The Point of a Gun…

“Taxes, after all, are the dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society” — FDR

A classic quote by a person considered by many to be a great president.  It calls to the idea that there are many benefits provided to us by modern society that are unobtainable without the power of the Government.  Ignoring for now the horrors that have been done by Government over history and the uses of Taxation to suppress and violate human rights.  There is just one small problem with the underlying analogy of the quote.  That is the comparison of Dues to Taxes.  Dues (and Fees) are voluntary transactions.  Taxation is not voluntary.  Taxes are only collected at the point of a gun.  The threat of force by Government agents underlies all collection of taxes.  Otherwise there would be no need for agencies like the IRS and there would be no criminal or civil penalties for tax avoidance.  If someone attempts to collect Dues or Fees at the point of a gun or with the threat of force they would be committing Robbery or Extortion.  This is why many consider the collection of Taxes by the Government to be an immoral act while they would consider it a fair thing for a Government to ask for Dues or Fees for services.

You might be wondering why I brought this up…it came from a Facebook post that crossed my wall that was referencing a fight in the Wichita City Government to “save” the Public Bus system.  To keep from reducing the number of routes the city council voted to delay other projects in order to funnel funds into the failing system.  The Wichita Transit system is facing close to an $800,000 budget shortfall and without grants from the Federal Government and this shuffling of funds by the City Government would have to close routes and reduce running times.  Ideally they could raise rates to cover their expenses, but the last time they did that ridership fell (even though total income rose).  This is a classic case of Fees (Dues) vs. Taxes.  Rather than either pairing down the system to fit the income stream or raising Fees to more closely match the cost of business, the City Government opted to use Taxes to shore up the system.

The problem with this method is that it does not deal with the underlying structural problems of the system.  Expenses are too high for the incoming revenue.  Until those two numbers are in balance the City Government is simply using the force implicit in Taxation to take money from those who do not use the system and funnel it into transit.  There are many ways they could look at lowering expenses, reducing routes being the simplest.  Another that crossed my mind would be shrinking the size of the buses to match the actual levels of ridership could lower operating costs and generate revenue by selling the over-sized buses for more reasonable sized ones.  Perhaps opening bus routes to licensed private companies for Fees based on the ridership of certain routes.  Those Fees could then be used to subsidize the Government run buses that would run the lesser used routes.  I’m sure there are many others options that could help solve this problem rather than using Force to simply delay dealing with the problem.

A simple story and a common one in our highly centralized and Government controlled society, but it highlights the basic fallacy that we are simply paying “Dues” for the convenience of modern society.  I would like to leave you with another quote that I think outlines this issue and where the real problem lies in “paying for the privileges” of “organized” living.

”Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” — Frederic Bastiat

Evil Out

Brick Walls

Every once in a while you run into a time when you just can’t find the right words to talk about the things you want to talk about.  You stumble and start trying to search for the proper way to convey the message you want to express.  It happens to everyone and for some reason that seems to be what has sealed my fingers the past week or so.  A form of writer’s block one could say.  There are quite a few items in the news that have just leapt from the headlines and raged in my brain, but for some reason I have not been able to form a cohesive post about any of them.  It is not a problem really finding the words in this case, but more an “enthusiasm” or “focus” problem.  However, I do feel like sharing so here are some quick links.

Shortly after my post about Gay Marriage last week, the President took a stand supporting Gay Marriage.  I realize this is almost a week old news, but it is an interesting snapshot of the sort of election year politics we are going to be seeing this campaign season.  It is sad to me that in a season that should be dominated by economic issues it appears we are going to be continually flogged by social issues.

Speaking of campaign politics.  In the process of making some bad investments JP Morgan lost $2 Billion dollars.  Of course this has led to the usual suspects calling for more and further regulations of the bank.  Call me jaded, but so what?  Two quick points; First, even with a $2 Billion dollar loss, JP Morgan looks like it will still clear a profit this quarter.  Second, banking is already one of the most highly regulated industries in the United States yet the bank managed to lose money and we expect more regulations to stop another loss of this sort?  In a free market some actions win, some lose.  That is life and perhaps if the Government wasn’t always attempting to mitigate failure, banks might think twice about making these kinds of investments in the first place.

In a perfect example of a Government that tried to mitigate all risk for its’ citizens:  Greece still can’t get it’s act together.  Bringing this back to the Presidential election…the economy is going to be a big issue.  We are spending more than we could possibly bring in even with large tax increases.  Budget cuts are going to have to happen at some point.  It would be nice if we could have a serious debate about actual budget cuts before we reach a situation like Greece, where so many people were dependent upon the Government that when it began to make cuts the people of the country can’t seem to figure out how to live without the milk flowing from the depleted Government teats.  It will happen here, we already see “right wing” tea-party protesters complaining about keeping your hands off their medicare and “left wing” 99%ers begging for the Government to lighten the load of student debt.  When both sides are arguing over how we are going to split a pie that will one day shrink instead of trying to stop eating the pie, the future is bleak.

Well that is it for now.

Evil Out.

Around The Horn

Just thought I would post a few things buzzing around the news that I found interesting in the last few days.  So what do Gay Marriage, Licensing Regulations, and Nazi Germany have in common?  Well there is a line there and I plan on bringing the play around the horn and clearing the bases.  Or at least try to make a semi-coherent point, you be the judge.

First Up:

Voters in North Carolina passed an anti-gay marriage amendment on Tuesday.  That makes NC the 30th state to pass an amendment prohibiting government recognition of gay marriages.  While North Carolina already had laws that did that, the amendment was broader and prohibits recognition of Same-Sex Civil Unions as well.  Here is the text of the change.  Personally I think all of the hand-wringing about Gay Marriage is ridiculous.  It is not a lifestyle I ever plan on engaging in and I find it odd for a man to introduce another man as his husband (or woman to introduce another as her wife).  Yet, the fact this is a political fight at all points to Government overreach and the deplorable attitude that all rights flow from Government on high.

Social Conservatives (and by extension Republicans) are doing nothing to advance their causes with a growing majority of Americans by making a big deal out of what really should be none of their business.  Acceptance of alternative lifestyles is increasing and Gay Marriage in particular is seen as acceptable by a slim majority.  Using the force of Government to enforce the views of a shrinking minority about what constitutes “normal” and “acceptable” shows far more about your willingness to use Government to strong arm your opponents than any rhetoric about “Smaller Government” or “Economic Freedom”.

The Government should have never gotten into the business of “sanctioning” Marriage in the first place.  At most the Government should put into place a small section of personal and property protections for those in a “Civil Union” and then get out of the picture.  If you believe marriage is a sanctioned institution by God, then make sure that yours meets the religious requirements you and your significant other(s) have and let those who view it as a social contract or personal commitment to another (or others) go their own way.  The status of another’s Marriage has no bearing on yours and until the Government gets out of the marriage business extending the legal status and rights to more people does nothing to harm your own relationship.

Next Up:

 One of my favorite legal institutes, The Institute for Justice (whom I just added to my links bar on the right), has produced a new report talking about licensing requirements.  The hurdles these mostly unneeded and anti-competitive requirements place in the way of workers and businesses are imposing.  They do little beyond protecting the interests of established businesses and prevent enterprising entrepreneurs from making a living for themselves and their families.

Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness are the core founding principles of our Nation.  These onerous licensing and regulatory schemes are in direct opposition to those principles.  The video below covers the basics of the report.  I would recommend supporting the Institute of Justice if you have the means as they are one of the few organizations that is actively trying to free the entrepreneurial spirit of this country from the shackles of our creeping bureaucracy.

Finally, I am going to Godwin myself:

I meant to post on this yesterday, but May 8th and May 9th are known as V-E day.  A holiday in many European and former Soviet countries.  Take a moment to reflect on the horrors that were done by the Fascist regime defeated in 1945.  A brutal and oppressive Government that killed over 6 million people because of their race, ethnicity, religion, or political opposition.  An aggressive regime that had plans of Empire and World Domination.  A regime that did not appear and grow overnight.  The rise of Nazi Germany or any police state should act as a warning to all Free People.

Never let your guard down.  Never forget that it is the freedoms of those around you that ensures your own Freedom.  Using the oppression of the Government to force your religious or political beliefs on others or to aid your business creates a situation where it becomes normal for that same Government to infringe upon the rights and freedoms of everyone.  One day those same guns may turn on you and the Freedoms you take for granted.  In the immortal words of Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

From Gay Marriage to Interior Decorators, from Polygamists to Masseuses, from Republicans to Democrats, from Tea Party Patriots to Green Party Activists, all deserve Freedom.  Be vigilant against the encroaching hand of Force and fight back for the Freedoms of all.

Evil Out

The Man Who Would Be President

As you may (or most likely not) have heard it is official, Gary Johnson is the Libertarian Party candidate for President.  I have stated before that Johnson was my candidate of choice.  While I was annoyed that he was forced from the Republican race, I think it is a boon to the LP and the race in general to have a candidate of this quality in the field.  It is heartening that the LP nominated someone who not only holds strong libertarian philosophies, but has also demonstrated libertarian leadership in office.

I hope that he can garner the polling numbers needed to get into the debates because there is a clamoring in the public for a choice and I would love to have someone on stage in the debates holding both major party candidates feet to the fire.  With Romney as the all-but nominee for TEAM RED and Obama going for TEAM BLUE the choice they are offering is which flavor of big Government technocrat do you want to lead.  So a real choice will be a breath of fresh air.

It is wonderful to be able once again vote for a candidate who best mirrors what I believe and has a proven track record of decreasing Government spending, vetoing excessive legislature budgets, and wants to expand personal freedoms.  If you want to know more here are some links:

• Here is the Official Gary Johnson campaign page
• Here is his speech to the Libertarian Party asking for the nomination
• A great interview with Gary Johnson from 2001 while he was Governor of Mexico
• Finally, a video interview with Gary Johnson from early on during the Republican primaries:

Evil Out

‘Our duty to the Party’

If you have paid any attention to the Presidential campaign you have probably heard of “Julia”.  The fictional woman whose life is bettered by the policies of President Obama.  The piece is part of the campaign’s strategy of appealing to women and young people.  A woman was chosen to highlight the so-called “War on Women” that is being waged in the minds of Democrats by caricatured Republican villains.  The other target is obviously young voters.  Over half of the slides are before the age of 30 with most of those being set between the ages of 17 and 27.  The rest of the woman’s life from 42-67 is summed up in the last 3 slides.  This campaign is also being targeted at a very particular subset of young voters, namely the middle and upper classes and the college educated.

As campaign strategies and targeted ads go this one might do them well, but it has already caused a huge round of guffaws and outrage on twitter and conservative blogs.  One of the best responses I have seen came from the Heritage Foundation called “A Better Life for Julia”.  (Only better if you ignore their own big Government solutions to Julia’s life.)

Overall the ad is typical “my guy is great, the other guy sucks” rhetoric and I wouldn’t bother responding to it.  However, I think this piece deserves some attention for two reasons:

• The portrayal that all of the great opportunities and results in Julia’s life stem from Government programs.
• The rather dependent portrayal of a woman that needs these great “helping hands” to succeed.

Let me address the first point and show how it leads into the second.  Here is the outline of Julia’s life and where the helping hand of Government saved her:

• Age 3 – Head Start is the reason she is ready to learn and succeed when she goes to Kindergarten.
• Age 17 – The Federal Government’s Race to the Top program is the reason she has access to college prep classes.
• Age 18 – Government tax credits and Pell Grants are the reason she can go to college.
• Age 22 – The PPACA (Obamacare) is the only reason she didn’t die of illness during college.
• Age 23 – The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only reason she makes competitive wages.
• Age 25 – Federal intervention in the Student Loan market is why her loans are affordable.
• Age 27 – Obamacare is the reason she has access to mandated health insurance.
• Age 31 – Obamacare is the reason she has a healthy baby.
• Age 37 – Race to the Top and Federal funding are the reasons her child can go to school.
• Age 42 – Government loans from the Small Business Adminstration is the only reason she can start her own business.
• Age 65 – Medicare is the only reason she can get drugs.
• Age 67- Social Security is the only reason she can retire “comfortably”

So there we have Julia’s life.  From cradle to grave only able to succeed because of the “guiding hand” of Government and for this campaign more importantly President Obama.  Taking the President out of the discussion we have what sounds like a relatively normal life of a middle class woman.  What we do not have is the story of someone who has succeeded on her own merits or even with the support of her family, friends, or community.  I don’t feel like breaking it down bit by bit, but here are some points to mull about.

• Through school, the support of her family, peers, and teachers will have a far greater impact on her ability or willingness to continue on to a higher education.
• Never are we shown the places where the Government is an obstacle to her quest for success.
• No thought is given to the costs and who will be paying those costs (like her child, Zachary) of the wonderful programs she is indebted to.
• Through her adult life we are never shown the support she would need from a spouse, partner, friends, or family to achieve her goals.

Which brings me to my final thought.  Julia is shown to be dependent upon the Government for her success in life as if this is normal and to be expected.  The Government takes the sole role of support network that most people need to go through life and she is never shown to succeed on her own or with the help of those around her.

• Parents/Family?  Nowhere to be found, except to pay for her college and her medical bills until age 26.  Which is only because of Government aid or intervention.
• Husband/Partner?  Nowhere to be seen.  She has a child, but never once is she talked about in the context of a family as an adult.  No husband, boyfriend, or even same-sex partner to help her through the years of pregnancy and raising a child.
• Independence?  Nowhere to be found.  She depends on Government loans to pay for college, Government schools to teach her child, Government loans to start a business, and Government welfare to retire.  What happened to working through college, private schooling or tutoring, convincing investors or risking your personal assets to start a business and saving for retirement?

We are given a picture of a woman who “succeeds” not because of her own merits, but because she is dependent on the Government.  A woman who turns to the Government and the benefits it gives in times of need.  A woman who has a soft, middle class life with little to disasters, never coming close to needing a “safety net”, but one that still never is able to leave the comforting arms of the Government.

That is the most offensive thing about Julia.  It is not like her tale is one of difficulty.  It is not like she ever came close to “falling down” and needing somebody to save her.  Instead the bar was lowered for her and handrails were installed.  This is the real sin of our “welfare” state.  What was once created to be a safety net for those at the lowest points in our society, to aid them and keep them from falling to the ground, has been turned into a system that coddles and babies those who at best could be considered middle class.  Welfare and dependence are no longer the realm of “Welfare Queens” and the “Ghetto”, but are expected and desired by the largest group in our society, the Middle Class.

What Julia represents is the monster that will devour our society and bankrupt our future.  That is why it is important to not be a Julia.

Evil Out.

Quick Hits

In a weird parallel to my last post; the FBI arrested 5 “anarchists” who were looking to blow up a bridge and other sundry acts of violence.  Notice that the “explosives” they tried to detonate were provided to them by the FBI and were never active.  If you read the article it appears clear that the men involved wanted to do “something”.  Although the biggest plan they came up with on their own was to set off some smoke grenades and knock down billboards.  It appears that the plan to blow up the bridge and their ability to get their hands on “explosives” once again came from the FBI.  It is also clear that these men were targeted for the sting because of their words, and not any actual violence they committed, even though the FBI claims otherwise.

“The defendants stand charged based not upon any words or beliefs they might espouse, but based upon their own plans and actions,” U.S. Attorney Steven Dettelbach said in a statement.

This might be the case of the FBI actually catching some criminals in the process of doing something violent, but it seems to resemble other cases of “stings” that are little more than Government arrest of politically unpopular and marginalized speakers.

The arguments about who would or would not have had Osama bin Laden assassinated killed by Navy Seals is laughable.  Any president in office would have made that call in the wake of 9/11.  Despite the attempts by both Romney and Obama to paint the other’s foreign policy as too weak or too strong, this is one area where there is very little light between the two.  Obama has continued and even doubled down on many of the foreign policies of G.W. Bush.  Romney’s statements make it clear that he would do the same.

Finally, in the state that has brought us the Zimmerman-Martin debacle that cost one young man his life and is likely to ruin the life of the other, comes a woman whose is likely to be sent to jail for defending herself from an abusive boyfriend who has publicly stated he was likely to kill her.  Despite all of the hand-wringing about “Stand your Ground Laws” creating a state of chaos this is a case where it should be applied, but the woman is still likely to go to jail.  This is a clear case of someone who fired a warning shot to protect herself in her own home, but somehow she was denied the protections of Florida’s Stand Your Ground and Self Defense laws.  In her case it looks like she would have been better off actually shooting and killing her attacker rather than allowing him to live and change his story THREE TIMES.  If he had been killed her story most likely would have stood and the case would doubtfully even gone to trial.  Don’t you love it when our laws are clear and easy to understand and when defending yourself in your own home could get you 20 years in jail because of a zealous prosecutor.

Evil Out.

When is Entrapment Not Entrapment?

We’ve all heard of the terrorist operations that the FBI has been uncovering since 9/11 in order to save us from the horrors of terrorist action on our soil.  Despite some fairly obvious plots, like the underwear bomber, many of these cases have been built on dubious evidence and with participants goaded along by the FBI and their informants.

This building body of cases the FBI has uncovered have begun to trip my “civil liberties” alarm bells.

The most recent case I can recall was the guy who was arrested with a fake suicide vest and inert weapons provided to him by the FBI.  According to the authorities this man, who was here illegally after his visa expired, had considered multiple targets to attack over the years since 9/11.  Yet this man who had done nothing more than pondering attacks, had never actually engaged in any terrorist activity until the FBI talked to him.  Then after providing him the materials to do the attack they arrested him…sounds like a fairly classic sting operation, correct?  The man came to the FBI’s attention after one of his landlords felt he was a suspicious character.  Rather than simply arresting him then and deporting him (he was here illegally remember) they spent the time and effort to  get him involved in a plot that would lead to his arrest.  According to officials there was never any danger to the public (so why arrest him) and he had been under long term surveillance (so why arrest him).  This case is just one in a long line of “Terror Arrests” that have been conducted since 9/11.

So I ran into this op-ed piece in the New York Times, Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the FBI.  It is well written and outlines many of the issues that have been cropping up in these terrorist arrests.  Primarily that these “operatives” are often people who are marginalized and have radical thoughts, but without the push and press of the FBI and their network of informants would never have actually engaged in radical behavior:

Typically, the stings initially target suspects for pure speech — comments to an informer outside a mosque, angry postings on Web sites, e-mails with radicals overseas — then woo them into relationships with informers, who are often convicted felons working in exchange for leniency, or with F.B.I. agents posing as members of Al Qaeda or other groups.

Some targets have previous involvement in more than idle talk: for example, Waad Ramadan Alwan, an Iraqi in Kentucky, whose fingerprints were found on an unexploded roadside bomb near Bayji, Iraq, and Raja Khan of Chicago, who had sent funds to an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan.

But others seem ambivalent, incompetent and adrift, like hapless wannabes looking for a cause that the informer or undercover agent skillfully helps them find. Take the Stinger missile defendant James Cromitie, a low-level drug dealer with a criminal record that included no violence or hate crime, despite his rants against Jews. “He was searching for answers within his Islamic faith,” said his lawyer, Clinton W. Calhoun III, who has appealed his conviction. “And this informant, I think, twisted that search in a really pretty awful way, sort of misdirected Cromitie in his search and turned him towards violence.”

Even the judge in that last particular case was skeptical about Cromitie’s willingness or ability to perform any terrorist action:

“Only the government could have made a ‘terrorist’ out of Mr. Cromitie, whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope,” said Judge Colleen McMahon, sentencing him to 25 years. She branded it a “fantasy terror operation” but called his attempt “beyond despicable” and rejected his claim of entrapment.

Unfortunately, the bar for claiming entrapment is set very high and is rejected in most of these cases.  Which is what truly worries me about this.  Effectively the FBI (and by extension the Government) is targeting people who usually have done nothing more than speak in a way that is unpopular (or at the most extreme committed crimes in other countries) and then creating a situation where they can arrest them.

I wish this was simply happening in terrorist cases, but police have been doing this for years to “protect” the public from other disgusting forms of criminal behavior.  How about this recent sting that according to the headline, Nabs 40 Would-Be Pedophiles?  Notice the key words there (not Pedophiles)…WOULD BE…these were men who were caught in a sting where they never actually talked to any underage children, never actually met any underage children, and never actually had sex with any underage children.  They were caught by cops pretending to be underage and lured into meeting with these “children” by the cops themselves.  Is pedophilia disgusting?  Yes.  Is cops arresting men who have done nothing wrong  equally disgusting?  Yes.  If you can’t see the parallels of these two let me spell it out.  Both are cases of someone with a position of power and authority leveraging the naivety, curiosity, helplessness, or enabling the bad behavior of another and then using violence against them.  Both are disgusting abuses of power.

Free speech in our society is important.  Freedom in our society is equally important.  Holding views and behavioral tendencies that are unpopular and disgusting is not doing anything wrong.  We should never be in the practice of locking up and arresting people who have done nothing wrong or attempted nothing wrong, even if they are people we find distasteful.  This same attitude erodes the civil liberties of all in our society and embolden those in power to exercise violence upon anyone they can lure into “crossing the line”.  For now this includes would-be terrorists, would-be pedophiles, and would-be drug dealers.  It wouldn’t take much effort for that list to expand turning abortion protesters, Occupy Wall Street protesters, Political Activists, and others into Would-Bees.

Evil Out.

Knowing is Half the Battle…

…and the other half is apparently being told by the Government.  I mean how else is someone to know that something is dangerous or helpful?

At least that seems to be the point of this otherwise decent article from NPR on wearing helmets during tornadoes.  I mean the story starts off good enough.  Talking about the start of the new tornado season, death statistics from previous years, and a story from the Alabama tornadoes from last year:

“How far back do you go that day? It seemed like a normal day,” says Jonathan Stewart.

He’d rushed home just minutes before a tornado swallowed up his neighborhood in Pleasant Grove, Ala. Stewart, his wife, adult daughter and 8-year-old son crowded into a tiny shower stall. It didn’t take long for him to feel the house shift and become weightless — and then an explosion.

“I remember being sucked out of the house, and it was not being blown about, it was not walls blowing around. It was like a vacuum, and it sucked us out,” Stewart says.

In an instant, Stewart’s family was gone. Lisa, his wife, peered up into the swirling sea of debris and saw her son, Noah, floating above her — high above her, Lisa says: “I actually saw him up in the air, stuck up in it, being tossed around as high as the power lines.”

Noah was twisting, churning, flying through the air, held up high by the tornado’s angry winds. And then, Noah remembers, “the wind just immediately stopped, and I was going down headfirst, and then I think my helmet just cracked.”

Quite frightening.  There is good news, however.  Because the child was wearing a helmet he did not sustain any serious head injuries from the fall.  The story then goes on helpfully interviewing various experts, medical professionals, and general citizens about wearing helmets during tornadoes.  It even talks about private organizations working together to encourage helmet use during tornadoes:

…Doctors at Children’s Hospital realized they needed to do more. They partnered with a local television meteorologist to produce a PSA to tell parents that helmets help save lives during tornadoes.

Other outreach is happening, too.

At a recent Birmingham Barons baseball game, safety advocates handed out 125 bicycle helmets as part of a giveaway for tornado preparedness.

So far so good, right?  Advocates and others working together to get the news out and even providing helmets for families.  Even a high profile story on one of the largest news outlets (NPR) in the country running during one of it’s prime time news programs.  Then we get to this little gem:

His wife, Melissa, says wearing helmets during severe weather is “a great idea; it just never occurred to us.”

One reason it might not have occurred to the Fultons is that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is silent on the topic.

Wow, I didn’t realize the Center for Disease Control was the primary place where regular citizens learned about wearing helmets during a tornado…The rest of the story is basically a scolding of the CDC for not publishing this valuable life-saving information:

For three months we tried to interview someone from the CDC, but the agency would only email a statement, which said: “The scientific evidence from helmet use during tornadoes is inadequate to make a recommendation.”

This has angered safety advocates such as Russ Fine. “I think their silence is deafening,” he says, “and I’m embarrassed for them — terribly embarrassed for them.”

I guess without being told by some faceless Government organization people would never hear about this…except here it is a news story from a major organization…a story that I am sure will be told by many other news and private organizations.

At least one person quoted in the NPR story gets it:

Others, such as tornado safety advocate Renee Crook, who organized the helmet giveaway at the Birmingham baseball game, says ultimately it’s up to the people, not the government, to stay safe. “You have to have a plan. You chose to live here. You need to be safe. You need to be aware. You need to have a way of listening to the weather, and know when it’s coming, and be prepared.”

Personal responsibility…imagine that.  People and advocates getting the word out, but no unless you are told by the Government you would never know:

Still, many people go to government websites to learn about what vaccinations they should receive when traveling overseas, or how long to cook a certain kind of meat. Advocates hope it won’t be long for the CDC to add a line about wearing a helmet when a tornado is bearing down on a community.

Now I don’t want you to take my point in the wrong way.  In my opinion, providing public health information is a valid area of endeavor for our Government (that whole Promote the General Welfare bit).  What galls me about this article is that what was an otherwise useful story advocating helmet use turned into a plea for Government intervention.  The idea that the efforts of the professionals, advocates, and others who are ALREADY spreading this information is useless unless it is rubber stamped by the Government is the problem.

It is an attitude that is dangerous and corrosive in our society.  When people are being trained and have become conditioned to look towards the Government as the be all and end all of common sense and information, we start to become people who are no longer able to provide solutions for ourselves and our communities.  It is this same attitude that drives the “there needs to be a law” mentality that has brought us far too many laws that punish people for behavior that some find distasteful, or preemptively attempts to punish those who have not actually harmed someone.  The same rules and laws that creates a legal system that is overly opaque and causes all to unwittingly commit crimes of which they often have no knowledge.

So chin up let others know about useful information and support groups that pass out that information, but please stop looking towards the Government to be the fount of knowledge.

Evil Out

M.I.A.

Seems like it has been about a year since the last time I posted anything on my blog here…

There are many excuses that come to mind:

• Busy integrating myself into my new job in a new state
• Missing my family who stayed behind so our son could finish up high school
• Politics has been bumming me out recently
• Despite all the coverage, a very lack-luster Republican Primary season
• Other interests took the free time that I would otherwise invest in this project
• Laziness
• Mild Depression

Well, only the last two truly hit the nail on the head.  My own natural tendency towards sloth and lackadaisical attitudes combined with a bit of depression caused mostly by my hectic life situation (the first couple of bullet points up there) allowed me to abandon a number of projects that I would have otherwise pursued.

Well no more.  I am back and will try to post something up here on a semi-daily basis.  If for no other reason than to keep my fingers limbered up to aid in some of the other projects I plan on picking back up like my writing.

So what has been going on in the last year that has caught my interest?

Of course I followed the Republican silly season like everyone else who has a slight interest in politics.  Unfortunately, the best candidate Gary Johnson was ostracized by the media who organized the debates and left the Republican race early on.  Unless some real quirk of fate happens like Mitt Romney selecting a true libertarian for his running mate such as Rand Paul, Ron Paul actually manages to pull of some convention level shenanigans, or the Libertarian party punts Johnson and runs another candidate like Bob Barr, Johnson will be my vote for President.  Yes I am declaring that now in April.  The Presidential run is pretty much dead to me outside of my morbid interest in political games.

My most favoritist and the most awesomist band in the whole world, Dream Theater, released an outstanding new album, A Dramatic Turn of Events, back in September of last year.  I do mean outstanding.  It is hard to convey how much I love this album.  Out of the 11 studio albums the band has released it falls firmly in my number 1 spot.  It was wonderful to see the band rebound from losing their drummer and one of the founding members, Mike Portnoy, in a rather dramatic breakup.  Not only did they release an album that follows on the footsteps of 10 other masterpieces, they surpassed them.  The band is doing the final leg of it’s tour promoting this album during the summer and I really hope I can make the show in Kansas City on the 28th of June.  I doubt I will because of the financial hole we are digging ourselves out of after my year out of a job, but a man can dream.

Along with being an unpublished novelist, I am now a published song writer (technically song mixer, whatever).  Granted it is self-published, but hey it’s up on Amazon for anyone to buy.  This track was a little project I did for a couple of reasons.  It started as a test of song mixing/writing software for Mo.  I wanted to see how easy the software, Mixcraft,  was to use because Morgan was wanting to write music for he and my nephew’s video game project.  Since Mo loves Video Game remixes and particularly Metroid song remixes I put this one together for him.  The result was a not terrible dance tune.  I am planning on doing a few more of these types of tracks in the future because the project was fun and it is a chance to keep my hand in music.

There was also an ulterior motive for doing a self-pub on this.  I wanted to see how easy it was to publish something via Amazon and other services because I do plan on polishing up my one completed manuscript and finishing a few others to publish as E-Books.  Needless to say it was a simple matter to get stuff published onto Amazon.  Now I just need to figure out the best method of advertisement…a project for the future.

The year of insanity that has rocked my life is basically over.  I moved to OKC in March of last year and officially had an apartment in May.  J and Mo both stayed in Wichita so that he could finish up his last year of high school.  We rented out our house of 10 years in June, and the pair of them have been staying with family since.  A long distance relationship is hard, but fortunately the two cities are close enough that I was able to see them almost every weekend.  J has officially moved down to OKC as of March and Mo got accepted into his first choice of schools, Baylor.  Now we just have to finish out the last few weeks of his school and his graduation and he will move down here with us for the summer before heading on to College life.  To be honest, this situation has been foremost on my mind and has made it hard to concentrate on much outside of just getting by.  It will be coming to an end soon and just having J with me daily has done wonders for both of us.

There are many other things that I would have talked about over the past year if I had been on top of my game, but there is no use in lamenting missed opportunities.  I am looking forward to getting back on top of my game and I hope the handful of you who have followed along with this over the past few years will come along with me.

Here is a last bit of funny from a recent Internet Meme that I really enjoyed that I pass onto you:

Also, I think I am going to post a new look for the blog when I get a chance.  Something a bit cleaner and not so dark.

Mischaracterize, Misquote, and Build Strawmen…or how to win an argument no one is having

Someone asked me to comment on this USAToday article which basically chides Republicans for appreciating Ayn Rand  I am copying my comments below which address the issues in the article, but I would like you to read as much of USAToday article as you can.  It is a perfect example of how to build the classic Strawman argument.  If you are unfamiliar with the term here it is in a nutshell (quoted from that link):

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.  To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

If you read the article you will find one of the final arguments of the article is about a so-called Robin-Hood budget:

If you are going to propose a Robin Hood budget, you have to decide whether you are robbing from the poor to give to the rich, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Because you cannot do both.

What I find truly problematic about this final zinger by the article’s author (who purports to have read Rand’s novels) is that the two positions he posits (rob from rich for poor, or from poor for rich) are not ideals that anyone who adheres to Randian principles would advocate.  In fact Rand would argue that robbing from anyone for the sake of anyone was wrong.  Needless to say the rest of the article is as well thought out and researched as the above line.

Here is the post I originally gave to the person who asked me to reply to the article:

Not sure where to start on this article…Just up front, I am not a Republican nor am I an Objectivist (Rand’s philosophy)…However, this article makes some very erroneous assumptions about both groups and their philosophy. It also cannot seem to separate “Social Conservative” from Republican, while most SoCons are Repubs, not all are. In addition only about 20-30% of the Republican party is hardline SoCon (going by recent and historical voting and polling). The article also seems to be ignorant of the history of Rand and the Social Conservatives who have a very contentious relationship. It is only recently that she has become more popular among Republicans who are more concerned about economic issues over social ones. Her atheism has always been a sticking point among the two groups.As for the author’s discourse on Rand’s philosophy, it is a fundamentally flawed and immature reading of Objectivism. Objectivism is based out of the same philosophical traditions as Humanism, Skepticism, and other widely accepted philosophies. (all of which run very counter to many principle of Christianity) On the surface Objectivism seems to be based on Selfish desires and Rand is harsh in some of her writings about Altruism and Sacrifice, and as I said before she was devoutly Atheist. Does that mean that her philosophy is antithetical to Christianity?

In some areas yes, but as in many other areas of thought, there are some valuable and Christian ideals that can be taken from her philosophy. Her condemnation of Altruism and Charity were based on her belief that most people are forced into Altruism and Charity by either the church, the state, or by social standards, and that often it runs counter to a person’s self-interest. If you believe that we were granted self-will by God, then this is not much different. The core of Christianity is a personal acceptance and response to the offer of God’s salvation. Through that acceptance we should choose to be better people and be Altruistic, Charitable, Forgiving, etc. However, we should never be forced to be so by either the authorities of church or state, which was what Rand objected to. She stated in her writings that a person should be free to be Altruistic and Charitable.

The author of the article also mischaracterizes Rand’s heroes. While the heroes of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are “captains of industry”, every one of the heroes of her books are men (and women) who earned that position by working hard and sacrificing many things to reach the heights they achieved. It is in fact the villains of her books that are the “rich” that the author of the article so despises, the villains are the ones who are given favors and special deference by the state, not the heroes. This also ignores the fact that a number of “heroic” figures in “Atlas Shrugged” includes poets, philosophers, and even a wife and homemaker. All people who are pursuing their self-interest and not imposing their interests or values on others. Much like Christians are told to pursue Christ and live outstanding lives as examples to others.

By the way, none of Rand’s “heroes” ask for special treatment from the state and not all of them are wealthy. Which really undercuts the article writer’s straw man argument about “Robin Hood” government. Rand looked no more favorably on rich people who took from others than she did the poor. By the way Christ did not ask for the poor to look to the state to take for them what they could not achieve themselves and the early Christians did not believe nor practice forcibly taking the wealth of others to take care of the poor, widowed, sick, and children. They considered it an honor to do so themselves and of their own free will and sacrificing greatly to give of themselves. (another position that is not in opposition to Rand’s philosophy)

So yes, there are many ways in which Rand’s Objectivism is counter to Christianity (primarily in the lack of belief of a higher power and her disgust with those who did believe), but there are many ways in which it is not in opposition (which makes it no different than most earthly philosophies). Unlike the assumptions levied by the writer of the article, Rand was not a Rich v Poor advocate. She was an advocate for people living a self-interested life untouched by the forcible hand of the Government or Church. She would be appalled (and was appalled) at the Crony Capitalism that drives the policy of both political parties.

Evil Out