the process have become less responsible. In this vacuum, politicians have rushed in to bribe us with our own money, and labor. This in turn becomes De Rigueur and we slide towards total incompetence and inevitable socialism. Will Americans take the bait? I hope not.

Thank you for reading this blog.