Obama Administration To Push For National Mandatory Helmet Law

From the Libertarian Republican:

Freedom to wear a helmet or not

From Eric Dondero at LR:

The White House and the Transportation Safety Administration has a full ban on riding a motorcycle without a helmet on its legislative agenda for 2011.

From KLTV - Tyler, TX:

TYLER, TX (KLTV)- Motorcycle riders across the country may soon be forced to wear a helmet if a proposed federal law passes. Right now, in Texas, anyone over the age of 21 is exempt from wearing a helmet. But that may change if the National Transportation Safety Board gets their way.

The NTSB says motorcycles make up only three percent of vehicles on the road, but 13 percent of all fatal crashes.

One rider interviewed by KLTV suggested that requiring helmets could be a safety hazard. Continuing:

For 35 years, Bubba Parker has hit the highway with nothing but a bandana on his head. That's how he likes to ride.

"I'm out in the wide open kind of like your old cowboy days they had the big gray horses and we got these old iron horses and it's just the freedom of it," said Parker.

And the freedom to wear a helmet, or not. Soon, bikers may not have that choice. Parker says confining his head to a helmet kills his biking experience.

"For me, I like to be able to hear what my motor is doing," said Parker. "I can judge my speed. I can listen to what's going on around me, and with a helmet I just feel like I'm all caged up."

Thank you for reading this blog.

Opt Out: The Private Sector Steps In

In an interesting turn of events, one airport has decided to opt out of TSA screening. Orlando's Sanford Airport has decided to go private:

"All of our due diligence shows it's the way to go," said Larry Dale, the director of the Sanford Airport Authority. "You're going to get better service at a better price and more accountability and better customer service."

You have to wonder why, and it doesn't take long to figure out. Disney is in Orlando and with the backlash against the TSA and flying in general because of the TSA, Disney must see lost revenue looming from this. In a bad economy, losing business is not an option.

The lesson from this is that capitalism and common sense solve a lot of problems. Some may say this is solely for perception, but perception is everything when it comes to public relations and sales. So far a political solution doesn't seem possible until the new congress comes in January. Until then, expect the incoming crown to create a plan that hopefully fixes this. My hope is that our next congress is a GSD congress. Get Shit Done, and I don't mean in the style of what we have lived through in the last 2-3 years. The democrats have lived and acted at their peril and have netted the results. The good or bad thing depending on which side of the toilet bowl you pee is that they have doubled down in nominating Pelosi the minority leader. I am digressing a bit, but we are seeing a populace standing up and saying they have had enough of the Nanny state and they aren't going to take it anymore. Rebellion can be a good thing. It keeps the assholes in our lives in check.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Where is the ACLU?

The ACLU made such a stink in Arizona about police asking people for their ID, albeit with reasonable cause, but where is the hue and cry about the TSA infringing our rights with their unreasonable searches? No where to be found, that's where. It is sad to see so many americans sit idly by, in ignorance, condoning such tactics as necessary for safe travel. Who has one? It's the same failed logic of gun control. The government is penalizing people and not the criminals. We suffer while the enemy plans. At this point my fellow americans will accept anything. What next, a cavity search? DNA collection and testing? swearing an oath of allegiance? It'll never end in the authoritarian's eye when it comes to being drunk with power in it's never ending journey in their control of people.

Saying this is for safety is bullshit. Look at the Israelis. Do they put their people through this? No. Do they get hijacked or have their planes flown into buildings? No. Instead of taking a page out their books, we take pages from Adolph, Joseph and Mao. The ACLU is complicit in this by their silence and shows how hypocritical they are and one sided. I am sure if a republican was president, we'd see a different ACLU, instead, we see a group that takes sides based on political persuasion. Such political calculations only serves to show how feckless they are. They take the same tack with gun rights.

So, how many nuns, 90 year old grandmothers and blond haired, blue eyed 5 year olds have to be subjected to this non-sense before anyone will do anything about it? I wish we had an organization that helped protect natural rights. Where is Ron Kuby when you need him?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Diplomats, Politicians and other Assholes

What follows is not a commentary on the photo on the left in particular, although it exemplifies, to some degree what I am discussing here, but it is rather a general commentary about the invertebrates and supplicants of our society.

Diplomats, Politicians and other Assholes. What I am taking about here are people that have a special skill in life, to a varying degree, which in one case is to serve others, in the other, to serve themselves.

Take diplomats for example. This people represent their home country and it's usually a good idea that these people put on a good face. The job can be as basic as a foreign service officer or as high profile as the Secretary of State. Or you can find them in the workplace as well.

In some instances servile, in others cordial negotiations, always politie. Some would say invertebrate as they will bend over backwards to kiss someone's ass. Diplomats aren't alone in this talent though, Politicians have similar traits as well.

Generally speaking, diplomats don't have enough narcissism to make it as politicians. I would also add they probably have a true heart to serve people, although it is still for their own satisfaction. Politicians on the other hand serve themselves. If they tell you otherwise, don't believe it. Anyone that believes they are the one you should send to such and such an office because they are the best to do it has an abnormal amount of narcissism and shouldn't be trusted. So it goes with many leaders, managers and of course, other assholes.

While politicians have a special skill in not breaking their back when bending over backwards trying to kiss someone's ass (or their own, another endearing trate of the politician), they also have other endearing qualities. Like getting out of the way of responsibility. When was the last time a politicians fessed up on the first go? When was the last time a politician laid it on the line at the peril of their office/position/job? It's as rare as hens teeth I tell you. The politicians main motive is to maintain their status quo first. How they do this is by any means necessary and as I said, what separates them from the diplomat is who they truly serve.

The most remarkable trait a politician has is not only the ability to circumvent responsibility, but to let the blame fall to someone else. Like dog shit that falls from the sky, politicians have the large teflon umbrella and make sure that someone is standing near the edge. To work for these assholes, you might as well be a food taster for Fidel Castro. The best part is they are in every demographic and facet of society and the workplace. Pathological narcissism knows no bounds.

So, on this day in the middle of November, when the days grow shorter and colder, remember one thing:
Keep your distance from these people, lest you be shat upon. The taste of dog shit hasn't improved in the last 48 plus years, trust me.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Ausgeführt wie kein anderes Motorrad in der Welt

The new bike. A BMW R1200RT. Tun Sie mögen es?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Remembrance Day

Up until a couple years ago, there were three British WW I veterans left out of millions. Today marks the 92th anniversary of the signing of the treaty that ended WW I at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918.

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch; be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae who penned "In Flanders fields":

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Andre Traversa Presents Libertarian Politics Live: Special Guests Mike Lee and Steve King

Libertarian Politics Live presents special guests Mike Lee, the newly elected senator from Utah and Steve King, congressman from the 5th district in Iowa.

Andre will be discussing the proposed balanced budget amendment with Mike Lee.

Hosts Andre Traversa, Eric Dondero and Jim Lagnese

The show starts at 8pm CST Tuesday, November 9.

You can stream here or call in at 646-915-9887.

Thank you for listening to the show.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

The only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions. Where is our Guy Fawkes?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Libertarian Politics Live Election Night Coverage

Libertarian Politics Live will have election night coverage with hosts Andre Traversa, Eric Dondero and Jim Lagnese. Tomorrow night we will make history with an unprecedented and overwhelming Tea Party/GOP victory. Be part of the action and call in at 1-646-915-9887.  All The Right Guy Show readers and fellow right bloggers are encouraged to call in as the lines will be open and we want to hear from you.

Thank you for reading this blog and listening to the show.

Meetings, Fairytales, Cheerleading and a Total Waste of Time

Have you ever gone to a meeting at work where it was an exercise in self-congratulatory mutual masturbation? Have you ever been to a family gathering where it's an incestuous version of speed dating where people talk about themselves in an effort to convince themselves they have a life? Or have you been in any kind of encounter where only positive thoughts are allowed? No negative waves, because it's more comfortable with our heads in the sand or is it up our asses?

All of this is really group narcissism. It's a tribe trying to reinforce not only why it should exist but why it's better than any other tribe. Think of it as an exercise in group-think conditioning.

You might belong to a family as above where when people gather, the exercise is to talk about oneself and how successful he or she is. Lots of families are like this. Generally though, there's an elephant in the room. May be uncle Ernie is a molester, may be half or more of the family are afflicted with alcoholism, or may be dad likes to smack people around. Doesn't matter. There's a narrative to paste over the dog shit like the vinyl façade of that cheap woodgrain plastic film on a 1972 Chevrolet Kingswood Estate Wagon. The fairytale in this particular case is that we're all successful, therefore we're all alright.

This doesn't end at home though. With the same pooper scooper, we bring the same piece of dog shit from home into work or other organizations like church, synagogue or some other social endeavors like sports (lets not forget political parties too. Let's not leave them out of this fun.). So goes the perpetuation of the fairytale. Lots of fairytales. No one wants to be on the losing team. Come on in for the big win. Got your pom-poms?

This time the elephant isn't in the living room, but in all sorts of places. While uncle Ernie's penchant for little people isn't the problem, other things things can be like nepotism, cronyism, harassment, perfidy, parsimony, back stabbing, and all sorts of cultural penury. Some people like to call this politics. What's the narrative? What's the fairytale? What's the self-talk that no matter what the bullshit, the outside world is faced with a smile of confidence that we are all ok? It takes really strong leadership to keep the dog shit float moving. What most successful leaders have is a good case of narcissism. Even Jesus was a narcissist. Wouldn't you call someone a narcissist if they said they were the son of god? What do Jesus, Obama, Steve Jobs and Reagan have in common (and a bunch of others, go to the link below.)? All have the same basic Myers Briggs personality type, ENFJ. Basically, the charismatic bullshit artist. I am getting away from my narrative here a bit, but you need someone really good with a shovel to keep the dog shit merry go round turning. They turn that white and purple polka dot elephant into a loving little Chihuahua. They may make it disappear altogether.

Of course all of their hard work will go down the tubes if it weren't for the cheerleaders. Another term for them are groupies. Gotta love Steve Deace for that one. The cheerleaders make the fairytales, the narratives possible. Without their hard work and supplicance, none of it would be possible. Remember, every tribe has a leader, and every leader has their henchmen. Just the way it is.

Groupies of course are much more dangerous than any narcissistic leader. These are the same assholes that make everything that is bad happen. Behind every despot is a peon looking for affirmation, approbation and validation. Beware of these creeps, they will ruin your day if not your life.

So where's the poop? There's plenty of poop to go around, as anyone who has lived long enough on this planet can attest, and it's usually handed out in disproportionate servings. Your serving size is inversely proportional to your status. Not only that, but the job of those above you, particularly those in leadership (remember the narcissists), is to ensure that. In fact, repeatability and reliability of business processes are paramount in any successful business and this extends to other enterprises as well, even back to our fictitious family. Reinforcement of the narrative, the fairytale is how the family will ensure if not reflect success. If not that, then at least be in a comfortable state of denial.

Basically, the poop is everywhere you look. We are human and therefore are capable of great scatological enterprises. It almost goes without saying. The biggest mistake is to bring attention to the narrative, the fairytales, the consequences of the tribe. God forbid you not only find the poop, but point it out. The tribe does not suffer well those who fall outside the ring of believers. This is because not only must the stink of the poop not be found, it must be worshipped as well. That's right, worship the poop. Those that create the poop must be continually comfortable in their scatological enterprise. If you do point out the poop, you will be burned at the stake.

So where does this leave us in this particular narrative? Beware of poop, narcissists, groupies, and tribes? Unfortunately, we will always have to beware of these. It's human nature to want to be right, to want to be on the winning team, to want to enforce will. That's not going away anytime soon. What does this mean? One, there's a place where the poop is tolerable for each of us. There's a pile of poop meant just for you. Really. And it won't be so bad. Two, choose your fights well. Getting burned at the stake over something that one,  isn't going to change and two, something that if it did, at what price, isn't worth it. Family, friends and country, in that order. That's what you fall on your sword for. Your family really is the only tribe that matters. Ultimately, work, your favorite sports team and not even a political party matter in the sense of application of tribal bullshit. Does the GOP go to work with me everyday and fix that pile of poop? Do any of the Yankees half to leave work early to pick up my kid from band practice? Will anyone outside of my own family really give a rats ass when I take the dirt nap? No and not really to any of it.

Most shit in life is a total waste of time and fairytales, meetings and cheerleaders are no exception. They serve to enforce the will of the tribe, sometimes through delusion, sometimes through perfidy, sometimes by accident. Most of the time by shear repetition. The object is to see through the dog shit and see it for what it is. It's dog shit. Let the world go its wanton way and do what you can when you should. Don't confuse your loyalties outside your family with family. And to the diversity and why don't we all hold hands and get along crowd, the smallest minority in the universe is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. Also, real change doesn't start with the tribe or the village, it always starts with one person who thinks differently. That's what Steve says, anyway.



Thank you for reading this blog.

What Would Anyone Do?

Taking the family out for dinner is always an excursion into frustration at times. Because of predictability, we tend to patronize the same places and even then, the factor of undecidedness rears its ugly head.

The other night, we went to Applebees with the family plus one exchange student from Germany we had been hosting for a few weeks. As the ritual goes, the college student cum ersatz waiter/waitress introduces him/herself and asks what we want to drink to start off. You've been to this drill, so it's nothing new. I order my normal iced tea and procede to peruse the menu.

In my minds eye I notice the throng in various stages of prandial wrangling and say to myself, what should I order? In a fit of autodidactic expulsion, I go off on myself: What would Jesus do? What would Ronnie do? What would Ghandi do? What the fuck will I do?

At this point our garçon du jour returns with drinks and asks around the table what each of us will be ordering. Well, Ronnie, Jesus and Ghandi are dead. They can't help here and two of them wouldn't have a clue as to what to order on the menu or  be inclined to. In this moment of indecision, for something as simple as eating, I came to a conclusion: All of us have to decide for ourselves.

Humans have a rather feckless and lazy habit of relying on others experiences to help them make decisions on how to run their lives, what to do day to day or to help get past a current problem. Some even seem to delve into scriptural steganography in order to find some hidden meaning to life or even what color they should paint their house. Relying on proven experience is a shortcut than can save a lot of pain and trouble. Why pay for the same real estate twice? Right?  On the other hand, it tends to circumvent our own internal rational processes and experiences for a subset of someone else's. It's a template for complacency and manipulation if taken to an extreme. Who cares what Ronnie, Jesus or Ghandi would do. They aren't here, they can't help, and to be honest, they aren't you or I, living in the experience that we are. At some point, we have to make the decision ourselves and that is where the rubber hits the road.

At this point the waiter works his way around the table and it's my turn to put in my order. What will it be? Since having lap band surgery a year ago, I am a little limited to what I can eat and should eat. I avoid the crap with fries, pop, and fried foods. At this point though, I am tired of the sam old, same old. I mean, should I try something different? Shouldn't I strive for change? Should I take the chance and possibly barf, giving the exchange student something to write home about (The lap bad has its own consequences in what you can eat)? Variety is the spice of life, right? At that point,  I circle back to my original thesis, which is to say, What would Ronnie do? What would Jesus do? What would Ghandi do? What will I do? What would anyone do? What is the rational thing to do? What do I feel like doing? It was a fit of analysis paralysis. For me that is deadly. Being a Myers-Briggs ISTP, making quick decisions based on sensory data is a forte. Getting hung up isn't. Usually this happens when there is either too much data or processes. Or I just can't make up my mind. May be I would have been better off asking, What would Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Mel Gibson (God Forbid), George S Patton or Ulysses S Grant would do. At least they are fellow ISTPs and their experiences a closer to mine than Jesus, Ronnie or Ghandi, who had the same types of personality (ENFJ which by the way, is the most conflictual personality with ISTPs). The clock is ticking, WWJD?

I simply ordered what I always do. The Santa Fe Chicken Salad. It always works for me...Next time though, I will try something different. I promise.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama, the Culturally Incompetent President

In what only can be construed as an insult, Obama has refused to visit a sikh temple in India because he would be required to cover his head.

In today's world of multi-culturalism and diversity, I find it odd that the person who probably represents it fairly well, has turned out to be a parochial, provincial and narrow minded when it comes to covering his head in the Golden Temple.

As seen to the right, Barry has no issue dressing in the local muslim garb of his homeland. In fact he has covered his head. How odd. If he did it for Kenyans, why not for the Sikhs?

I wouldn't object if I was invited to a Sikh temple. In fact, I find Indian people charming, I love their food (the mint chutney is outstanding), and Sikhs specifically have and interesting religion and culture. Read here from the Wiki:

The origins of Sikhism lie in the teachings of Guru Nanak and his successors. The essence of Sikh teaching is summed up by Nanak in these words: "Realisation of Truth is higher than all else. Higher still is truthful living".^[5] Sikh teaching emphasizes the principle of equality of all humans and rejects discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, and gender. Sikh principles do not attach any importance to asceticism as a means to attain salvation, but stresses on the need of leading life as a householder.

Sikhism is a monotheistic religion.^[6][7] Sikhism is a revealed religion.^[8] In Sikhism, God—termed Vāhigurū—is shapeless, timeless, and sightless: niraṅkār, akāl, and alakh. The beginning of the first composition of Sikh scripture is the figure "1"—signifying the universality of God. It states that God is omnipresent and infinite, and is signified by the term ēk ōaṅkār.^[9] Sikhs believe that before creation, all that existed was God and Its hukam (will or order).^[10] When God willed, the entire cosmos was created. From these beginnings, God nurtured "enticement and attachment" to māyā, or the human perception of reality.^[11]

While a full understanding of God is beyond human beings,^[9] Nanak described God as not wholly unknowable. God is omnipresent (sarav viāpak) in all creation and visible everywhere to the spiritually awakened. Nanak stressed that God must be seen from "the inward eye", or the "heart", of a human being: devotees must meditate to progress towards enlightenment. Guru Nanak Dev emphasized the revelation through meditation, as its rigorous application permits the existence of communication between God and human beings.^[9] God has no gender in Sikhism, (though translations may incorrectly present a male God); indeed Sikhism teaches that God is "Nirankar" [Niran meaning "without" and kar meaning "form", hence "without form"]. In addition, Nanak wrote that there are many worlds on which God has created life.^[12]

Seems more reasonable than Islam, that's for sure, although I don't want to be accused of pitting religions, but their religion seems progressive by even today's standards, particularly with regards to equal rights. You would think that Barry would honor such a religion. I guess not. May be he's not a fan of curry. 


I would remind Barry that India is a capitalist democracy in an area of the world where that is a rare thing and should be supported. In fact, outside of our European allies and Israel, India is a friend, always. We should respect that friendship and honor it. He has done neither. 


Thank you for reading this blog. Namaste. 

Exclusive: Chris Christie to Campaign for Charlie Baker

Newsflash at Libertarian Republican:

Chris Christie is about to announce that he will be campaigning for Massachusetts republican governor  candidate Charlie Baker later this week. Eric Dondero is developing this story so return back later for more news regarding this story.

Developing...

Libertarian Politics Live: Andre Traversa and The Right Guy with Guest Michel Faulkner

Tomorrow, Thursday, October 7, Michel Faulkner will be the special guest on Libertarian Politics Live. Michael is running against Charles Rangel of the 15th Congressional District in Harlem, NY.

Mr Faulkner is running as a republican in a staunchly democrat district, where Rangel won the nomination this year with 51% of the vote in a field of five. What is prescient though is that Rangel has not been endorsed by any of his primary opponents and there is in fact a movement of Democrats for Faulkner. The reason for this is that Rangel is charged with some serious ethics violations and his attitude is one of indifference. This only goes to Mr Faulkner's advantage.

Tune in on Thursday evening at Libertarian Politics Live, where we get to interview an up and coming member of the republican party.

Second guest TBA.

Host Andre Traversa, Co-Host Jim Lagnese, call in at 646-915-9887.

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Party Of Slavery

Last night's radio show presented some interesting conversations as one of the guests wasn't vetted to the extent that we knew what to expect. Such instances make for good radio.

J.A. Myerson was a guest with Warner Todd Huston discussing the upcoming march in DC. You can read Myerson's take on the show here. What became evident in short order was not only Myserson not libertarian or even centrist, but left wing. What also became apparent is that the left, the democrats, are the party of slavery.

The reason behind this statement lies in the comment Myerson made about taxes. He said that a tax cut was a spending increase. The is the same diatribe spewed by the ersatz economist Thomas Friedman, who never missed an opportunity to promulgate the government separating money from it's citizens. The only was Myerson's comment might make sense is if it was if cutting spending was impossible. Clearly, it's an incorrect premise as cutting spending is completely possible. The problem is that politicians understand they can bribe us with our own money and their entrenchment, in their minds, depends on it.

The problem, as I have discussed here and here, is that people have become accustomed to government largesse and moreover, the solution to their problems. Here in lies the rub: There is consideration involved. there is no free lunch when a person is the object of largesse of any type. Ask any slave or indentured servant. In the case of taxes, it is capital, taken against our will, to be used for some alleged greater good. You can't opt out of it and if you try, you will be forced to by the barrel of a gun, meaning the full authority of the government through their agents, the police. In essence, taxation is slavery, indentured servitude, and theft. Free will has no traction in that place.

Further on in the conversation, Myerson also espouses the premise that a government option with healthcare is libertarian. This is also false. The government should not and cannot truly be a competitor in the free market, if there is one. The argument could be made that since the government regulates, the market isn't truly free, but that is another discussion. The government operates on funds taken from its citizens. This very action is not libertarian and therefore any "participation" by the government as an agent in the free market is a false one. The government does not earn, it takes and since it makes rules about trade, it can favor itself to be the winner in any market it wishes to dominate. This is not libertarian on any level.

What I did come away with is that Myerson was not the balanced reporter he says he is and that he is a left wing progressive as is our fabian socialist ersatz president Barry O. He also outlined that in his position theft and slavery work just fine for him. He offered no solution other than to imply that raising taxes was the only way to solve our current problem. Theft begets theft I guess.

What I didn't get to say was my solution to the problem at hand. One, I would do away with the IRS. I would institute either a 10% flax tax for corporations and individuals. No deductions. Everyone pays. The budget would based on 75-80% of the previous years pull. The problem with this is the moral issue of stealing money from citizens. It would however provide a more stable money flow. The other option would be to have a consumption tax of 10-12%, which is the one I favor. Both these scenarios would require the removal of all other federal taxes and no deductions. Two, I would cut the government budget 20% the first year and 10% each year for the following 3 years. These numbers are minimum. I would shoot for a 50% cut over 4 years. Every department would be hit, no exceptions. I would also forgo subsidies, foreign and domestic. If something is a good idea, it will stand on its own, and the private sector will fund it and/or the market support it. Necessity is the mother of invention, not tax dollars. And for the record, I am and was against TARP. Failures should be just that, failures. Nothing is learned from a safety net, no matter if it is an individual or a corporation.

Lastly, I was to say that I had a poor choice of words last night. I called Myerson a stupid idiot. This I am mistaken. He is not a stupid idiot, just mistaken and wrong. I am sure we would agree on some libertarian issues, but the role of government is one where I think we depart. The less government we have, the better off all of us will be.

Thank you for reading this blog.

9/11: A Day That Lives In Infamy

September 11 is more than a day that will live in infamy. It is a somber day for me. You see, I am from NY, and I lived there when 9/11 occurred. At the time I was working on Long Island, for a confections manufacturing company and my wife worked in Manhattan for a small private investing company. The CFO of the company I worked for was married to Pat Lyons. Pat was a fireman with the NYFD, working at the 252 squad in Bushwick Brooklyn. I remember Irene saying it was his day off and he didn't have to go in...Irene was eight months pregnant with their first child.

Prokopios Paul Zois worked at Marsh and McLennan. He took the Long Island Rail Road to work every day. My wife used to sit in the same group on the way to work, and Paul was part of that group. Before that day was out, these men would be taken from their loved ones, but they were going home. Irene had the baby, a boy whose name is Patrick Mate Lyons, who is almost 9 years old. The sad thing is that they never found Pat Lyons remains. From what I understand he was with his crew ascending the north tower in the stairway when it collapsed. At the time, I have to admit now, I was pissed beyond measure. I would have advocated ridding the world of Islam. While I do not feel that way now, I still believe it is an incorrect religion that preaches death, and it is not a religion of peace. We are still at war with these 8th century throwbacks, and we haven't brought the piece of shit that planned this genocide to justice. So much for the war on terror, but what do you expect when politicians run the military, but I am really digressing here. All I ask of those out there is to pray for the souls of those that passed this day in 2001 and pray for the peace and grace that only god can give for their families. I would also ask that if you could give to the Pat Lyons Foundation. They do a lot of good in the memory of Pat.

Thank you for reading this blog.

There's No Place Like Home

I laughed my ass off when I saw this. Yes, this is where I am from.



Thank you for reading this blog.

Unarmed Pizza Delivery Man Killed in Boston

In the liberal if I not socialist state of Massachessets, an un armed pizza delivery man was stabbed to death by some low lifes that lured him there to do their dirty, despicable deed. This outcome is quite different than the outcome of a similar incident in Des Moines a couple years ago.

While the liberal media and politicians will wring their hands and make appearances with the family of the deceased, nothing will be done to empower people to protect themselves. If this man had been armed, the outcome probably would have been different and positive. I feel for this man and his family. Immigrants work their asses off and often come from countries that are relatively lawless if not brutal and in this case, only to face low life brutality while trying to do better for his family.

The answer is not more police officers and not more regulation on knives or guns. The answer is to empower people to be able to protect themselves against the worst in society. While the pizza delivery man in Des Moines was fired, he's alive. That's a lot better outcome than Mr. Nova's.

Massachusetts is one of several states with totalitarian gun laws. I hope gun rights advocates take the opportunity presented here to push for more liberal gun rights in Massachusetts. Yes, you read that right, liberal as opposed to conservative, which would imply restriction. How is that for a turnaround? Wisconsin, Illinois, New York City, California, New York, and New Jersey just to name a few jurisdictions, need to liberalize their gun rights to reflect the natural right of people to protect themselves. If Iowa can go shall issues, so should any other state. I think Mr. Nova would agree, if he could.

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.