The Liberty Watchtower

The Dying Breed

2008-09-04T07:14:00.003-06:00

I attended a very interesting meeting last night. The bulk of the group were big "L" Libertarians but there were also a few of that dying breed of small-government-Republicans. I have railed on about how the Republican party has been taken over by God-and-Guns conservatives. After talking with these small-government-Republicans, I really have to wonder what it is that still makes them Republicans? If you limit government to the level it is supposed to be at, all of the God-and-Guns conservatives lose their ability to legislate morality. That in effect kills most of their platform. Without the "compassionate conservative" spending and the ability for the state to tell you what to do with your body (which may be a sin but isn't a crime) I don't think Republicans look that differently than Libertarians. Republicans are still talking about strict constitutionalism but other than a few Supreme Court justices I have seen nothing that harkens back to the days of Barry Goldwater. Even Ron Paul has been show the door by a party he refuses to leave. The only thing I can think of is that the small-government Republicans are operating under the Muslim rule of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Maybe they should ask the State department how that's been working for America.

McCain Feingold part deux??

2008-08-19T16:59:00.002-06:00

I have been hearing to rumors of a possible McCain/Liberman ticket today. I remember quite some time ago someone saying that if either candidate crossed the aisle and took a member of the other party as a VP they would win the Presidency. Now we are days away from the possibility becoming a reality. Being a Libertarian this move would be nothing more than a novelty to me since my vote will be for Bob Barr in November. But without a dog in this particular fight it will be a lot of fun to watch the squirming that the Republican party will be put through with this. The independents will probably be swayed by this “maverick” move but the party faithful will be forced to hold their collective breath come November when they will dutifully vote for McCain because “party trumps person”. Of course this will not make McCain any less of a DC insider happy to play the politicians shell-game with American citizens, but it may make him President.

If you want CCW, obey the law.

2008-05-21T06:58:00.001-06:00

I have been getting email newsletters from a guy named Tim Schmidt from Jackson, Wisconsin who runs an organization called the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) for about a month now. At first I was interested in what the organization might offer to American citizens. I was especially enthused by Tim’s assertion that all citizens that can conceal carry should because it benefits everyone to have law-abiding citizens out there that the Bad Guys (BGs) don’t know are packing. Well, my enthusiasm hit a brick wall today. Something about the Wisconsin address seemed a little funny to me so I looked closely at the concealed carry laws for the state of Wisconsin. I was shocked to see that Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states in the nation that DO NOT issue concealed carry permits, period. Tim Schmidt is not just publishing a magazine about guns, he is publishing a magazine about the conceal carrying of firearms. Additionally, he has sent out another email newsletter (the last one I’ll ever get from him) in which he openly stated that he does carry a concealed weapon. As you probably already know from my previous posts, I am a Bill of Rights advocate. That Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment and I am a solid supporter of states efforts to pass Right-to-Carry legislation. People like Tim Schmidt do a great deal of damage to the Right-to-Carry advocates by taking away our assertion that Right-to-Carry legislation will do good because it will put more law-abiding citizens on the streets with weapons that can be used to stop criminals. I think that if Tim wants to be a leader in his state in the effort to pass Right-to-Carry legislation that would be great, but for him to openly advocate concealed carry in a state where it is illegal simply makes Tim a criminal. I have emailed USCCA to tell them that what their President is doing is illegal and undermines Right-to-Carry advocacy all of the country. I think that anyone who cares about the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms should write or email USCCA and ask Tim to step down as the head of the USCCA and to condemn anyone that breaks the law by carrying concealed in an illegal manner. You can write to them through their website at: http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/public/department6.cfm.

Conservative does not equal Economically Literate.

2008-05-14T12:29:00.001-06:00

I don’t have many opportunities to say this, but THANK YOU Rush Limbaugh! The King of Speaking Off the Cuff has let the cat out of the bag. In his show today Rush Limbaugh said that the Democrats had won several recent Congressional elections by running candidates that were more Conservative than the Republicans. He even went so far as to call them Socialist Conservatives. Thank you Rush Limbaugh! You have made my point in those two words so much better than I could ever manage in pages of this blog, my point being that Republicans and more importantly Conservatives do not believe in Free Market/Austrian Economics. Conservatives are all about Guns and God. Now if you don’t believe me, just listen to Rush Limbaugh.
Republicans and Conservatives couldn’t give a flying leap about Austrian Economics and the Free Market advocacy that blooms from that fertile foundation. They simply roll out Milton Freedman whenever they are forced to appeal to all of the limited government and free market crowds that they have fooled into remaining a part of the Republican coalition after the Conservative take-over. Worse, when they do talk about market forces they have corporations whispering the words of great economists into their ears and twisting the issue to suit the corporations needs.
Take a look at the Global Warming issue. Instead of getting the facts and showing real leadership by ignoring whether or not it may be man made and denying the idea that Global Warming can be stopped, they stand out there and spout copious nonsense about how what is being done to stop Global Warming will hurt the economy. While that is partially true, it is more truthful that the fraudulent cure for Global Warming will hurt their corporate sponsors. There are some things that could be done to reduce the burning of fossil fuels that could really unleash our economy, such as permitting new nuclear plants and reducing the massive regulatory atmosphere that squashes the development of new technology. They are so focused on pseudo-economics that they completely deny that Global Warming is even happening. This critical error ignores what is scientifically certain. Global Warming is happening. Whether or not Global Warming has a human source is debatable but that debate needs to happen after we start dealing with the immediate issues of Global Warming. In my opinion, those two things include the rezoning of areas that will be submerged when (not if) the sea level rises and increasing development for fighting tropical diseases. These two things will happen. We will not stop Global Warming, we need to deal with it. By allowing the debate to be between Human made Global Warming and no Global Warming at all, both sides get to ignore what really needs to happen to help humanity.

Why the Global Warming crisis needs to be shaken not stirred.

2008-05-06T14:09:00.000-06:00

First, if you want to look like an idiot, go into a bar and order a martini James Bond style. If the bartender knows anything, he/she should laugh at you and ask you to order something else. A martini is a SERIOUS drinker’s drink. It is mostly gin or vodka, and depending on how dry you want it, mixed with either a splash of vermouth or nothing at all. All alcohol, no fruit juice, no soda, no ice. Why don’t you ask for it to be shaken? Because vermouth is a wine and shaking it will bruise the wine and alter the taste of the drink. Asking for a martini shaken not stirred marks you as a person who doesn’t know jack about a martini. OK, that is a lot of information that you probably didn’t know about a drink that everyone has heard of but almost no one orders anymore.
To me Global Warming as it is known to most people is a lot like a martini. It is mostly politics mixed with a splash (if any) of science. Science has been rolled out as a main ingredient by men like Gore, Al Gore. Al Gore doesn’t know jack about science. We should be laughing at him and asking him to stick to the beer and shots menu. Instead, Al Gore has a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. The tragedy involved with allowing men like Al Gore to direct the environmentalist movement is that most people are genuinely concerned about the environment but don’t know that they are being swindled by politicians.
So what is going on? OK,
#1- There IS GLOBAL WARMING!! Happy now? Why is there global warming? Historically (geologic history, not human history), the planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles. All of the hows and whys are still not clear, even to scientists that have been studying it all of their lives. What I am going off of here is simple observation. The planet is coming out of a cooling cycle and is warming. In fact, if the historic sea level curve is correct, we have a lot more warming ahead of us. OK West, you agree there is global warming, don’t we need to do something??? You bet!! We need to (gradually) move cities back from the coasts and get prepared to farm in Canada. We need to put more effort into controlling tropical diseases which will spread when the tropics spread as the Earth warms. We can actually plan for global warming and sea level rise. Human caused or not, we have global warming. Now, if you want to do a 20 or 30 year study (preferably double-blind, we wouldn’t want it to become political now would we?) of the atmosphere to determine if there is a man made component to the problem, be my guest, but first things first, let us concentrate on problems at hand.
#2- Humanity causes damage to the environment! Wow!, not what you were expecting? I am fully aware of the damage that we do to the environment. For the most part I think that we are moving in the right direction. People are demanding green products and green policies. Companies are responding to that demand. What I think we need to improve on is population control and population density. This is what we are going to be fighting over a lot in the next few decades. The realization that we need to stop damaging the environment needs to be accompanied with an understanding of what contributes to that damage and a plan reduce that damage as much as is economically feasible. Why do I use a term like economically feasible? Because as an environmentalist; unless you are willing to kill yourself to stop yourself from damaging the environment; you must dedicate yourself to minimizing your impact. Remember, a politician asks you what you want, and economist will ask you what you want more. That is what it will come down to. What you are willing to change in your lifestyle and what technology we develop to help with environmental problems will determine what is economically feasible. Now, just in case you think that I am pointing the finger at Al Gore but am a hypocrite myself, I live in a second floor 1000 sq ft condominium and drive a compact car. In my opinion, if everyone else followed suit the amount we consume as a whole would be greatly diminished. The reasoning is that you can only pack a certain amount of crap into a 1000 sq ft condo. :)

2008-05-03T16:30:00.002-06:00

Today is the 134th running of the Kentucky Derby. Three years ago over thirty thousand thoroughbred foals were born in green pastures all over the US. This year 19 colts and one filly will run in today’s race at Churchill Downs. One will win. One will set off a storm of speculation about the Triple Crown and if today’s winner can do what no horse has done in 30 years.
That leaves about 31,999 (American Horse Council, 1998) thoroughbred horses that won’t even be footnotes in horse racing history. Some will win other races, many will lose other races. Some will find loving forever homes where they will be treated like champions no matter if they never ran a single race. Sadly, many will be betrayed by the people that bred them, the people that trained them, and the people that invested the soft hope of spring three years ago as foals frolicked with their mothers. Those same foals will have grown into horses that will be sold to kill buyers and slaughtered for human consumption.
Today while you are watching the Kentucky Derby and sipping on a mint julep, I ask that you think about the foals that were born this year that will never race in the Kentucky Derby in three years and will end up in slaughterhouses because of over breeding and an attitude that these animals are expendable. Write the American Association of Equine Practitioners and ask them to renounce their stance that horses bred to be racers, riders, haulers, and lawn ornaments are just livestock animals that deserve no better than to be slaughtered for human consumption.
PS- My thoughts go out to the owners, trainers, breeders and anyone else associated with 8 Bells who was lost during this year’s race.

A matter of faith.

2008-05-01T13:00:00.001-06:00

You know that I am a Libertarian and an agnostic. I want to explain why I am both. It all comes down to the fact that I have no faith. My favorite definition of faith is believing what you know just ain’t true. I think Mark Twain came up with that one. I have noticed that I even have a hard time using the word believe. I prefer think or understand.

In regards to religion, why is believing in God so important? What does it do for you? Religion is supposed to answer three big questions.
How did we get here?
Why are we here?
And probably most importantly for the deeply religious people I’ve observed,
What happens when we die?
My question is; why does it matter what happens to us when we die? You’re dead. Period. Religious righters love to preach about loving life and right to life, but what are they doing with theirs? Worrying about what happens to them after they are dead? Wow, they want to make sure more people can be born so they can spend their life worrying about what happens after they die. WHAT? Let’s just leave it that the third important question that religion answers is actually best answered by a FUNERAL DIRECTOR. Will that be buried or cremated? And you ain’t getting anything to go. Looking for Paradise? You better make yours in the here and now!

Science studies the world around us to try to help us understand how we got here and what we can do with what we’ve been given. For me, that takes care of: how did we get here?

Why are you here? You are here to live your own life. Living with the fear of God and in the needy arms of the Church (any Church, Synagogue, Temple, Mosque, or other religious construct) is living your life for someone else. They will tell you that someone else is God or Allah or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The reality is that the someone else is whoever is leading the group and their favorite causes.

OK, I think that takes care of why I’m an agnostic. It’s not that I don’t think there is a God; it’s just that I don’t care. Being an atheist means I have to spend my life trying to prove that God doesn’t exist, no thanks.

Why am I a Libertarian? It is the same lack of faith issue. To believe that government is anything less than evil you have to believe something that you know just ain’t true. You have to believe in altruism. You have to believe that public servants serve the public. You have to believe the politicians are going to do what they say they will. You have to believe that the rules apply to everyone equally. You have to believe…well I think you have to believe an awful lot that just ain’t true.

I am a Libertarian because I will not believe, I have to know. I need to know that the rules apply to everyone equally. I need to know that when I buy something, that I am buying the best thing for my needs, not just believe that the government has the best of intentions when they restricted what I can buy. I need to know who is making the rules, not believing that campaign finance reform can stop the abuse of the system the politicians enjoy or that bureaucrats have any other motive in mind other than CYA when they set out regulations (which is a power given to them when politicians who are too busy abusing their power abdicate their responsibility to the people by giving that power to bureaucrats).

Conservatives???

2008-03-31T12:51:00.002-06:00

Cato Institute just ran a series of public opinion polls. In one they asked people if they thought of themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal and received 58% positive response. They then changed the question to include the words "otherwise known as libertarian" to the end of the first question and the positive response dropped to 44%. OK, so people are mostly libertarians but don't want to be called libertarians. Why? is the question the Libertarian Party really need to be asking itself. Even people who would be willing to be identified as libertarians are not registering as Libertarians. Instead they glom on to the false hope that the alliance of so-called-conservative causes known as the Republican Party will really represent their interests. Even after multiple Bush terms that should have convinced them that the Republican Party left them long ago, these Libertarians-should-Be's stay with their unfaithful party.
What do I think the Libertarian Party needs to do about helping the American public with their identity crisis? In this age of consensus I say that the Libertarian Party needs to denounce "conservatives" and Republicans for their lack of economic knowledge or backbone required to institute proper economic policy. The reason many conservatives will never be Libertarians is because they will never sign on to the social liberties that libertarians feel are a critical freedoms in a state that doesn't pose as a victim. The likelihood of overcoming that aversion is very low. Libertarians must find the will to simply walk away from these closed minded people and walk in the direction that follows their principles and hope that the people follow them. As much as it pains me to say this, that includes walking away from Ron Paul now that he has declared that he will not leave the Republican Party (sorry Ron but the remnant is not in the Republican Party and hasn't been for a long long time).
This leaves us with everyone else with their varying levels of economic education. Some people don't even understand that the free trade of goods and services is the only economic system that is compatible with a free society. Some people who could be convinced of that still think that becuase Republicans say they are free-market advocates that any free-market advocate is automatically a corporate shill due to the overly comfy relationship Republicans and corporate America have. I think that it is this almost indelible stain on the free-market name has bled through from the conservatives and has sullied the reputation of Libertarians. Libertarians need to openly declare that the conservative adoption of the free-market name is a sham that they perpetuate purely with the intent to continually abuse the power of their offices and dole out favors to their corporate allies. Now, in case you are thinking that all of this venom is directed at corporations let me clear things up for you. Corporations are not moral creatures (no matter how much they pretend to be, or how much anyone WISHES otherwise) and they will take any advantage they can. If it takes buying politicians to limit their competitors from entering their markets then odds are they are going to do exactly that. What we need to get straight here is that this problem was not created by corporations, it was created by corrupt politicians that ignored the restrictions on government power put in place by the Constitution. The solution is not punishing the corporations but simply taking away the politicians power to play favorites. I think that once Libertarians make this point crystal clear to the economically literate voters that we will have more and more of them choosing to walk along with us down the path to real Liberty embodied in true free markets.

Go Ron!

2008-02-21T07:12:00.002-07:00

I cannot believe that it was just days ago that I said that all Ron Paul has to do is hold on until the convention to win the nomination. Today the NY Times breaks the news that John McCain has had an affair, not just an affair, but an affair with a LOBBYIST!!!! Mr. Campaign Finance reform! LOL!!! Unbelievable. Go Ron Go!

Why Ron Paul can win

2008-02-16T13:38:00.001-07:00

Right now the media and the Republican party wish Ron Paul would just
go away. Fortunately for us and unfortunately for them Ron Paul
isn't going anywhere. With only two other Republicans left running
for the nomination Ron is not far from winning by default. John
McCain is a RHINO and the party faithful (pardon the pun) know it.
Huckabee came in late and also lacks the reputation of being a solid
free market Republican. It may only take a few leaks about either of
them and Ron Paul will be the only one standing. McCain is more
likely to fall to such an issue and we have seen what kind of muck
governors have in their closets. Time will tell but as long as Ron
Paul is at the convention in September he still has a chance. Stick
in there Ron and good luck.

--
John West

A rising tide lifts all boats - JFK

A couple of notes for the Democrats

2008-02-16T07:45:00.002-07:00

I am a Libertarian; therefore you should expect a set of principals to guide any policy I suggest. In this post I will be making a few suggestions to Democrats concerning their policy decisions in the future. This is not to be taken as an endorsement of anything the Democrats represent but only as suggestions to them concerning the detrimental effects of some of their policy decisions.
First, I would ask the Democrats to be careful about the size of the stick they give the government. In specific, they are boasting about socializing health care in this country. As a Libertarian I am completely opposed to this course of action but I know that I am only shouting at a wall when I try to talk to Democrats about the virtues of a market system providing superior health care. So I will take a different tack. Democrats, before you dance in the streets celebrating the triumph of the Everyman in gaining universal (socialized) health care I want you to think carefully about what the Republicans will do with your precious system when (and yes it will only be a matter of when) they regain power in DC. Don't worry about them dismantling it, they are not interested in smaller government anymore. In fact they will look forward to controlling a national single payer health care system, because it will do one very important thing for them, it will remove the need to make abortions illegal. Thats right, no more fighting over Roe vs Wade, or fighting against anti-protest laws at abortion clinics. You will have given them financial control of those clinics and they will simply stop funding abortions in the United States. Even if the Doctors tried to open new clinics to provide abortions as a service, the Republicans would only have to deny them the necessary licenses to open the clinics. Really, what good is universal (socialized) health care if there is any competition from the free market? That's what you really want isn't it? To get rid of nasty free market greed. To get rid of competition becuase that doesn't protect the common good as well as government regulation, right?
Second, with all of the hubbub about global warming and the destruction of the environment that has been saturating the media lately I want to talk to you about the basic core of why we have some of our current environmental problems. Cars are one of your favorite targets. Why does everyone feel the need to drive everywhere? Why can't they walk to where they need to go? The other issue I always hear Democrats complain about are McMansions. Why do people feel the need to be so wasteful? Why do they need such big homes on so much land so far out in the suburbs? Here is a bombshell for you, I agree with you! I abhor McMansions and Hummers. I think they are just as wasteful and abnoxious as you do. However, the reasons for why these things exist are where we part ways. You think it is just about American greed. I think it is becuase people cannot stand to be around other people in this day and age. I think the reason they cannot stand to be around other people is becuase we live in a society not where we are our brothers keeper, but where our government wants us to be our brothers warden. Unfortunately, it is human nature to want to stick our nose where it doesn't belong. I will return to a common idea now. You want to make sure the government has the power to do the things that you want it to be able to do. The problem is, when you give the government that kind of power it becomes a two sided sword that the Republicans happily use to enforce their morality on society. Not to say that Democrats are not willing sacrifice their civil liberties in the pursuit of their Utopia but simply to say that many of the anti-social policies that drive people away from each other come from laws that legislate morality rather than justice. Now imagine with me. Take a bong hit if that will help (I promise not to tell anyone). Imagine a world where people are free to do ANYTHING they want to as long as they do not harm someone else while doing it. ANYTHING. Want to carry guns with you anywhere you go, fine. Want to do drugs out in the middle of a playground, fine. Want to throw a sex party at our place, fine. Want to start a company because you are convinced that you have found THE better mousetrap, fine. Want to do something that you are pretty sure most people will find highly offensive on your balcony in full view of the world, fine. All of those things need to be legal. As long as you don't hurt someone else, go for it. Being offended is not the same as being hurt, grow up. If you are damaging your body, hey, its YOUR body. No one should have the right to demand that you live a certain way for them. It is my belief that if we lived in a society that let you live your life as you see fit without hurting others and a society that was taught to value to resources that we have and wanted to live in the most efficient manner that you would have your Utopia. Urban sprawl would be replaced by compact city centers where people could live and work and shop and play within walking/biking/taxi distances. The biggest barrier to that reality right now is not American greed, its American busybodies.

Outlaw the jerks!

2007-04-19T20:30:00.001-06:00

I just want everyone to take a moment for a little mental exercise after listening to the brain deadening news coverage of the shootings at Virginia Tech. Everyone has heard the anti gun rhetoric some of you may even spout it religiously. Now for the exercise. Substitute the word jerk for gun. A 9mm jerk was used in the VT killings. This jerk had no business being on a college campus. In fact, there are laws in place forbidding jerks on school property.
I think that puts the problem into better perspective. Right wingers would be the ones on the bandwagon trying to push legislation through for stricter jerk control. While the leftists would be yelling and screaming about how you can't send out the stormtroopers to gather up people because someone reported that they were a jerk or maybe they were just hiding a jerk in their home. Could you imagine some Boulder hippie type out there chanting: "If you outlaw jerks then only outlaws will be jerks!" ?
Something gun cotrol advocates need to consider is that we live in a real world where there are jerks and guns. Getting rid of guns will not get rid of the jerks or the guns. What it will do has been illustrated in almost every school shooting, innocent, law abiding people will be killed at will by jerks with guns.
To both sides I would like to remind you that America is supposed to be a free society. Like anything else there are good points and bad points. This country represents unlimited opportunity and any thing that changes our basic rights affects that. We have to accept that the amazing benefits we get from living in a free society come at a cost. Sometimes that cost must be paid in blood.

Why is Congree acting like Homer Simpson?

2007-04-19T20:28:00.000-06:00

Come on and say it with me, NUCULAR. Admit it, its a guilty pleasure to know that you can pronounce a word that our President can't get right. Unfortunately, even though most of Congress can pronounce nuclear properly, it doesn't stop them from messing it up too. We have American and world leaders yelling from the rooftops about how we (which convienently doesn't include them) desperately need to stop using fossil fuels. Now I want to take a quick moment to remind you the Congress didn't need to subsidize Henry Fords production of the Model T in order to alleviate the high numbers of horse buggies in use at the turn of the century. Likewise, if Congress hadn't already placed so many barriers in the way of American business by the end of the century we wouldn't be talking about our addiction to Middle East oil. Its not like the US is lacking in technology and intellect, at least outside of Congress, but with out a literal act of Congress America cannot bring our considerable brainpower to bear on what is being touted as our single biggest problem. Every American should feel at least a little shame when told that France has better nuclear technology in place than the US does. There are currently designs for nuclear reactors that pose no possibility of a meltdown and produce many times the energy that an equivalent weight of coal produces. The Europeans have devised a method for reducing radioactive waste to ash that when used to create glass ingots completely eliminates the possibility of release of isotops into groundwater. So, what is Congress doing to help America harness the answer to our energy dilema? You guessed it! They are not only not helping us, they are standing firmly in our way. I don't want to explore the miriad excuses that the burrocrats may come up with for their gross negligence of science, lets leave it that unless someone actually harms someone else, the government has no business in our business or science for that matter.

What is government?

2007-04-12T20:20:00.000-06:00

Why does humanity need government? Simply put, animals kill each other for territory, food, mates. Government should be an understanding among humans that no person can initiate force against another person. Government provides people with a rule of law that provides a clear outline of what is not allowed and what the consequences are for violating the law. Ideally, government should set the rule of law as clearly as possible and then walk away and let the courts provide for the exceptions. Jury nullification should be part of the basic jury instructions for any court. Once the rules are clear the courts can provide for justice, even if justice includes ignoring the rules. The meddling, busy-body mentality of a legislature to set law for every little contingency is micromanaging at its worst and in most cases defeats the rule of law by making the rules too muddled to be enforced. Likewise, forcing courts and juries to use certain standards defeats the use of courts to provide justice. In courts it’s not what is true, it’s what you can prove. Setting barriers in legal procedure means that even less truth can make it into what can be proven.
What does the Constitution need to be?
The Constitution was intended to be the set of rules by which the country was governed. With proper concern for individual rights the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. For whatever reasons, the Founders were not able to set a clear set of rules. What the Constitution needs to be is a clear set of what is legal for the Government and what is illegal for citizens. This clarity is important because what the government should be allowed to do needs to be inclusive while what the citizens are allowed to do needs to be only exclusive.

Muzzle the politicians!

2006-01-12T11:48:00.000-07:00

Hey all! The new year is here but the problems with government remain. I am now faced with the nanny state invading my backyard. The town council has decided that a pit bull ban is a good idea. Wrong! Breed specific legislation has been denounced by all of the major animal welfare groups that I was able to find. All of them point out that all dogs can bite. Training and health are much bigger contributers to the tendancy of a dog to bite. If the town council wants to up the penalties for have a dangerous animal or vicisious dog, I'm OK with that. Owners definately need to be held responsible for the behavior of the dogs, but banning all dogs of a specific breed really is the action of an elementary teacher punishing the whole class becuase of the actions of the class clown. It doesn't solve the problem, but it is easy and makes them feel like they have done something. It doesn't make it right.

NASA needs to be grounded, forever.

2005-07-13T18:02:00.000-06:00

Mission control- come in mission control. To all of you boys and girls at NASA, slowly push back away from your million dollar toys, the professionals are here to do the job right. That's right, trying to re-launch the shuttle program now is a bit behind the times. Burt Rutan, the White Knight and Space Ship One are the wave of the future. While you were sitting on your thumbs trying to figure out how to keep your jobs, Spaceship One was successfully launched into space TWICE within two weeks and returned to Earth safely. Game over, give it up. NASA had a Cold War fueling the fervor of the 60s and 70s, but the good ol' US of A is back to worshiping the almighty dollar and corporate America is about to hand you your pink slips. There is money to be made in space and the idealistic relic known as NASA is sitting squarely in the way of real innovation. If you want a case of compassionate euthanasia in Florida; PLEASE put NASA out of its misery!
On a different note Farm Aid is back for a concert in Chicago. I wonder if John and the other dozen Mellancamps will be there with their hands out? At least they're asking for cash this time and not preaching about how overtaxing the G-8 nations will make the world a better place.
SOMEBODY TAKE MY GOVERNMENT AWAY!!

Keep your eye on the ball!

2005-07-11T10:09:00.000-06:00

American politics can be summed up with the following two words: shell game. The politicians try as hard as they can to get the voters to focus all of their attention on something other than the true objective of the game. Sometimes they give you sex scandals to distract you and other times they simply play with words to get you to think that what they are doing is going to be good for you. The whole idea of campaign finance reform is a great point for the latter. The politicians have more power than they should have, power to make or break people, companies and even countries. That power is a commodity that forms a market where it is bought and sold. The politicians play their little game with you though and sell you campaign finance reform which they tell you will take the money out of politics. They know that they are the problem but have sold you on the idea that money is the problem. Campaign finance reform is now law but it hasn’t taken a dime out of politics. Why? Because the power is still there and there is still a market for that power. The only way to stop the money is to take away the market which means taking away the power that the politicians have marketed for so long. The politicians have also sold you on the idea that making drugs illegal will make them go away. Has it? No, drugs are still available because there is still a demand for them and a very enthusiastic supply base. The only thing the "War on Drugs" has done is make drugs that are dangerous to their users dangerous to everyone around them. Last night I heard that prescription drug abuse has doubled in the last decade. Now abuse of Oxycontin and Ritalin is higher than abuse of cocaine and heroin combined. Which is the way they want it. They don't want you to not take drugs they just want you to take their drugs. For society in general, alcohol is more dangerous than any illegal drug. It causes more domestic violence, more car accidents and more health problems than any other drug out there. The politicians already tried to outlaw it once with disastrous consequences. The same problems this nation had with alcohol prohibition are the same problems we see today with drug prohibition. The politicians have sold us something much more dangerous than drugs, they have sold us the idea that the government can do something about them.

Do fireworks=freedom?

2005-07-05T07:55:00.000-06:00

Here we are, another Fourth of July behind us. Every year that I have been alive our government has gained power and individual citizens have lost freedoms. This year as in several years past fireworks were illegal to use in the state of Colorado. Our benevolent dictators once again felt the need to protect the ignorant citizens from themselves. So there I sat last night, all of my patriotic fervor packed into a state sponsored fireworks display. I will be the first to admit that the big fireworks are fun to watch. I would have been all for a few of the guys at the fire department setting up a fireworks fund for the community so everyone here could enjoy the big fireworks as they were set off by trained firefighters. Unfortunately, sitting there watching the fireworks I could not get my mind off of the idea that the dollars spent for those fireworks were forcefully taken by the government. The same government that recently outlawed almost all other fireworks. The government really hates competition when they're stealing from you. The phrase they used for what you could use was "Safe and Sane" fireworks. WHAT?? Fireworks by their very nature are neither. You don't use fireworks in day-to-day life because they are dangerous. People who make blowing things up their jobs don't use fireworks because gunpowder is too unreliable and doesn’t pack enough punch. Fireworks are only a manifestation of our celebratory spirit meant to be miniature recreations of the "rockets red glare...bombs bursting in air". They are dangerous and with every liberty there necessarily comes a responsibility. Too many parents don’t take their responsibility seriously and kids get seriously hurt. It only takes so many pictures of poor little Billy standing their with three fingers left and no eyebrows to open the door for the nannyists to walk in spouting about protecting ourselves from ourselves. And voila!! I'm sitting there on a Fourth of July "enjoying" my local state sponsored fireworks show wondering how much freedom I have left for them to take.

Alan Greenspan: Rock Star!?!

2005-07-02T18:45:00.000-06:00

Here it is at last the Live 8 concerts, proudly brought to you by the same people you saw sleeping in the back of your economics class. They don’t want you to give charitable donations this time; they want you to ask your government to tax you out of your money after the government forgives debts to Africa. On that single basis along the debt relief is a bad idea; I for one don’t need more taxes. To make things worse, it WON”T HELP!!! The problem with Africa is not that the people are poor, the problem is that the way the governments work in Africa no one will ever have property or money. The dictator du jour found in most African governments creates instability. The laws in the African countries do not recognize individual property rights. They do not allow for banking systems like they do in the First World nations. Africa is made up of Third World nations not because they lack resources or they compassion of the G8 nations. It is because their governments will not institute laws that allow them to modernize their economies and become First World nations.
Let me attempt a little lesson in logic here. What all of these singers and movie stars are doing is called (in the Latin) argumentum ad verecundiam. Otherwise called argument or appeal to authority. They are singers! When Bono wins a Nobel Prize in economics he can lecture all of us about how debt relief will save Africans from their own governments. Until then as far as I am concerned the only thing Bono knows about economics is that when U2 puts out a new album his bank account grows. I wouldn’t necessarily want Alan Greenspan to put out a new rock album and I definitely don’t want Bono standing in as an economics professor.

Where's the nation going? Why are we in this handbasket?

2005-06-29T21:45:00.000-06:00

The Supreme Court has been handing down some interesting decisions lately. One decision came down yesterday that was a 7-2 vote that made it impossible to sue a police department for not enforcing a restraining order. What I heard on the radio yesterday was that during the hearing a Supreme Court justice directly asked the legal council for the police department what an officer’s duty was if they saw a man being beat up by five other men. The response was a bone chilling nothing. That's right, police duties have been reduced to protect their jobs and serve them more donuts. The blue canaries really are not there to protect anyone or to enforce the laws, not unless they feel like it.
The court has been accused of being too conservative or too liberal; I am going to accuse them of something else, being far too pro-government. The Constitution is no longer regarded as a limit on government and instead the legal system is being used to shackle the American people. Government can now do pretty well what it wants to. These non-elected, non-representative officials have tilted the balance of power squarely into the hands of the government. I feel like Obi-Wan yelling at Darth Vader: "You were supposed to bring balance to the Constitution. You were supposed to defeat the nannyists, not become one!!!"
I will offer one piece of advice to the courts and the government in general. Not that I expect any of them to listen. Consider what you are taking away from the American people, because in addition to the rights you are taking away you are also taking away hope. When the people believe they have no hope left they will hand down a decision of their own: secession.

Got Freedom?

2005-06-15T07:49:00.000-06:00

Rush Limbaugh has a saying: "Freedom has worked every time it has been tried." Of course he likes to trot that saying out in defense of our efforts in Iraq, but what about here, at home? If you equate freedom with the maximum absence of government then our freedom is in a hurting state of affairs right now. As Limbaugh himself has stated that our federal budget only grows. What politicians call cuts are only cuts in projected growth rates, not actual cuts into any department’s budget. Now we have the Supreme Court deciding that the commerce clause of the Constitution can be projected to include federal prosecution of marijuana users who grow their own plants and never cross state lines. The interstate commerce clause had already been bent out of recognition, now it is totally broken. We have a sitting President who has made his administrations policy one of pre-emptive warfare. If anyone cares about national sovereignty it should be the US, yet our policy is now to INITIATE hostilities towards other sovereign nations. I agree that freedom needs to find its way into every corner of this world but modern nations need to establish means that agree with the intended ends. How do you say we want you to enjoy freedom so we are going to attack your country? There we have it, the trifecta. Our congress is ignoring the constitution, our judicial is breaking the constitution to meet their needs, and the executive branch is invading other countries. You can try to rationalize any of these actions however you would like but you cannot dismiss the underlying truth that the government is ignoring the ground rules this nation was founded on. For the record, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in essence an agreement between the government of this country and the people. It establishes the rights of the people and the limits of the government, not the other way around. The ground rules established by these two documents only protect the people if the people enforce the rules. Americans have taken the path of least resistance and allowed their freedoms to slip away from them. The fight to regain those freedoms will be difficult and needs to start soon before the Great Experiment becomes a footnote in the history books of the socialist future.

Triumph for the weird.

2005-06-14T08:53:00.000-06:00

I know everyone and their dog will be chiming in on the Michael Jackson verdict today. However, that will not stop me from throwing in my two cents worth. The way I see it the verdict was a triumph for the weird. People can still stand there and talk all they want to about how an older man shouldn't have young boys in his bed but that is simply a moral judgment and what we saw yesterday was justice. Society has had a hard time distinguishing between the two lately. Too many moral crusaders have used the power of concentrated interests to put into place laws based on morality not justice. After this verdict I don't have a doubt that there will be ugly bills drafted all across our beautiful nation that will specifically say that what Michael Jackson did is a criminal act, not that Jackson would be caught dead living in most of those places. For that matter, I would be surprised if he stuck around the US at all. Given the toll this trial took on his health I can't say that he should feel all that welcome here when his own government tried to take him to task on charges that could not stand up to a trial by his peers. Ten counts, that is how many laws the prosecutor felt he could convict Jackson of violating. Not a meager amount of work involved there. He must have felt he really had the law on his side, didn't he? Or did he simply jump into the arrest and trial of a man he knew he would have a hard time convicting simply because he as an individual felt outrage over Jackson's moral indiscretions? My vote is for the latter. In my opinion, the prosecutor needs to have his decision reviewed by his peers on the bar and if they feel he did not press the charges with the intent of getting an actual conviction, then he needs to be disbarred. This is all assuming that the legal community has the courage required to police their own. We have enough moral crusaders writing the laws, we don't need more of them enforcing the law. The jury found Jackson innocent on all counts, but the peanut gallery of moral crusaders never will because they have, and will continue to confuse morality with justice.

By the people, for the people, where?

2005-06-02T11:04:00.000-06:00

Being a child of the seventies I have never known a nation not belittled by the childish antics of modern politics. Men and women who are elected by a system that seems like but somehow is not democratic or even representative. I know there are people out there that say that if you vote that your vote counts and that the representative elected are your representatives. Why do I not buy that? Oh yeah, because the power brokers in the two main parties do their level best to quash any third party candidate. They have the market pretty well cornered on fundraising because who ever heard of a serious third party candidate. Since they are our elected representatives they get to write laws about how the elections are held, who can contribute to whom and who gets to be included in the debates. The media in this country also plays a part in this two party monopoly of power. Who is going to vote for a person who you have never heard of? How do you hear about people? From the media. I have hope however. With the advent of the World Wide Web and the blogosphere the word is getting out that there are viable alternatives to the status quo in Washington. I was raised by my mother who is in the Democrat camp in just about every area except gun control. Then I went off to college and learned something about economics. I was converted to conservatism, but not entirely. I backed Perot the two times he ran. When 2000 came around I had just graduated from the Colorado School of Mines, and with the limited number of choices available to a conservative in that election I voted for W. I had not discovered the Libertarian movement at that time and was hell bent on not voting for a Democrat who was set on prying into my wallet after I finally had some money in it. To my great surprise however, I had not voted for a fiscal conservative, just a social conservative, I had screwed myself in the worst possible way. W has no problems with a “be thy brothers keeper” state of affairs. He has allowed the Democrats to continue their spending spree on social engineering programs that in reality only benefit the government employees who administer the programs. Then 9-11 happened. The politicians went into full "we have to do something!" mode. Viola! The Patriot Act was born and that on top of years of deterioration of our civil liberties pretty well sealed the deal. Now you are saying, "You're writing this blog right now so you still have all of your civil liberties, what are you complaining about?" I'm complaining that the paving is being laid for the superhighway to Hell. Do you think the Germans still thought they were in good shape after Hitler got a firearms registration passed. Some of them may have been nervous but it wasn't until the government started using those registration rolls to start gathering firearms that people started to realize they weren't in control anymore. Thomas Jefferson said that "the price for liberty is constant vigilance." Without exaggerating, this literally is a mandate for paranoia when it comes to everything our government does. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are just a listing of the base rules our government is supposed to follow. These two documents do not protect our civil liberties they merely define them. Defending our civil liberties falls squarely on the shoulders of those who would not live without them. H.G. Wells once said that "History is a race between education and catastrophe." I wonder if he understood how deeply true that quote is. Most people today just equate education with reading, writing, arithmetic, and science. I would say that the race more specifically applies to civil education. Without a thorough understanding of the civil liberties our founders meant for us to have, we have no idea what we have lost. We have no appreciation for how important it is to stop the government from encroaching on the liberties that make the people free and make the country great. People need to be taught a fundamental truth. Our country was founded with the idea that each person is endowed with certain inalienable rights. Inalienable means cannot be taken or SURRENDERED. The concept of living in a free country must include the idea that you have to be free to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of another citizen. Another basic tenet of living in a free country if that the economic system must be based on voluntary interactions between buyers and sellers. We currently live in a country where inalienable rights might be confused with alien rights and being an alien anything will get you arrested. The economy is hardly voluntary with all of the government controls there for your "safety".

Communism = Evil

2005-04-22T10:58:00.000-06:00

Why is communism evil? Evil, isn't that a bit harsh? Not at all, communism is in fact anti-freedom. It is not as people would have you believe, a way to control corporate greed, it is the complete lack of freedom. The basis for this is the fact that communism allows for NO personal property rights. If you don't have the right to your property or the product of your labors, what rights do you have. You can count them on one hand without using any fingers. That's right, zip, zero, nada. To use an extreme example, in the pre-Civil War south whites owned black slaves. While not all slave were treated well, they were still property and the slave owners had a stake in taking care of them because they were property. Contrast that slavery to the institutional slavery represented by communism. In that system you aren't even property you are merely a resource at the governments disposal. Take a resource like wood. You can build a house out of wood for shelter or you can burn the wood for heat. Either use of the resource gains benefits for you. As a resource to the government, you could be valued for your use as a doctor maintaining the health of other people or you could be worked to death in a mine. Both gain benefits to the government. Being a resource isn’t a nice prospect. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. That is the essence of the Communist Manifesto. It completely ignored the most basic human nature. If you don’t have to work for something but still get it, you don't work. Even better, if you can force someone to make something for you, you will do it. Needs easily become wants. Citizens who cry out the loudest gain the most value from that system and the most able people are worked to death. There is no incentive to be a good worker. People who advocate communism, socialism, or fascism are pushing the outright destruction of the most basic right you have, the right to the product of your labor.

What about now?

2005-02-22T10:53:00.000-07:00

We need a new "religion". One that stresses the here and now. One that proclaims the greatness of mans ability and mans potential. The religion that is dominant today is one that encourages obedience, humility, and a focus on the hereafter. They claim that faith is required. I don't want faith in an unknown. I don't want to focus on the hereafter. I want people to be true to themselves. I want people to understand that faith in your abilities will be rewarded in this lifetime and that your personal integrity is the true currency in life. Be amazed at the world around you not because you cannot understand why it exists but because you can appreciate it and strive to understand its unlimited complexity. I want followers who rejoice in mans ability to create a flowing river of knowledge that does not yield to stubborn thinkers but carves its way down through ignorance to the shining sea of the truth. The journey is not quick and it is not easy but it is inevitable. The truth is powerful not because it is obvious but because it is unmovable. You can see many layers of dirt on top of the truth and the shape the dirt takes may resemble the truth. People may pronounce that the image they see is the truth but when someone else wipes away some of the dirt to reveal the truth no one can honestly look at the truth and deny it. You may ask how will we know when we have seen the real truth and the answer is that after numerous other people have tried to dig further and found only the unmovable face of the truth will it be know to all. I want a "religion" that understands not only the potential of mankind but also the necessary journey that each person must take to realize their own potential. People must be free to follow their own path. Freedom requires obedience to freedom. You cannot talk about freedom with boundaries other than where another’s freedom begins. The state is not an individual and cannot be given freedom. The state cannot stand in for an individual and take freedom. The state can only recognize that each person is free and protect that freedom when it is violated by others. This is the only way people can live with freedom. There is only one economy that is compatible with freedom and that is capitalism. Only when people are free to deal with whom ever they feel like are they free. Any alteration to a market is an alteration to who you can deal with or what can be exchanged.

To Protect and Serve? Protect who?

2005-02-19T10:47:00.000-07:00

I hate the American pre-occupation with the idea that police keep you safe. It's called the justice system because it provides justice not safety. What's the difference you ask. If someone commits a violent crime and is tried and punished, that is justice. If someone is doing something that you don't approve of and you have the police arrest that person in the name of public safety, that is tyranny. Police are a based on a quaint notion that you can put some citizens in government uniforms and supposedly give them powers that normal citizens don't have. The idea that this is a government by the people, of the people and for the people implies that it operates through the consent of the governed. You cannot give through consent a power you do not have. You cannot preemptively stop a crime from happening. If you saw a crime about to happen and ran and tackled the guy it would be you being charged with assault. So why should we think that the police would be enabled with a power normal citizens do not possess? Police ony ''protect" the populace by apprehending criminals, which by definition means they must have already committed a crime. Why does it take a police force to do this? Couldn't this function of the justice system be handled by private detectives and bounty hunters working towards collecting a fee. Why is it more fair to have a civil servant perform the task of a glorified go-fer? The common task performed by today’s police is mainly social control tasks based on moralistic laws not actual justice. Is breaking the speed limit really a crime? What about smoking a joint and then eating 4 Twinkies. Yes, that must be a crime against say, good taste? No, these are not actions that violate another citizens rights and are not crimes. The state should not be given the assumptive power to claim a violation against the public good. The public is a straw man that is comprised of individuals. Only individuals have rights. Certainly, post suggested speeds for roads and if someone is driving in a reckless manner and causes an accident, THEN you can hit them with a book as thick as you can get it. That's the line in the sand. Once they have committed an actual crime by violating a citizens rights the justice system needs to be there and fully enabled to deal with societies undesirables. But please, let’s do away with the notion that police can actually protect society from the very individuals that comprise it.

Electile Dysfunction.

2004-11-01T10:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is election day. I have already voted thanks to Colorado being an early voting state. My brother was telling me that last weeks South Park forced Stan to choose between a douche bag and a turd. That pretty well sums up this election season. The two major parties keep hammering on people that they live in a two party system and if you don't vote for the turd or the douche bag that you are throwing your vote away. Well, I threw my vote as far away from their stink-fest as I could get. It used to be that you could count on the Republicans hold up against socialist tendencies, well not with Dubyah in office. That turd thinks that his religion encourages people to be their brothers keeper. Blinded by his religion he will skip merrily down the path to socialism. Kerry on the other hand doesn’t want to hide any of his socialist tendencies and has wheeled out a medical care program guaranteed to trash our medical system and our economy. Two birds with one stone, the guy has ambition. How are we as Americans going to fight socialism if our two major parties have signed on with the bad guys. Fighting back needs to start with the idea that you don't have to vote for the douche bag or the turd just because people tell you that they are the only ones that can win. Even if a third party candidate cannot win, they can hurt a major party candidates election odds and will get the attention of the major candidates when they lose the election because their supporters have defected to a third party that supports their issues. Politicians may not have enough sense to see the dangers of socialism on their own but if they lose enough of their support they may be throttled back to reality.

When do YOU need to be punished?

2004-09-28T10:32:00.000-06:00

Ayn Rand had it right. You hear people quote Tacitus saying "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Then they end things there. Rand took it further and hit the nail on the head. Yes corrupt states do have more laws. The why is where life gets spooky. The goverrnment has a monopoly on the use of force. The monopoly is codified in the rule of law. No one is supposed to use force on one another, if you do the government has the right and responsibility to use force to stop you. The insidious nature of this is shown when the laws extend beyond people using force against each other. If someone violates another persons rights but does not use force then the civil courts can help that person with their greivances. But the laws Tacitus speaks of give the government the ability to use force against more people that are classified as criminals. The state really only has power over criminals. So, if the government decides it needs more power, it creates laws that create more criminals. We now have traffic laws and drug laws, which is were most citizens will encounter the tyranny of our ever expanding government. They are not using force to harm someone else. There is merely a behavior that MAY lead to someone else being hurt. While some may say that the government needs to stop these individuals to keep people safe. The folly in this is that the government outlined in the constitution is only supposed to protect our rights not to provide for our safety. The reason why the government was not tasked with keeping us safe is because it is a never ending task that by definition will completely destroy our liberties because liberty includes the right to make bad decisions. You may hurt yourself through your actions and the Constitution is OK with that. You may hurt someone else through your actions, then the Constitution says that you will be held responsible for violating someone elses rights. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you need to be stopped before you violate someones rights, just that you will be held responsible.

Why can't we all just get along?

2004-09-04T10:30:00.000-06:00

One word. Rules. In a world with such a large population it becomes increasingly difficult to keep everyone playing nice with one another. This is not to say that you need a new law for every thing you think someone may do to someone else. It does mean that everyone needs to play by the same rules. This is made simpler by keeping the rules simple. People instinctively adapt to whatever system they are placed in. If you create rules that promote fair-play, then you will get fair-play. If you create a system that benefits one group to the detriment of another, then the people benefiting will defend the system and the people oppressed by the system will first try to limit how much the other group benefits from the system and then try to dismantle the system entirely. Right now we have a system where the government has grown beyond its intended limits.

The Dismal Science in action

2004-09-03T10:28:00.000-06:00

I have always wondered why economics is called 'the dismal science'. I know that my beginning economics course in college was taught by a man who had all the charisma of a polyester leisure suit. When I took a macroeconomics course at a community college it was taught by a retired Marine officer and more often than not the lectures sounded like a hellfire and brimstone sermen. At that younger age I enjoyed the lectures but did not fully appreciate that the instructor was passionate about economics because of the overwhelming effect it has on everyones lives. I would liken it to any other science, just because you never learned about gravity in school does not give you the ability (a la Bugs Bunny) to walk off of a cliff with no ill effects. Likewise, just because 'the dismal science' bored you to tears in school (if you toook the course at all) does not give you the ability to ignore the market forces that economics study. I would especially like to point this out to anyone who thinks that companies are their just to employ people. Companies are there for just one reason, to make a profit. Your employment is a favorable side effect of your companies success, but it is NOT the reason for your companies existance. In Colorado we have a looming grocery workers strike. Why? Because the union workers in the big chain stores are demanding insurance benefits and the stores are not willing to put them on the bargaining table. Why are the stores not willing to provide their workers with company paid insurance. The reason is called Wal-Mart. This huge 'evil' non-union shop does not pay for insurance for their employees or even pay union wages to its workers. By doing this Wal-Mart is able to gain a significant competitive advantage over the chain stores. The thing that makes this possible is because the labor market will support Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has no problem hiring workers with little or no skills and offering them jobs that do not provide insurance benefits. The chain stores are hiring out of the same labor pool and if they are required to provide their union employees with insurance benefits they will suffer another competitive disadvantage to Wal-Mart. The unions have adopted the idea that companies are their to provide workers with jobs and in pursuit of this idea they may destroy the companies that provide their union members with jobs because they are attempting to ignore a basic law of a market economy. The companies are there to make a profit and by taking on too many comparitive disadvantages the companies will not make a profit because their customers will have gone to Wal-Mart and the company will have to close up shop. There are some sectors of our economy where the unions can and do control the labor pool and can call their own shots but grocery stores workers are not one of those labor pools and the unions are dancing dangerously close to destroying the companies their workers depend on.

Free Stolen Money?

2004-08-30T10:18:00.000-06:00

There is a guy out there who is pissing me off. This twerp is shouting in TV and radio ads about 'Free Government Money'! He rattles off a list of things that you can get government money for. I am going to do a little editing for all of you that may not understand the economic reality of this idiots raving. Here we go: "The government can help you steal other peoples' money so you can go back to school with legally stolen money, or start a coffee shop with legally stolen money, or work on your invention with LEGALLY STOLEN MONEY! Just buy my book where I will outline how you can get money that the overzealous government has stolen from hard working citizens. You just need my book and the right government forms to outline the hardships that you have had to endure in your miserable life that entitles you to get in line for the money that the government has stolen for you." This idea that people should just give you money because you mean to be better and all you need is a chance is ludicrous. You need to earn that money. If you don't earn that money you have no idea how hard it was to make it and you will piss it away. If you want proof, here is a piece of information for you, the ONLY successful income transfer program the government has ever hatched is the G.I. Bill. Why was it successful? Because the G.I.s that took advantage of it weren't exactly given the money, they had to sign up for military service and put their asses on the line. They had to go through what many like to call 'The School of Hard Knocks.' Then they were allowed to go to real schools on the governments dime with the full appreciation of what life is without an education. So before you go and send your money off to this con-man, just consider if you do manage to succeed in life after you get your PhD with money the government stole for you, how are you going to like the government stealing from you?

Walter E. Williams, the great American.

2004-08-28T10:17:00.000-06:00

As Americans we should all seriously consider the implications of letting our politicians lead us all down the road to socialism that they currently have us on. Walter Williams has written several lucid columns on this subject that I will not try to duplicate but rather I would encourage everyone to read how Socialism is Evil. (and Part II)

Convenient child care has a price too.

2004-08-06T10:14:00.000-06:00

I understood that with campaign finance reform there would be special interest groups lining up to support their candidates even without being directly associated with that candidate. What I did not expect is that these special interest groups would get to do all of the mudslinging for their chosen candidate. Now we have a commercial on the air that blasts Pete Coors for wanting to lower the drinking age and talks up the other candidate for the Colorado Senate seat (I won't mention his name here because he would want me to). The commercial states that by lowering the drinking age that Coors would be endangering our children. Come on people! If you would spend enough time raising your kid to be a responsible citizen, Coors raising the drinking age is not going to present a problem to you or your kid. Instead the Conservative Voters of Colorado would prefer to hide behind the government on the drinking age the same way they like to have the government out there telling kids that drugs are illegal because they are illegal. That's very convenient for the Conservatives, but since when did our government become the moral equivalent of 7-11? Remember that convenience comes at a price. 7-11 is on the corner, waiting for your urgent business at midnight, but that Twinkie you so desperately need (we won’t go into why you need it) is going to cost you significantly more than it would in the grocery store that closed at 8pm. The same thing goes for the moral convenience of letting the government help you avoid tough issues with your child. Instead of talking at great lengths with your child about what drugs are and what drugs are not (yes, alcohol is also a drug) so they can make well informed decisions, you get to conveniently tell your youngster that you just can't do something because that would be ILLEGAL. The cost may eventually make it back to you but the person that will really pay for your convenient decision will be your child. They will not have the benefit of growing up with wine at the dinner table and a couple of beers at the family gathering. They will not get to hear about harmless sleep overs where someone had too much to drink and passed out in the back yard because not only was no one allowed to leave because it was a parent sanctioned sleep over but because they were 13, so they couldn't even drive. If you want your child to learn how to be responsible you have to teach it to them at home just like you do with every other moral decision you expect them to make. You should send you children to school to learn math and writing, and science, and logic. Not to be taught morality! That needs to come from the home. I know that it is tough and you would rather have someone else burdened with this heavy responsibility, but whose child is this? The answer is not that the child belongs to society or the government, the child is yours. So when your child self-destructs at 21 when they are finally allowed legally drink I do not want you to be allowed to go on living with a clean conscience because you have bought the idea that the government or society failed your child, YOU DID. That is the final price you will pay for the buying a bill of goods from a moral 7-11.

The Office of Non-Descript Control Policy (ONDCP)

2004-07-28T10:12:00.000-06:00

I heard another of those patronizing ONDCP (The Office of National Drug Control Policy) ads on the radio this morning. The ads are nothing but propaganda. The government has been given its marching orders by politicians that think they know how to live your life better than you do. Now they have extended their fight into your home. Not only do they want to make sure your kids know that "drugs are bad, m`kay" (think of South Park's Mr. Mackey here) but they want you to tell your kids that. Whether or not you have personally tried drugs is going to have a big impact on whether or not you have this little government sponsored talk with your kid. If you haven’t even tried drugs you are much more likely to have "the Talk" because you have probably already signed on with the "drug are bad, m`kay" crowd. For those of you that have tried drugs and it didn’t trash your life, the ONDCP has ads for you too that will tell you that even though you survived a brief encounter with the "evil world of drug use" and lived to tell the tale that drugs are still bad and that you REALLY need to have that talk with your kid. The talk they want you to have with your kid is not one that includes how to be responsible citizens and limit the drugs you take or how to be safe and use the proper paraphernalia or even how to identify drugs that could kill them because they are impure. No, the talk the government wants you to have with your child is to tell them that the government knows what is best for them and that they should only do what the government wants them to. Oh, and if they could rat out any of their friends that are "evil drug users" that would be great, yeah (Way to go Lumberg!). To tell you the truth, I want you to have "the Talk" with your kids too. Except my version would include you introducing your kid to your dealer and showing him what really good stuff looks like. Hell, light up a bowl with the ankle biter and for once relax and enjoy the kid you are trying so damn hard to raise right in this world. A world where you and your wife have to work full time jobs to pay for all of the taxes that help fund the moral crusaders at the ONDCP. No, drugs aren’t for everyone. I know that as an addictive personality I need to stay away from drugs, but I was able to make that choice for myself, and I needed more information than "drugs are bad, m`kay". There is still a huge black market out there in the US that is preying on our youth everyday because all the information our kids are getting is "drugs are bad, m`kay". If we want our kids to grow up to be productive citizens in this country, I think the adults need to do a bit of growing up themselves first and take this issue seriously enough to stop saying "drugs are bad, m`kay" and give the children of this nation the information they need to protect themselves from the "evil world of drug use."

Are horse rescues really for horses?

2004-07-26T10:10:00.000-06:00

There are two items I think the horse welfare advocacy groups need to consider. The first item is the need for self-regulation of horse rescues. It is a wonderful thing that there are people in this world that understand that horses depend on humans for humane treatment. Unfortunately, good intentions with poor execution can land horses in conditions as bad and in some extreme cases, worse conditions than they would have faced had nothing been done. Just because someone has owned a horse before, or even several horses before, does not mean that that person can care for a dozen or several dozen horses at once. In the best interests of the horses and the good name of horse rescues that are doing things right, there are some rescues that need to be shut down. Who else understands the difficulty of running a horse rescue than other horse rescues? Additionally, horse rescues that are doing things right do not need the added burden of dealing with the bad publicity that is generated by inhumane horse rescues. It is in their best interests to be self-regulating and prevent the operation of inhumane rescues. This can be accomplished through a voluntary certification program that would provide operational audits and in some cases guidance towards substantial compliance. The public interest would be better served because they could easily identify humane rescues through the display of their voluntary certification. The certification group could also provide outreach to trouble groups and help them achieve certification or if necessary as identified through careful investigation help local authorities bring animal cruelty charges against inhumane rescues. Self-regulation of rescues now could help the horse rescue community avoid draconian measures that could result from legislative action in response to a severe neglect case.
The second action that would benefit horse welfare would be another voluntary program that breeders would be encouraged to participate in. The certification would require that the breeder institute a number of administrative controls. The first would be to clearly identify horses in their inventory that are their breeding stock. Any other horse kept or sold by the breeder would not be allowed into a breeding program. The males would be gelded and females would be sold with contracts specifying that the mare is not to be bred. The contract would reserve the right of the breeder of ownership of any offspring of the mare and that any unauthorized offspring will be destroyed after being weaned from the mare. Breeding controls of this nature would reduce the number of 'excess' horses in the country which would increase the value of horses at the margin and increase costs to the slaughterhouses. If costs are driven high enough overseas markets would be forced to look to local markets or abandon the practice altogether. Wouldn't that be nice?

Washington a Red Coat?

2004-07-23T10:08:00.000-06:00

There are some people who will tell you that the founding fathers only meant the right to keep and bear arms to apply to an organized militia unit. Then they will tell you that the militia in its modern form is the Reserves or National Guard. That might even make sense. Now ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a portrait of George Washington, John Hancock, or Thomas Jefferson in the red coat of the British Army? Think real hard. The answer is: NEVER! None of our founding fathers were in any part of the British Military. George Washington was a farmer and an architect. John Hancock was a merchant and one of America's founding fathers of rum running. Thomas Jefferson was a tobacco farmer. When Americans rose up and formed militias to overthrow the British rule of the American colonies they were the farthest thing from being part of a military force organized by the government. Now ask yourself, what had the founding fathers had to do to be able to write the Constitution or the Bill of Rights? That's right, they had to take up arms (that’s military weaponry for all of you people from the Ivy League) and overthrow the government they had been under for over a century. Now do you think they meant that the right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain an organized militia meant the National Guard or the Reserves? I should hope not because the founding fathers themselves wrote long and hard about the need to keep arms (yes, still military weapons) in the hands of the people (please read: average citizens).

Be the Porcupine!

2004-07-18T10:07:00.000-06:00

If you haven't viewed my home page lately I have added an ad for Mike Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President. He is also a fellow Porcupine (Free State Project).

Make Europe eat their own

2004-07-08T10:05:00.000-06:00

Here is a question I think most horse advocates don't like to answer: Why not eat horses? I work at a horse rescue and have heard a lot of arguments against horses being slaughtered for human consumption. Some of the arguments are the same as why we don't eat dog in this country, because they are our pets. There are also arguments because the way horses are killed for human consumption is inhuman or just disgusting to anyone that loves these beautiful creatures. The other side of the argument could be that we eat cows in this country and if we are so concerned about animal rights why aren’t we listening to the Indians who worship cows and not eat them. What about the people in Korea and China that raise dogs for food? Why don't you see American dog shelters killing dogs to be exported to Asia as food? I would like to address all of those arguments. The reason why people eat horses is because their culture accepts it. Why do we eat cattle with no issues, because our culture accepts it. The argument that Indians worship cattle, so we shouldn't eat them is not equivalent because we don't wait for Indians to raise cattle and treat them like pets until they have no use for them and then buy those cattle for meat. We raise our own herds for our own consumption. Why don’t animal shelters in America kill dogs for human consumption in Asia, because dogs are small and it would not be economic to do so. So why do we allow horses to be bred in America for use as companion animals and pets and then when some of these animals lose their usefulness they are sold at auction and purchased for slaughter and consumption in oversees markets? Why, because they are large animals with a significant amount of meat that has an economic market price. That's it, there is your answer. The market is allowed to function regardless of moral objections by individuals in the horse community. I understand that placing a restriction on the market through the use of the government goes against the core of my beliefs that restricting government is the best thing for a free society. That said, I would argue that horses in this country are not bred for food and that raising them as companion animals constitutes a contract between the people in this countries equine community and the horses raised here, that are expected to work with humans and humans are expected to treat them humanely. If other countries want to eat horses, they need to breed them for their own food. The horses in this country should be protected from inhuman treatment because the citizens of the US that are part of the equine community have a commitment to the horses they breed as companion animals.

The government wants you to be a criminal

2004-07-07T10:03:00.000-06:00

For a long time I have attributed many different motivations to our government and the people who affect its policies. I have called them self-interested, moral busybodies, money-grubbers, and just plain ignorant. Recently I have read and seen some things that have changed this perception of government. Ask yourself something, how does government have control over someone? The answer is, when that person has violated a law and become a criminal. Now, all of the laws that I had previously attributed innocent motivations to look different to me. They are not that innocent. The people who write laws understand all too well what it takes to give government power over its people. It has to make them into criminals. These people have to find ways to make their fellow citizens into criminals and still assign seemingly innocent reasons to them so it will be palatable to those very citizens. We need to open our eyes to this and stop allowing ourselves to be fooled into thinking that these people are innocently expanding the reach of government or that they are naive to implications of their laws. Look at every law that is passed through the filter that asks, 'who will this make into a criminal?' That should change how you look at our ever expanding government.

Frog Cooking

2004-06-26T10:03:00.000-06:00

I first read it in John Stossel's book Give Me A Break, then yesterday I heard it on the radio when Walter E. Williams (what a great American!) was guest hosting the Rush Limbaugh show. What was it? It's how to cook a frog. If you take a pot of boiling water and try to toss a frog in it, the frog knows to get out of that water as fast as it can. However, if you take a pot of cool water and place the frog in it, the frog is just fine. Then you can turn on the burner and gradually boil it. This way the frog doesn't realize that it will be dead by the time the water is boiling. America please pay attention because this is important. This is also how WE are LOSING our RIGHTS. If a brutal dictator were to emerge and try to take away all of our rights at once, Americans would not stand it and would fight back with everything they have. The politicians know that and have taken up frog cooking. Ask yourself, do you feel like you have as much freedom as when you were a kid? Sure, you still have a lot of freedom but the frog cooking has begun and the politicians will reach their goal eventually. Look around, why are libertarian movements becoming more popular? Because unlike frogs, Americans can feel the water heating up and do not want to be around when the water boils.

The Government is Evil

2004-06-24T10:02:00.000-06:00

Government really is a necessary evil but I think there are people who have forgotten, or in some cases never taught, that government is an evil. You'll hear people that think guns are evil, or that cars are evil or that drugs are evil. The reality is that they are just objects and are not capable of actual malice on their own. It takes people to create malice. The government is nothing but people who have a monopoly on the use of force. Is it possible to comprehend that if evil were anywhere that it would accumulate in government? Evil takes on many guises. Lack of informed thought gives evil a doorway into this world. The government we have now will promise many things that may sound like they mean well but instead they give reality to the phrase that the road to hell is paved in good intentions. What will it take to correct this abuse of power? It will take knowledge and it has been said that while suffering is unfortunate, fools will learn from nothing less. With so many people living off of the government rolls it may be impossible to create change merely through elections.

Government...Unions?

2004-06-23T10:00:00.000-06:00

The expansion of government has produced a side affect. Government workers convinced the public and the Congress that government workers should not be subject to the political ebb and flow that surrounds new government officials being voted in and turning over entire administrations. They used the excuse that political lackeys would be used to fill valuable public servant positions and that by removing the political favoritism the government would better serve the needs of the public by retaining the best employees. The problem with that logic is that government positions are filled only when there is funding to that given department. These government workers organized into unions that use their considerable clout to forward the interests of the government union employees that they represented. Now instead of cutting departments that do not benefit the taxpayers the government employees influence elections and their agenda is to make sure that government always expands so they have job security. In the private sector thee only way employees exert that kind of pressure on a corporation is to own a majority of the shares and vote as a single voice in stockholder meetings. Must be nice to not have to buy into your voice and only have to convince other voters that your candidate has their interests in mind.

Calling General Pershing!

2004-06-18T09:58:00.000-06:00

It has happened again. An American living abroad has been killed by Islamic militants attempting to forward their agenda. Along with the rest of America, and I should hope, the rest of the world, I extend my deepest sympathies to Paul Johnson's family and friends. The militants of Al Qaeda have taken the life of an innocent because their demands were not met. That does not mean that this should end here. Al Qaeda needs to be properly paid their due. I would call on the Saudi royal family to separate out half of their Al Qaeda prisoners, cover them in pig blood and organs and once they are guaranteed a one way ticket to Islamic hell then kill them by beheading them as is fitting for infidels. I would also call on the US government to track down the closest male relatives of each militant that contributed to Johnson's murder and castrate him so he can be a slave for eternity in the Islamic afterlife and then kill him. These ideas are not my own, the first closely resembles the way General Pershing dispatched Islamic militants in the Philippines, and the second is how the Russians dealt with the Iranians that kidnapped and killed Russian diplomats at the same time as the US hostage crisis in Iran. The fact that these ideas are not my own does not subtract from my enthusiastic endorsement of that brand of diplomacy. The left has one thing right, we really do need to understand the Islamic culture in order to deal with them. Pershing understood militant Islamists and so did the Russians. I think it is time to show the fundamental Islamists that we understand them and that we demand that they respect us.

American Confidence Games

2004-06-15T09:56:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I was looking at the Gallup Polls. They had a headline stating that the military has the highest confidence rating of the institutions that they poll for. I like the military so I kept reading. What I found was less than inspiring. Other top rated institutions included the presidency and the Supreme Court. Well down their list of fifteen institutions at number ten was Congress. In the bottom two institutions as rated in the peoples confidence are American Corporations. Let me get this straight. Have we become so indoctrinated in this country that we now trust our government that is by its very nature an organization that uses compulsion to extract wealth from the citizens, rather than corporations that embody the spirit of capitalism, who depend on voluntary cooperation to achieve their profits. The only time corporations can force anyone to do something that is not voluntary is when they can get the government to compel that person to do it. This country needs a serious wake up call. Government is not our friend. The government needs to be held as accountable or even more so, than our corporations do simply because of its use of compulsion to achieve its goals. Yes we have seen corporate scandals throughout American history but really people are corporations a bigger problem than our government in all its bureaucratic befuddlement? I don't think so.

Dubyah's Head

2004-06-13T09:55:00.000-06:00

I hope that more people have captured the irony of Dubyah's eulogy of Ronald Reagan. In his remarks Bush the Younger implied that he admired Ron Reagan for his belief that government is the enemy. That takes some serious chutzpah! This is a man that let Ted "what happened to the effin girl?" Kennedy write the education bill, passed the Patriot Act, gave birth to the Department of Homeland Insecurity, and drove the prescription drug benefit through congress like a drunken trucker! Someone needs to call Bush's proctologist, because I am pretty sure he has found his head by now.

A new start

2004-05-17T22:16:00.000-06:00

As there always is in the world, there must be a start. This is it.