"Individuals are always stupid."

Individuals are always stupid.

Dr. David Acheson
Assistant Commissioner for Food Protection
(Food Safety Czar)
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services

This lovely little quote is from a spot on the Colbert Report regarding the raid of a raw foods store in California (Rawsome foods).

In the bit, he candidly explains how "raw milk has led to serious illness and death...ecoli, salmonella, diphtheria," how "the FDA is composed of public health professionals" and "is interested in protecting the public and public health." He calls any accusations about the FDA being under the umbrella of the WHO or the U.N. "nonsense."

Here is the quote in the context (presented by Colbert):

Rawesome employee: "If we're all adults, why can't we choose to drink paint if we want to?"

Mr. Acheson: "Individuals are always stupid."

I'm going to assume Mr. Achenson, being an individual, didn't really mean that.

I think he is really saying "people who depend entirely upon their own faculties do not benefit from the specialization provided for them by social partners, and are therefore stupid."

Fair enough, David?

If so, we are in agreement. We are exponentially smarter because we all benefit through the collaboration of specialized individuals. I learned not to drink paint without even having to try it for myself. I don't need to carry water in a bucket from the lake because water treatment professionals pipe it in for me. Everyone is smarter and more capable and more free because of specialization.

But, is raiding a market of willing buyers and sellers benefiting this social collaboration?

The assumption, made by this David individual, is that some buyers will be unintentionally harmed by this "unsafe" collaboration, and, therefore, "all of us" will be less-well-off as a whole if this collaboration is permitted. What has happened is very simple: David has responded to a demand, by the people, to save themselves. He is simply responding to a legitimate need for safe food. The only problem is–he is doing it very, very poorly...

We all want safe food. Why does getting it require men with guns?

There is a correct answer.

Because we lacked the leadership and imagination that could have otherwise peacefully responded to the true demand for safe food.

Here's what really happened: no businessman had the balls to invest in a real, large-scale, quality-control business (as prevalent in other industries). As such, the issue struck the bargain-basement social safety net of government responsibility, and we all suffer from this stagnant, unchecked, authoritarian, armed government food safety monopoly.

Rather than respond to real public demand, bureaucrats manufacture an estimate of the public demand. They basically say: "people want 'safe' food, so that is what we will give them." Then, they get together to define "safe," author verbose works of fiction, and, if you don't agree with their story, they brandish a weapon. Their narcissism, believing that they know what is best for you, is one culprit.

But, they couldn't have gotten their without your tacit consent. You, the American citizen, is culpable for begging your government for a food safety handout. You gave your hard-earned money away to thieves with guns who write laws that they can shoot you for violating. What the hell did you expect? Safer food is not free. TNSTAAFSL (There's No Such Thing As A Free Safe Lunch), and, in this case, your payment is not only the scourge of taxes ripped from your wallet, but the harassment of armed soldiers.

Is that really the price of safe food?

Consider a non-authoritarian approach. Any quality-control company would immediately recognize the demand for safe raw milk. Competing quality-control companies would jump at the chance to be the first to provide safe raw milk. (Unsafe raw milk is most common in large, industrial farms with drugged-up cows). Consumers, none of whom wish to get sick, would highly value the company's identification of a safe raw product, and pay a fair price for it. Yes, safe raw milk would be expensive, but you could actually buy it.

In our current authoritarian system, you cannot buy "safe" raw milk. Because of laws, no quality control company has the incentive to illegally establish an underground "safe raw milk" certification program. No, instead, you trust the individual farmer who offers the black market raw milk. The farmer is also the quality control specialist because the government effectively prohibits specialization in this field.

How is this collaboration with social partners?

According to their site, the FDA is responsible for...

protecting the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off radiation

What about the "safety" and "security" of the raw milk portion of our nation's food supply? If raw milk is not suitable for consumption, why call it "food" in the first place? Classify the stuff as a type of white paint. Everybody knows not to drink paint. "You drank raw milk? Why would you do a stupid thing like that? You had it coming." Let the crazies do what they will with their raw milk. If labeling "milk" a type of "paint" prevents the raiding and pillaging of innocent people, I say do it! This new legal definition is no less of a fiction than your other ridiculous legislative compositions.

David Acheson is correct that an individual is stupid. He is stupid when he believes he can force another not to harm himself. So blithe an error seems easily dispatched, but is the lifeblood and justification for all governance. It is proven wrong in every case, yet we cling to it. We acknowledge and champion the truth intuitively in all great works of art, movies, novels. Yet, in practice, we are terrified of it. We continue have faith in this grand fallacy that other individuals are stupid and unworthy of the opportunity to earn their own lives. We cannot stop the suicide bomber, yet, we believe we can stop the man from drinking from an udder. In practice, our terrified, apathetic, nihilistic will continues to worship this great golden calf and believes it has the divine power and inclination to save us from ourselves. It cannot. When we replace the "we" for "I" I it is obvious that David Acheson is full of shit. You are not stupid.

I'm going to go drink some paint.

The Complete History of the U.S.S.R

Arranged to the theme from Tetris...

The Fast Track to the American Dream

Long ago in the dark days of the 19th century Americans toiled through great adversity to carve out their piece of the American dream. Those unfortunate enough to be born in this era were destined to suffer the harsh realities of the time; hardships unimaginable today:

• Terror: The US Government was so small and weak that it couldn't even deploy troops to Lithuania in the midst of rampant autocratic oppression. Dictators around the world roamed free to terrify and subjugate the local population.
  
• Brutality in the Marketplace: Insolvent companies, even big ones, suffered the barbaric nature of competition and were fed to the dogs. Sometimes even rich people lost a lot of money. Employees sometimes even needed to find new jobs. Government wasn't there to keep even the worst businesses afloat.
  
• Job Required: Men, comprising half the population, labored. There was simply no alternative. Hard working farmers were so desperate they sometimes ate their own produce and livestock.
• Reefer Madness: No law forbade the inhalation, ownership, or sale of the intoxicating plant, Marihuana. Barbarians.
  

We can be thankful that those days are long gone. The US now protects the world, unsuccessful companies large enough do not fail, no job required, and reefer is against the law. Whew...

Oh how far we have come, but these is much to be done: ID cards to prove we are not terrorists, every phone call monitored for our safety, the liberation of Norway.

With almost no effort at all the American Dream can be yours too! The plan is simple...you can do one of two things:

• The High Road: Become completely invested in any business too big to fail. You have absolutely nothing to lose. Leech off sorry tax payers surreptitiously (that means without them knowing about it). Profit and enjoy the glee that comes along with stealing legally. Yes, you are so, so smart. And yes, you have achieved the American Dream.
• The Higher Road: Leech off friends, neighbors, and strangers. Obviously you would rather leech from strangers, so use government and go on unemployment or welfare. If you are a woman, have a lot of illegitimate children - they don't eat nearly as much as the government thinks they do. Make sure the fathers are successful drug dealers so you can get more child support by threatening to rat on them. Worst case...remember that the government will not let you starve or freeze to death, even when your friends and family disown you. DO NOT FALTER - Once you show capability, the rouse is blown. You must be dedicated to complete worthlessness. Become dependent on some narcotic or alcohol to make this easy. Bereft of any productive activity you have attained the easy road to the American Dream. The government has already claimed responsibility for you, all you need to do is ride that wave.
• The Path to Destruction: Honest work. Work is your worst enemy. NEVER FORGET that all the smart people are already living on easy street. If they took the high road they got there by withdrawing money from your paycheck to deposit in their bank account. If they took the higher road they are withdrawing money from your paycheck to feed their kids and likely an expensive appetite for drugs.
  

Adapting to reality is difficult for some, but especially the skilled, educated, and talented. These folks must remember that the modern world does not need or want them unless they have a talent for accounting fraud, larceny, or public manipulation. After all, what is corruption in a system that has evolved to favor it?

If you absolutely must work, be smart about it...scholars, professors, scientists, engineers, the rules have changed. America's best and brightest are now called to combine forces and skin the hide of every conceivable victim on behalf of the man. If you're really good, you can get Ma and Paw to fork over half their paycheck to you rather than their kids' education through hidden fees veiled in the form of higher prices through corporate taxation. Then, give their kids a sub-par public education. Brilliant! Their kids won't understand either!

Ooooh, the sky's the limit! No one is watching...they're all working too damn hard to notice.

If you actually work you are a masochist doing what the government has already promised it can do for you. Don't you know we live in a "free" country, one which has traded equality, liberty, and justice for free stuff - as much as you can get away with? Live it up!

This is the land of opportunity, and there has never been more opportunity to legally beg, steal, and otherwise swindle from those silly little exhausted gerbils running on their little wheels for us. They may look like they are running fast, but they can go faster, and they will. Just watch the value of the dollar drop and they will be running their little feet bloody for our little drug habit...such losers.

Come on people, wake up, buy some stock in Fanny Mae or take a nice big hit. When that last gerbil finally dies from exhaustion there might be some consequences to pay, but until then, it appears to be open season.

Active Activism

Knock Knock
Who's there?
The Earth Savers.
Why are you here?
Because we want you to help us.
Do what?
Save the Earth.
Oh, thank you for doing this, where do I sign?
Right here.
Right where?
Where I am pointing.
You turned off the porch light. I can't see anything.
Oh, sorry. Forgot you haven't signed yet [flip].
Oh, there it is. [sign]
[flip]
What are you doing?
Saving the Earth.
Yes, well, I've signed. On to your next earth-friendly residence now. Keep up the good work. [flip]
I'm afraid not. [flip]
Alright, that's getting annoying. Hands off the light switch.
[flip]
Rrrr. HANDS OFF! What's that sound?
Those are bulldozers.
What are they doing here?
Saving the Earth. Don't worry, they run on biodiesel.
No, I mean, well, how are they saving the Earth?
Well, you just graciously agreed to let us bulldoze your house and plant a zen garden here.
I did no such thing, please leave.
We can't.
Why not?
Because we have pledged to save the Earth, and so have you. We have an obligation.
But this is my home. You are trespassing.
I'm sorry, you just signed your house over to the state. I'm afraid you are trespassing.
Excuse me?
You just deeded to your house to the Department of the Interior. We don't need any keys or anything.
[rumble rumble]
Please step aside.
[crash crash]
[tear tear]
We hope you'll come back to enjoy the peaceful, environmentally friendly public zen garden in the near future. Thank you for your cooperation.

If I can't afford to buy something, should I buy it anyway?

Can we, the people, really afford to buy the failing businesses of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac?

Oh, I see, they are asking us to forgive their irresponsible behavior and chip in to save the portfolios of their shareholders and other interested parties. I can perhaps do that if given the proper evidence that they understand what caused the problem and are resolving it accordingly. Oh, they are not asking for my consent, or offering evidence. They are using the power of the state to assume I am willing to forgive.

Well then. How do I know the forces that led to their failure are understood? How can I verify that our newly acquired businesses will function properly? Will they be exposed to free-market competition? What is my economic incentive for chipping in?

Something seems off here. Is this the natural, inevitable result of our constitutional republic? Well, let's look at the evidence we do have...

Does a free society favor security holders, banks, and borrowers over others? That doesn't seem to jive with "all men are created equal." What do others have to say about this?

The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law. -Aristotle

In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs. -Walter Lippman

Administering justice among individuals who conduct their own affairs. Okay, that seems fair. So we established a government to enforce justice. The innocent are to be be protected from the scourge of the guilty who seek to distribute accountability to others.

Is a violation of this principle ever acceptable?

It is in justice that the ordering of society is centered. -Aristotle

Justice denied anywhere diminishes justice everywhere. -Martin Luther King Jr.

Mighty strong words there, Martin. Okay, well let's run with that. Hm. An institution funded with our tax dollars (the US Government) purchased two of the worlds largest businesses that are both going bankrupt. I don't understand how that is just.

When I fail nobody gives me money. Why do I need to give money to giant mortgage companies? Oh, it's for the public good. I see. Well, I certainly want to do what's in the public good...

But isn't justice compatible with the public good too? Necessary?

Those CEOs made tens of millions of dollars last year alone. I certainly hope they also care about the public good. By the way, aren't they the ones (with the shareholders) taking the risk in this venture? I didn't know I had anything to lose in this particular venture. I don't remember having the extra cash to risk on this sort of thing...

Oh, wait. On my behalf, the government promised the shareholders that I would pitch in to bail them out if they failed. I see. No wonder they have so many shareholders, all of us have been made accountable for other people's loans and real estate investments. Wait. I never had anything to gain from all this, yet I am accountable somehow? What has been going on here?

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. -Thomas Jefferson

We, my friends, cannot currently be trusted. Most in our country do not understand what is happening. The nationalization of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac is an insidious breach of economic justice shifting the burden to the innocent through taxes and the diluting and devaluing of our currency.

The line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a huge unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE [Government Sponsored Enterprise] debt. -Ron Paul

There is no amount of admonition too severe for this type of business/government relationship. Ever since the promises were made...that government would bail out Freddie and Fanny if necessary...the end result was inevitable. These institutions were given an unfair advantage over any competitors attracting more shareholders. Bankers knew it, investors knew it, (some) borrowers knew it, and government officials knew it. This is a textbook monopoly, and like all monopolies, it could not have existed without government favor.

The plan was (and is) a scheme to exploit the masses for the benefit of the few who understand what this racket is all about. Well, it appears to have worked. But we will all suffer on account of it, even the wealthy...

They will come to learn in the end, at their own expense, that it is better to endure competition for rich customers than to be invested with monopoly over impoverished customers. -Frederic Bastiat

Restore freedom and competition to the mortgage industry. Rather than propping up bad business we must expose them to fair competition or we will all pay dearly. A promise that is based on fallacy and not grounded in reality will always be broken eventually. Such was the promise made to Fanny and Freddie. Delaying the inevitable will only corrode the economy to the point that otherwise responsible mortgagees will be forced to foreclose.

Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens. -Plato

2/3rds. Close enough to "Unanimous" for the Republicans.

Alright, if I can't stand politics, why the hell do I write about all the time?

Well, you can't know much about darkness without having experienced at least a mild degree of light, even if it burns the retinas. And oh, it burns...

Someone I admire had a more elegant way of putting it: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." -J. S. Mill

Just like a Communist/Socialist must violate her principles by, well, providing for herself, seekers of truth must sometimes cross over to muck around in the most persistent form of error and fallacy (i.e. bullshit) available. There is little debate about what that is: politics.

Being the most productive geyser of bullshit, any seeker of truth must study this particular scourge carefully, regardless of the inevitable damage to one's soul. Yes, politics is bullshit, and a type more persistent than the less explosive hydrothermal bullshit emitters of sales and religion. Here's the breakdown:

• Salesmen/commercials. These folks sell a good or service at least remotely similar to what they advertise.
• Religious Institutions. These folks promote morality at least remotely similar to what a reasonably spiritual, ethical deist might consider God's will.
• Politicians. These folks promise the exact opposite of what they will, in fact, deliver.
  

Yes, almost any political candidate that offers anything (other than less government) is actually offering the opposite. Old news, but worth repeating.

Don't believe me?
You should.
Why?
Because it is true.

What better example than the proceedings at the Republican National Convention itself. Just a little fun fact that demonstrates the complete meaninglessness of today's politics.

Last night, after the delegates voted, the speaker made the motion to declare the nomination of John McCain "unanimous."

When judging a voice vote on the motion, there was a clear, audible "NO" from the convention floor.

Requiring a 2/3 majority, the speaker should have proceeded with a show of hands and a count. This did not happen. He made the judgment call that 2/3rds had been reached and banged the gavel.

But, there were delegates representing real constituents on that floor that insisted the nomination was not declared "unanimous."

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the English language, but wouldn't "unanimous" require 100% of the delegates approval anyway?

If this is how they run their conventions, it's no wonder they run government how they do...as if principles must be sacraficed for expedience.

The Democratic convention was no better. Pelosi gave delegates about 1/4 second to respond before declaring the nomination unanimous.

Why do we allow this?

As if you don't know this already, both candidates are more of the same. Each (with the help of our state) requires 50% of your hard work to give you roads, defend you from terrorists, and make sure your kids aren't "left behind." If you aren't on welfare or a governing elite you are a battery in their empire building machine.

Hey, I don't like it either, but I also don't like hangovers, and stopping those isn't possible. Or is it?

From the Rally for the Republic Tuesday night:

Those who have the ability to speak out against wickedness and do not do so are morally culpable. -Lew Rockwell

Word of the Day

gov·ern·ment n.

1. An institution employed by the rich to legally plunder humanity.
2. A cartel capable of acquiring the encouragement of its victims.
3. An entity whereby wealth is redistributed from the poor and productive to the super rich and unproductive under the guise of social responsibility.
4. The business of selling false hope.
5. The abstraction whereby consciousness is exchanged for abstraction.
   
6. An organization whose success is measured by its intentions rather than its results.
   
7. An association that profits most from failure.
8. The primary beneficiary of thoughtlessness.
9. The means through which humanity dissolves virtue and prosperity.

The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.
Thomas Jefferson

Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Attributed to George Washington, but apocryphal

Breeze Over Gimmee Island

Floating off the shore from one particular nondescript point at sea, one could observe in awe each community going about their daily business.

At one tip of Gimmee Island steam rose from Beet Village, home of the Beeticans (Pop. 1000). Today, like every day, the Beetican's enormous cauldrons were being fed by conveyor from large piles of freshly harvested beets. Beets were their only crop, and only food requirement.

Turning an eye to the other tip of the island, one could distinguish the bustle of activity from Bean Village, home of the Beanies (Pop. 1000). The Beanies feverishly piled enormous mountains of their own delicacy, beans, using giant cranes, ropes and and pulleys. Beans were their only crop, and only food requirement.

The Beanies and Beeticans, although lacking in culinary diversity, did enjoy abundance...

One Beetican was capable of consuming several dozen tons of beets in a single day. In fact, no red-blooded Beetican would arise from slumber ten minutes without a sensible breakfast of at least one ton. Steamed, fried, boiled or roasted, the Beeticans were pleased to spend every waking moment either preparing for their next feast, or enjoying their current one.

On the other side of the island, the Beanies were also afflicted with ravenous hunger. The average Beanie delighted in several dozen tons of their own crop on a daily basis as well. Baked, refried, or even raw, mountains of beans were digested with frantic haste upon their harvest. When the mountains could be replenished fast enough, Beanies could hardly sleep, overwhelmed by their delirious, insatiable obsession with the scrumdidlyumptiousness.

The Beeticans and Beanies were farmers, but didn't actually do any farming themselves. Actually, farming was quite beneath them. They had laborers to deal with such things, who they called the Goways (or "Go Aways"). Both the Beanies and Beeticans called them this because they just wanted them to bring food and go away. The Goways didn't have much of an appetite, and could pretty much live on the tiny scraps of Beans and Beets that flew from the Beanies' and Beeticans' enormous mouths during the constant, rampant mastication. Goways had no preference, and ate either beans or beets, whichever was available. They lived among the countryside and numbered about 500.

There was one main difference between Beet Village and Bean Village. Due to the digestive process, Bean Village was under continuous siege from the inescapable effects of perpetual flatulence. On still days, a great cloud of methane filled the air over nearly one-half of the island. This was something the Beanies had tolerated for centuries, and was not at all an issue in their quaint village. Ambitious Goways were also willing to endure the disagreeable environment for the slightly higher nutritional value of beans. Also, being upwind, Beet Village seldom if ever experienced a hint of the stench that loomed over the island's other half. All was well for many centuries.

Suddenly one day, the inevitable occurred. Beet Village awoke to what most considered the most horrific of possible conditions. As they loafed from their beds to their steaming piles of boiled beets, the horror was unbearable. An easterly wind wafted the unmistakable scent of digested beans forcefully against their nasal passageways. The effect was putrid enough to set some off of their breakfast. In fact, as the wind persisted, some of the Beeticans were even forced to skip lunch as well!

Some wept, some prayed, and some attempted silly little dances as great rolls of fat jiggled like whale blubber among their sedentary, morbidly obese figures. As much as they hoped, the relentless draft grew ever more pungent with each passing minute. The Beanie's filth was overpowering and relentless, and it was taking away the most important thing the Beetican's had...their appetite.

As the voraciousness of Beet Village diminished, pangs of grief were trumpeted by all. "Why, oh why, are they doing this to us!" women screamed. "Why can't they just eat Beets like the rest of us!" The public outcry was fierce, and the village council finally voted to have the Goways assemble a cart to haul Jim Bob, "The Cheif," to Bean Village to negotiate.

The Chief arrived three days later with his caravan of beets. As he was carried through the village gate, his eyes watered in disgust. "GO AWAY" he screamed as the Goaways threw off their yokes and scattered. The king of Bean Village, John, approached, carried by his own crew of Goways.

"Hey John, good to see ya. You've got one hell of a stank over here as usual."
"That's what they tell me Chief. Hardly notice anymore. How's the crop this year?"
"Oh, fine, crop's fine. You know, damn Goways."
"I hear ya, never want to go away, do they..."
"Nope, they sure don't."

The Chief grabbed a giant handful of beets, poured them down his throat and swallowed them whole like a snake choking down an over-sized rat.

"Well. Anyway, I thought you might like to try these. Mighty tasty!"
"Oh, thanks Chief, but I can't stand beets. You know, us Beanies do like our beans."

John squinted, and followed-up his response with a robust, lengthly series of repulsive explosions, which rocked his lazy-boy throne violently.

"Right, well, you see, this easterly wind just isn't letting up, and we were wondering if you could try eating beets for a couple days...you know, just so the town can enjoy their meals until the wind shifts. I've brought several dozen tons with me... "
"No-can-do partner. You know how popular that would be. The village would revolt!"
"Well, looks like another war, doesn't it."
"Sure does. Well, sheesh, nothing I can do about it, of course. The village is either against me or against you, and I'm no traitor. Let us have it partner."
"Will do. Take care now."
"Yep. Take care."

The Chief was carried back to Beanie Village and war was declared. Each side assembled 250 Goways and the battles raged. Beanie Village would protect its right to eat beans. Beet Village would have its appetite back. Piles of limbs and guts littered the countryside as the The Chief and John both staged public executions to demonstrate the cost of retreat. The Goways slaughtered each other ruthlessly. The Beanies and Beeticans cheered their Goways with parades and medals. The Goways were finally not asked to "go away," and that was somehow a sufficient consolation for their perilous situation.

When the entrails of all the Goways were strewn about the island but one, the war was officially over. Beet Village had won! The last Goway, Fred, stood bloody but triumphant over his cousin Goways he had just impaled through the face. Beet Village could finally eat in peace!

But, the wind had shifted long ago. In fact, the wind reversed direction before the first battle. But, neither the Beanies nor the Beeticans cared to back down, besides, it was the Goways fighting, and this was an excellent way to make them go away.

Thus was life at Gimmee Island. Beet Village and Bean Village decided it was worth a temporary diet of twelve tons a day. They sold some beets and beans, and bought Fred a nice big tractor and combine so he could supply all the beans and beets by himself (and go away faster). Before long the Beanies and the Beeticans could focus all of their energy on gorging themselves once again.

Ron Paul Dominates the 5th District Convention

I'll say a quick word regarding the MN 5th district (THE FIGHTIN' FIFTH!) Republican convention yesterday, because I didn't sit in the back of a dark auditorium during the first beautiful spring day for nothing.

Kami was actually seated as a delegate, so she had an up-front view of the action. As an unseated alternate, I got to observe the full breadth of the mayhem, which was considerable. To put it kindly, democracy appears very rough around the edges. To put it bluntly, democracy is completely devoid of any semblance of order except when looked at with the most discriminating scrutiny, and while taking into account humanity's underwhelming incapacities.

If this system is actually the one best suited for humans, we are a mediocre, chaotic, over-opinionated, paranoid breed. It seems impossible we created it. But, it was actually a few perceptive individuals who realized such a system could marginalize our collective incompetence, and, in that respect, it seems to be working, barely. As a system specifically designed to highlight our weaknesses, it is painfully effective. And, if not taken too seriously, a very entertaining thing to watch.

9:30: Arrive at Robinsdale High School. Eat a donut. Talk to a delegate seeking election. Have some tea (coffee not available - water issues).

10:00: Enter the auditorium. Admire the stage adorned with a single-file herd of patriotic elephants impaled on tall posts (one for each senate district) bookended with two burning braziers whose (simulated) fire flickers off each side of the dark auditorium walls and ceiling. I can't help thinking I'm in a cave and this is some tribal ritual. A net of balloons occupies the width of the auditorium. The six "ordained" delegates hand-picked by the nominating committee are situated on the walls.

10:30: Listen to Tim Pawlenty give a beautifully crafted and inspirational speech about unity. He referenced the reporter, who turned from Michael Jordan after a record-breaking 56 point game to a rookie who, in the same game, had scored his first NBA point. The reporter asked for his thoughts, and the rookie responded "I will remember this as the game Micheal Jordan and I scored 57 points." Awe. A touching story...unless you recognize Michael Jordan is actually an unstoppable rebel war machine in an ideological battle for world domination under the gun of corrupt business interests. And, the rookie is your unflinching, unquestioning support. Probably not front of mind during the standing ovation.

11:00: Listen to Norm Coleman give a speech almost as deft and inspirational. Also about unity. Closes to a another standing ovation.

11:30: (I really don't know the exact times). Barb White and her campaign storm the auditorium with cult-like enthusiasm. Music, dancing, and a speech dedicated to usurping Keith Ellison 's congressional seat. The delegates nominate her as Ellison's opponent. The net containing the few thousand balloons starts to move; time for the balloon-drop. They can't seem to get it to open. A guy starts poking at it with a long stick. Some of them pop. Finally, the net breaks free from the other side, releasing the red, white, and blue orbs like emptying a package of skittles over the crowd. A luke-warm finale at best. All pretend they don't notice the inescapable omen-like quality of the situation and continue cheering, hitting the balloons into the air.

12:00: Non-ordained delegates are nominated. All delegates give a short 2-minute speech. The three Ron Paul supporters (who we all agreed on beforehand) give short, fired-up oratories about the proper role of government and underlying philosophical principles to cheers and ovations. Unwavering Republican nominees spout the party line saying things as immature as "if it's conservative, I'm on it." Ug, and getting applause. (Thus highlighting the aforementioned human weakness).

1:00: The seated delegates vote for three national delegates. Ballot confusion. General hilarity ensues as everyone approaches the mic with a different solution. The chair's original solution prevails. Time wasted. As people vote there is a persistent percussive sound of cannon fire. Balloons being popped. At first the finale to the 1812 overture plays in my head. And then, and I know this is geeky, our national anthem, with bombs bursting in air as I imagined everyone voting for Ron Paul. Probably a stretch (maybe I'll discuss later).

1:15: Some post-adolescent guy in a suit walks up to me standing in the back. "It's all the Ron Paul supporters that are messing things up ya know. They don't know what they're doing. He can't win."

1:30: We start going through resolutions. The delegates, with high contention, vote to make the following things part of the official Republican party platform (not exact language):

• Abolish the Minnesota state income tax
• Eliminate the fiat monetary system and restore gold and silver as the only type of legal tender
• Oppose a national ID card

1:45: Results of the voting are in. The chair looks shocked at the results. Half the crowd erupts in cheers and hugs as he reads the three national delegates...all three are the Ron Paul supporters! The other half of the crowd broods.

The rest of the day was going through more boring resolutions. There was some roudyness and bickering as the delegates stood split on the issue of gay marriage...The Ron Paul folks don't think it's government's business to get involved in private issues (yay!). The neocons want to "save" marriage by officially defining it as between a man and a woman.

The seated delegates also voted for two alternate national delegates. Both Ron Paul supporters.

SOOOOO....I saw how democracy really works. It isn't "the people" who give the consent of the governed...it's "the people who give a shit." And, they are either protecting the rights of the rest of us or trying to protect the rights/entitlements of their privileged organizations. Yesterday those who are working to protect our rights are the ones who prevailed against the ones trying to protect the rights of government and big business. But, it was in heated contention. Many were repulsed believing we must unify with McCain to protect the reputation of the Republican party. I'm afraid dedication to nothing more than saving face is one of the very things our democracy was designed to protect us against. And, it looks like it's actually working.

Yesterday we protected the right to go to an auditorium and watch a boondoggle of folly ensue as two half-civilized bodies of opinionated ideologues faced off in a reminder that humans are at their best when they appear to be at their worst. Because a few thoughtful individuals aligned in principle managed to coordinate themselves, we might again have the right to flail about indiscriminately in the future.

But, as I once did with the Reagan revolution, I again wait for the inevitable day the descendants of the Ron Paul revolution put pride before principle. And, when that happens, we will again be waiting in silence to protect the precious core of human liberty. If the Republican party chooses to one day abandon this core, it will be adopted by a different party, or (God forbid) a different country, but it can never be eliminated.

We will never go away until its tightened grip chokes the last vestiges of liberty, prosperity, and life itself.

In other words, when you are right, you are right. Just because everyone finally realizes it doesn't make it any more or less right. Just be sure you remember what that is, and why you will certainly be tempted to forget it.

The plan

If there was a shred of dignity in politics I might not be appalled enough to concern myself. But, I am constantly reminded why I have every reason to despise it.

Attention Republicans: In case you haven't heard yet, if you really want to help the Republican Party, you are instructed to appear at Democratic primaries to vote for Hillary. If you can become a delegate for Hillary, bonus.

Apparently, this has been going on for a while. Republicans have been trying to push for Hillary because they suspect she is unelectable. Now that McCain is the official nominee, they can swing over to the other side to help out the Democrat's weakest opponent.

The Republicans hatched a similar plan around 1913. Confident the states would never go so far as to ratify a bill changing the Constitution to allow for an income tax, they drafted one up.

What happened? It passed. The result? Here is the original income tax table...in 1913 dollars. Wouldn't that be nice.

Republicans, you need a reality check. Just because you think she is genuinely disliked by most of the electorate (as I do), pulling the levers has significant risks. Seriously, be careful what you wish for.

Maybe it's time for Republicans to admit that this presidential race is between Hillary and Obama. By pulling for the weaker Democratic candidate, you may end up getting the weaker next president. And, although that might be a painful thing for the Democrats in 2012, its a dishonorable thing for our country. At least be able to honestly say...

I didn't vote for him [her] but he's [she's] my president, and I hope he [she] does a good job.
-John Wayne

Peaceful Easy Feeling

Today's purpose from our overlords..."stimulate" the economy.

They way I see it, this is not a tyranny by a dictator or even the majority. This is the tyranny of the irresponsible minority who risked everything on real estate for a quick buck. Now, those of us who work for a living are doing what we always do...paying their bills.

I got the letter a few days ago. I will be reimbursed $600, a small portion of the many thousands I paid last year in taxes.

I'm glad we will get a nugget. I fear it is a small consolation for the impending monetary collapse. (Holy crap Bear Stearns was bankrupt!) Perhaps that $600 should be spent quickly or used to buy gold...before it is worthless. Let's cross our fingers that doesn't happen.

I'm not an economist, but I feel like the dominoes are crashing into one another. This is just another piece falling over...us, the normal folks (the people) being asked to grease the wheels for a few moments while the interested parties tinker with their machine, trying to force consequences on the innocent rather than the irresponsible...trying to slow the domino pyramid cascading before their eyes.

This may turn into one of those moments in history where those of us with the least to lose also have the least to fear. Or, maybe that was always the case, and only now will it become obvious. Funny how everything seems related somehow.
Reminds me of a song...

I like the way your sparkling earrings lay, against your skin, it's so brown
and I wanna sleep with you in the desert tonight with a billion stars all around

'cause I gotta peaceful easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing on the ground

And I found out a long time ago what a woman can do to your soul
Ah, but she can't take you anyway You don't already know how to go

and I gotta peaceful, easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing on the ground

I get this feeling I may know you as a lover and a friend
but this voice keeps whispering in my other ear, tells me I may never see you again

'cause I get a peaceful, easy feeling
and I know you won't let me down
'cause I'm already standing ...
I'm already standing...
Yes, I'm already standing...
I'm already standing... - on the ground

Peaceful, Easy Feeling
The Eagles

From the Rubber Chicken Advocacy Department

At least we all can agree that everyone is entitled to rubber chickens, and that they are superior to paper ones...

We know that. It is documented. We all share that belief. Whew, glad that discussion is over...or is it?

Seems to me some folks got their hands on enough paper chickens that they decided they could attempt to convince us otherwise...Maybe even try to substitute the rubber ones for paper ones...

Oh, sure, they may appeal to popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations to advocate the paper ones, but people can tell the difference, can't they? Or, are they vulnerable? Are they really capable of forgetting that we all agreed the rubber ones rock, and are not to be confused with the paper ones? Maybe they assume you think:

• That rubber chickens don't matter to you.
  
• That free rubber chickens are cool, but a whole bunch of paper ones is cooler.
  
• That other folks can tell the difference, so you can just listen to the kind of chickens they are voting for.
  
• That since collective knowledge is additive, if everyone prefers paper chickens they must be right.
  
• That you lack the confidence to trust your understanding of the merits of rubber chickens. (Wait...I know the free rubber ones are essential, but I will act like I believe they can be substituted with paper anyway until I'm absolutely sure.)
  
• That if the masses like paper chickens, so will you, even though it's obvious rubber chickens are better.
  

But, there is a more subtle psychological influence at work. It is the residual self image disturbance. Suppose you have found the candidate who understands we all need free rubber chickens before we can have paper chickens (or anything else), but, to your dismay, no one is listening to him. If you throw your support behind the guy supporting free rubber chickens, you might ask yourself...

• Will all my esteemed yet uninformed colleagues understand this guy? Probably not. They all think he's confusing rubber and paper.
  
• If they misunderstand him, will I be perceived as a lunatic if I support him? Everyone thinks I'm smoking crack because I keep saying he's all for free rubber chickens.
  
• If all my esteemed colleagues think I'm smoking crack, will I lose credibility with them? Not to mention power and influence over all the delusional paper chicken supporters - who are actually smoking crack?
  

If you trust yourself and your beliefs over the popular perceptions, yet give in to the above in order to retain relevance, you are probably making the assumption that you must retain credibility with folks who either don't care about rubber chickens, or the ones smoking crack. Perhaps you choose to be relevant in case there is a chance your rubber chickens will be under siege again.

My question...When does relevance trump everything else? How far can what is "relevant" and what is correct diverge before the rubber chickens are reserved for only the folks with the most paper chickens? More importantly, who's promise of rubber chickens is most vulnerable to being sacrificed to fallible public perception?

• Someone who's career depends on public perception?
  
• Someone who's career doesn't depend on public perception?
  

If rubber chickens are the reason we get to vote for rubber or paper in the first place, when we no longer have them, I guess that is when we must be satisfied with paper. And, there is definitely not an unlimited supply of paper...

Are we destined to live in a world where we all believe we must live with only hard-earned paper chickens because the guys hoarding most of the chickens are telling us so? Telling us so scarcely saying the word "chicken?"

But, there is evidence the elite crowd is losing some ground to geeks with mad tech skillz, some free time, and compassion for evenly distributed rubber chickens. These guys understand that even sensible people disinterested in public political perception are vulnerable to cheap visual and psychological tricks if they are aligned with powerful intellectual beliefs.

Although unrelated to the bird discussed in this article, I think this captures many people's impression of their importance, so we'll use that analogy. But, basing your opinion on such eye candy rather than the concepts is where disaster starts. Soon, you start thinking you can buy rubber chickens with the paper type. But, as much as you try, that never works. You can't have paper chickens unless you first have rubber ones.

I am bothered by this somewhat, though. Ron Paul is just a normal guy, and painting him in such a messianic light suggests he is the only individual capable of actively resisting an unfair proportion of chickens, rubber or paper. Are these qualities so rare that the one guy who acts on them is held up like some god? Are we really all virtually blind following the king with one eye? How would we handle the temptation of an unevenly balanced distribution of chickens in our favor?

Given the promise of an unlimited supply of chickens would you choose to stick with your principles instead? Would you continue to believe that all of us are equally entitled to our share of free rubber chickens, after which the paper type can be pursued? With issues so complicated no one would blame you or even understand the contradictions. I don't know if I could resist the extra chickens. Maybe he is the only guy that can. I don't know.

I am relieved to see that the battle to win hearts and minds is not restricted to groups hoarding the chickens. Occasionally it is waged by a grassroots organization of individuals bound by principles and ideas only, with nothing particular to gain but the personal knowledge that they are perpetuating the ideals necessary for such ubiquitous universal goals as peace and individual liberty, chickens that are rubber.

Perhaps their belief in rubber chickens over the paper variety is strong enough to endure persistent public attack on their character, beliefs, intelligence, and ideals. Perhaps it is even strong enough to endure such attacks from friends and family members. These ideas would need to be based on rubber so fantastic that they agree to risk every last ounce of their reputation on their knowledge that the primary chickens must made from it.

This person also recognizes that many an idiot does the same thing to protect their paper chickens. Or, they argue against rubber chickens without even knowing it...or, argue for rubber chickens while advocating policies that actually destroy them, and make more paper chickens. Which, of course, is why all opinions must be expressed openly without the influence of forces advocating their suppression (popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public). At least we can all agree on that...I hope. Yes, the proper material for chicken construction must be discussed, even if we all agree that paper is inferior to rubber, or even that paper chickens are actually a figment of our imagination.

We couldn't have all agreed that evenly distributed rubber chickens is proper without thousands of years of philosophical study, civil experiments, reason, and an effective method of vulcanization. No amount of trickery will dismantle these things. The benefits of free rubber chickens was established and made law hundreds of years ago, and reinforced time and again by countries who let too many chickens into the hands of a few, which is why we shouldn't really need fancy visual effects to illustrate their proper usage.

Perhaps we fail to recognize the benefits of free rubber chickens because we live in a world obsessed with paper ones. Or, perhaps we do not see that everything we have depends on free rubber chickens.

Imagine free rubber chickens.

Reign of Terror

Out on the play lot, among the children swinging and climbing, two young gentleman sat across from each other in the sand, and each emptied a bag of marbles into their hands. The silence between them broken only with a menacing glare. The mild summer day would lend well to another death match. There was only one certainty...marbles would crash.

Tim's bag was overflowing with the spoils of war. He handled the glass balls as if they were fragile ornaments, holding them up to admire them before returning them to the safety of his leather pouch. His reign of terror had swept through the class like an invincible marauding hoard engulfing everything in its path. His thirst for victory was unquenchable and grew more merciless with each new asset. His calculating observation of each glass ball was either an evaluation of its utility or drunken admiration of his own power over it, but probably both. He carefully placed the pieces he cared for most back into his pouch.

Ted sat opposite from Tim with relaxed composure, his disastrously small armada of four already assembled in front of him. His meek disinterest was unbecoming to the small group gathered around. He seemed to almost beg for the class' final bastion to be pillaged.

The spectators watched intently as Tim held each specimen, waiting to see if one of the weapons they had once owned and beloved would be placed in limbo. Everyone knew how much Fred loved his shiny blue jewel, and all watched in anticipation as Tim held it high, observing it longer then the others. Fred's head sunk in despair as the magic blue piece was slowly and deliberately placed back it into the sack. Through the robotic presence a crack of a smile could be perceived on one side of Tim's lips as Fred turned to walk away. He would reserve his choice for a psychological adversary of greater consequence.

All in class brooded in secret anger, defending their own former marbles with as much indifference as possible. They knew Tim would choose one special marble, the one he felt was most loved by a particular classmate. He had a way of knowing who was most vulnerable...who needed to see their marble back into the hands of anyone but Tim. Anyone at all. All acted like they were impervious to Tim's little game, but he always knew. As he held each marble up he could feel weakness. Once discovered, he would delight in the opportunity to use this precious marble to occupy another. This vicious cycle had consumed the children and all watched in invisible horror as each of their marbles was placed back into the sack. It would be only slightly less horrific to see it enter the ring, but they hoped nonetheless.

Meanwhile Ted sat casually, flicking tiny sticks in Tim's direction. Finally, the choice was at hand...an opaque red marble was lifted high. The crowd took a collective gasp. This was what many felt was Ted's most prised possession...the great ball of fire. Tim rolled it between his fingers ominously. A tiny stick bounced off the side of Tim's cheek and all watched in amazement as the ball of fire was gently placed among the spherical contestants.

Ted immediately washed the sand flat in front of him with his hand, then, with care, drew the outline of the perimeter. To the surprise of everyone, instead of drawing a circumference, Ted fashioned a rectangle. "Today we play gaipar."

Tim was neither amused nor disturbed. He nodded in acceptance. This was shockingly unexpected. In gaipar, Ted was risking all four marbles simultaneously. If Tim could expel the gai, they would be lost in a single round. But, being the challenger, Ted had the first shot.

Ted carefully placed his boulder behind the perimeter and crouched in his position. He could take all of Tim's warriors in one powerful shot. If he missed, he knew it was over...Tim would methodically pick away each turn until he had occupied every last one with the ball of fire. Ted's strategy gave him the immediate advantage, but required courage, which would quickly convert to stupidity if he missed. Failure would place the last of our planet's known marbles into Tim's hands.

The crowd held their breath as Ted fearlessly aligned his shot. Tim sat motionless in his stoic, statue-like posture. Everyone knew Tim's unbeaten record could be shattered in one roll. History would depend on one brave shot of the boulder, one taken against all odds.

Suddenly, the bell rang. Tim quickly grasped all of his marbles, placed them in his sack, and walked toward the schoolhouse.

Ted, disheveled, gracefully removed his meager assembly and followed Tim with the rest of the crew back to class.

Tim's reign of terror did officially yield weeks later, but posterity does not recollect the official captor of the great ball of fire, only the artist courageous enough to draw the new arena.

Holy Crap John McCain Works for the Dark Side

Of all things unholy the presidential candidate representing small government, low taxes, and individual liberty is a moral nemesis from the homebrewer's perspective. Totally unacceptable from any beer lover's perspective; from any lover of truth itself.

John McCain not only has many ties to Anheuser-Busch. Not only does his wife serve as the chairwoman of the board. Not only is his son the CEO. He once held one of the two earthly positions most loathed by every conscientious proponent of truth in advertising aware of real beer.

CHIEF PUBLICIST!

This man made a living attempting to deceive us in the most sinister way imaginable. He shamelessly perpetuated a lie so vile, so disturbing, so absolutely nefarious, that all who appreciate beer recoil in horror at its mention; that Budweiser is actually beer.

The other position loathed equally as much; the equivalent employee over at Miller (whoever that is).

I need not explain my case for lovers of the art of brewing. But for those who are unaware of the deception...

Bud isn't beer. Much like Valentines Day, it is an invention of a huge corporation. It is a cheap fermented beverage produced in an ethanol plant at almost no cost. It is a discount delivery system for booze with no flavor, no passion, no spirit.

The inspiration for its production is an unquenchable thirst for money using any deceptive tactic imaginable no matter how fallacious or irresponsible.

The proposition that a political campaign requires little more than a billion dollars, talking frogs, and a super bowl commercial is disturbing, but it puts things into perspective. Maybe this is just another reminder that American politics is limited to perception with little regard for intellectual depth, philosophical integrity, flavor.

Mr. McCain has obviously succeeded in his ability to convince the mindless droves that Budweiser is the only beer worthy of consumption despite the thousands of wonderful alternatives.

Perhaps the Republicans know what they are doing after all.

Beer and Shoes

The question: If you didn't have to pay taxes, would you give the extra to some sort of charity? Maybe just a little?

The answer: No you wouldn't. Hell no.

But, I don't mean a bit of minor tax relief, I mean no taxes; sales tax, income tax, social security, inflation tax, hidden taxes. You would bring home DOUBLE your salary over all. That's a lot. Come on, are you sure you wouldn't give just a little more? Maybe drop an extra penny in the jar.

no, No, NO you wouldn't! And you know it! Nobody would!

It's okay, you are not a cruel monster. On the contrary. You are a liberated citizen now keenly aware of your true worth. Damn, you earn quite a haul, don't you. Naturally, you value that money you have earned and can spend it however you wish. This is your very your standard of living, your children's future, your freedom, a ticket to possible happiness, your 15 gallon stainless steel pressure-sealed conical fermenter.

But, no, you don't get those things. Sorry. You can't keep half the money you earn. Let's take a closer look at what that money really is...

When the shoemaker offers the brewer a pair of shoes in exchange for a pony keg, the keg might be worth more than the shoes. So, to make up for the difference, the shoemaker needs to offer something else - something that is generally accepted, durable, and of stable value. Gold, currency, a foot massage, whatever the brewer accepts. Taxes are basically a redistribution of a portion of the transaction (beer and shoes) in order to protect everyone's right to engage in voluntary exchange of beer and shoes, to resolve disputes if the beer sucks, and to fight the guys trying to steal the beer and shoes. These things now take such a large portion of beer and shoes that everyone is hopping around with one shoe almost sober.

Why? Because we spend our own money more wisely than other people's.

It all comes down to...Who's money is more important? Yours, or someone else's? Many don't think their tax money is important because they already assume it is someone else's before they even see it. People's own worth has been stripped from their fingers without them even knowing. It's enough to make me damn depressed.

So, back to our fantasy...what to do with all that extra coin? Maybe you'll go scarf some sushi, buy better golf clubs, live in a new house, send your kid to private school with smaller class sizes, take the faster toll roads (if you live at the fringes), and maybe get better medical insurance.

You would probably buy some stocks. If you were a small business you would have to hire more people and raise your salaries to keep competitive. Work would be available to anyone who wanted it. Unemployment would be virtually zero.

But wait...what about all the folks on welfare? What would happen to them? Yes, they would suddenly be deprived of all their income. They would need to appeal to charity. Yes, that's right, anyone who couldn't make ends meet would have to take the hit to their pride and find a benevolent individual or organization caring enough to help them.

Oh, you don't believe we could actually care for the needy? Everyone who works would be twice as rich, and some people just get this thrill out of helping others indiscriminately (not really my thing, but they're out there). Most importantly, individuals would have a greater opportunity to succeed without the need for charity. But that's not really the point.

The point is, when government has cornered the market on virtue, we experience a net loss of it.

It's also futile from a practical perspective. People have an easier time stealing from government than they do from individuals (corporations and dead beats), and even the well intentioned politicians aren't capable of dealing properly with the economy (as we see now regarding the catch 22 at the Fed).

Oh man this had gotten boring. Such discussions require good beer and company or they are pretty dead in the water, but kudos if you made it to the bitter end.

Persuasion by Force

Should we allow government to dictate our behavior in matters that apply only to ourselves? Does government have the responsibility to pick up the slack when we are incapable of taking care of ourselves?

No. Not only does it not have the responsibility. It does not have the moral justification for doing so.

Why? Because in matters that pertain only to ourselves we are the only individual capable of defining "happiness." Even if we are unable to properly ascertain that happiness, no other group or individual has the right to interfere in our pursuit of it.

Others may persuade us to stop writing boring blog posts in order to preserve our dignity, but you cannot lawfully stop me (hahaha!). More to the point, you can advise any civilized person to keep off the ice, use a rubber, or clean the needle, and you can do so with whatever persuasive abilities you have at your disposal; anything short of coercion by force...if not for its complete futility, for its effect of tending to encourage the behavior (children and lawless barbarians who are not receptive to reason excluded, and I know that is most of you - go back to your pit and put the lotion on the skin).

I might go out on a limb and say that one also has the obligation to help friends, family, loved ones and even complete strangers to the degree their resources allow and in whatever manner they see justified. Is this going out on a limb?

So the question is...why can't we just commission government to help friends, family, loved ones and strangers on our behalf? After all, isn't that why we pay all these taxes? Unfortunately, your friendly congressman is just as likely to blow your tax dollars huffing gas as he is using it to effectively reward good teachers. Sniff more glue? YES WE CAN! At a national level, that means doing whatever your billionaire corporate campaign contributers demand. Take the hard earned money we could use to help our neighbors and instead build a bridge to nowhere? YES WE CAN! Eliminate individual sovereignty? YES WE CAN. Perpetuate anti-American sentiment globally? YES WE CAN! Bankrupt the country? YES WE CAN!

Because individuals are far greater at identifying legitimate need than government, they are more effective assessors and distributors of charity because they target the most true and desperate demand. The degree to which individuals are capable of keeping the fruits of their labor and distributing it as they see fit is the primary measure of success for a free society, and central to our personal capacity to respect human rights and help the needy. Only a cruel, heartless population would allow the hungry to starve and homeless to freeze, especially with so much personal prosperity available to help.

If you believe we are a society of such heartless individuals, then you might suspect mandatory theft of a portion of prosperity from everyone is necessary to ensure the protection of basic human rights for the destitute. You might assume we must use government to do it.

But, if we are a society built of such trash, are politicians immune from such an affliction? Or, would politicians be the most tenacious examples of shrewed and unsavory cleverness who managed to claw their way to the top?

Assuming the above is even partly the case, the redistribution of wealth through government would not be weighted on the side of the needy. In such a society, only the very minimum amount of wealth is distributed to the desperate. AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE is directed to the privileged few in the elite circle through rampant cronyism. It can be justified because these companies provide jobs, products, and services and it can be argued they are good for the economy. But, government advocacy is NOT the justification for any business - only market demand can validate a company's success. This cooperation between big corporations and government simply deprives small business, the poor, and especially the middle class.

If you believe we are a society of greedy monsters, and want to do something about it, you must starve the beast of government and allow the poor to keep ALL their earnings. You also must allow the middle-class - those who hang out with the poor more than the elite - to keep ALL their earnings so they have the means to help their neighbors and loved ones who run into hard times.

The greedy rich who hoard billions for themselves and their friends must not be allowed to use government to hoard billions more. This is what we allow to happen, and all while we still have enough power to stop them and restore the role of government to its rightful place - to protect OUR life, liberty, and property and not just the privileged few tugging the ropes. Why don't we do it? Oh yeah, because professional politicians spend lifetimes learning how to convince you otherwise for their billionaire friends and are much more convincing than me.

Why listen to the person who has the most to lose? Don't they have the most reason to lie to you? Then, if they are willing to lie, and discover you will let them take your money and liberty, what's stopping them?

To conclude, if the alternative is true, and we are a society of enlightened and charitable individuals, there is no need to take our prosperity in the first place. Personally, I suspect we are willing to accept the responsibilities of freedom already without requiring the outside of force from better men and women than ourselves. Do we need more persuasion to this effect? Absolutely, anything short of force will do.

Democracy

Well, to the dismay and disgust of many long time Republicans, Uptown has chosen...10 out of 15 state delegates are Ron Paul supporters. It's interesting how a few like-minded individuals can organize themselves and basically dominate a whole senate district. Neocons beware. You are becoming extinct.

We all got together Thursday and discussed how we would nominate and vote for each other using a list of supporters. These were not the nutty neoconfederate truthers you may have already associated with Dr. Paul. They were just a bunch of cool people sitting in a malt shop talking about rules of conduct at a convention (it was mostly first timers like us) and basic human rights. They were very well organized. I didn't hear any talk of conspiracies, secession, or alien invasions.

History is made by those who show up.

Speaking of representation, is district 60 really made of 2/3rds Paul supporters? Probably not. But, we were the ones there, so we had the voice. I imagine this was how the neocons hijacked the party in the first place - when no one else was paying attention. That's the price of silence I guess.

In this regard do we need to hold ourselves accountable when a lawless minority takes charge because of our silence? Oh, you didn't know they were slaughtering kittens for fun? Well, being outraged now will not reassemble the piles of tails, legs, and noses. Maybe we should assess how the process of gratuitous kitty carnage began. I have a feeling it began on my couch in front of American Idle.

But we have work to do. We have to pay the mortgage. How can we afford to spend all that time getting involved with the hugely complicated political system? Most can't. Politics of any consequence has become a profession requiring full time employment.

Everyone knows that pushing out the competition is good for business. You beat your competitor with lower prices. Or, alternatively, work with them to set prices high so you both win (and the consumer loses). This principle also works in politics. Once you have a monopoly on government, you can coordinate it to serve you according to your needs. The Republicans have joined forces with the Democrats to widen the gap between the people and their government, a process the Democrats have been up to for a century. So, they are both winning because they have cornered the market on the plunder of taxes for their business friends at our expense. Then, their business friends are our employers.

At the same time they're issuing national ID cards in May while at the same time discussing whether or not torture and preemptive war is OK. Mention our government has suspended Habeas Corpus and violates the Fourth Amendment and you'll look like a raving lunatic.

So, as I mentioned in another post, I'm thinking both parties need some healthy competition. How about one that picks the best aspects of both parties...what does our society have against gun toting lesbian couples anyway?

Militant Atheism

Interesting stuff

I do recognize that one risks an immediate loss of credibility by defending any attribute of religion. If this is you, I suggest you turn your head or bury it in the sand if possible.

Here's my Lutheran upbringing coming through... I really don't get the conflict between intelligent design and science. If something can be proven to exist through science, isn't that part of God's creation? (Forgive my use of "God" - it's not accurate given today's general definition, but necessary to demonstrate my point). If we were created in God's image, with a capable intellect, isn't it our responsibility to use our brains to interpret ancient text appropriately with consideration for what we know of the properties of our universe? Doesn't science give us a more accurate picture of age old truths and allow us to re-consider those that have been perhaps interpreted incorrectly? Seems pretty easy to resolve the contradictions - always in the favor of both scripture and science, and never at the expense of either.

Of course, this is really all about the bible thumpers who insist the earth was created 6000 years ago. I propose it is this stubborn approach to scripture, and not science, that is most effectively destroying religion.

Through refusing to remove their heads from their asses, such individuals are discrediting the legitimate religious institutions and belief systems that fully recognize and encourage all scientific understanding. Who are we to judge whether the big bang was part of God's design? All we know is...it happened, and those people who have staked their lives and reputations on the conviction that it didn't are preserving their own necks at the expense of not only their own credibility, but the credibility of associated spiritual institutions; nowadays all religion.

In other words, there can be no contradiction, only a fuller understanding of both as they are necessarily dependent on one another regardless of career-saving rhetoric.

Now, to turn the coin. With all due respect for the brilliant Mr. Dawkins, I insist there are several practical and logical reasons to resist an all out assault on religion.

As tempting as it sounds given the militant droves of "God doesn't want me to think," "I've never picked up a Bible and read it" church goers, "attacking religion as a whole" requires attacking the basic philosophical understanding integral to western civilized society. So, if religion is absolutely dependent on science/facts, how is science dependent on religion? As odd as it sounds today, civilized conditions permitted through the advance of religion have been critical to the advance of science.

Take the principles of individual liberty for example (Adam Smith, Lord Acton, Thomas Jefferson). It only requires the fact that individual liberty was accepted by the extremely Christian colonies in 1789 to demonstrate the compatibility of the two. But, more to the point, there would be no civil liberty if there were no Christ or Christianity - not because the ideas didn't exist among the literate - but because the majority of people would never have understood them properly otherwise (ironically, a situation similar to today, and the cause of our problems).

I expect most of the scientists at the TED conference are fluent in the rational justification for civilized behavior - or submit to living that way simply to accomplish their goals. Either way, such individuals will themselves benefit less from religion. What is important is that Christian scripture demonstrates very complex ideas in a way accessible to people without twelve degrees. It is a powerful force for civilization that anyone with life experience can identify with the value of graceful interpersonal behavior so eloquently stated in a book several thousand years old that appeals not only to reason, but also to human emotion.

But, just like a scientific thesis, no one can comprehend the value of a text they have never read. And today, I propose the rampant misunderstanding of Christianity is dangerous to science, and therefore civilization. On the other hand, I wonder how easily most atheists have dismissed Christianity based on its unsavory public appearance rather than its philosophies. I would subscribe to a militant educational approach to restore the proper understanding of Christianity, and refute its internal enemies, but it would involve massive upheavals of ideas now ingrained in thumper thought. I consider myself a Christian, but not the type you're familiar with, and would be intimidated by the thought of dealing with the completely unreasonable (more so than dealing with most Atheists).

Most crucially, I don't believe one ought to assume any sort of higher power without considering the justification and reviewing the materials carefully. Christians should know this. Assuming that one can coerce rather than persuade another to adopt the same conclusions is itself contradictory to Christian principles.

At any rate, a discussion about religion is so mired in false perceptions and assumptions on both sides any point is diluted by its mention. Sad.

Flop Flip

In any war, the first casualty is common sense, and the second is free and open discussion. -James Reston

Perhaps common sense first depends on contempt for the influences that attempt to silence it. More specifically, virtually all earthly experiences. But once we identify the things that drive people into canyons of self-reciprocating dedication to error we can at least attempt to avoid them ourselves. It pretty much goes without saying that folks regularly make up for ignorance with ego, pride, flamboyance, consistency, or some cocktail thereof. Then, we perpetuate such barriers to thought by calling someone who changes their mind a "flip-flopper." As if one's worth is permanently tied to their dedication to the incorrect until their death. On the other hand, we associate the acceptability of our own thoughts to their popular appeal rather than their integrity. We do this to protect our pride and ego because we know that essentially we are ignorant - perhaps not of the principles of an issue, but certainly the minutia. Or, maybe we are familiar with the minutia and ignorant of the principles. They are interdependent, and one is meaningless without the other, but everyone leans one way or the other.

On a political level, it is always easier to be perceived as intelligent and viable if you are familiar with the properties of the minutia - it fosters the assumption that you identify with one or even several different or even contrasting principles. More importantly, the details that are popular and simple to understand can be cherry picked to appease the largest constituency even if the actual effect is contrary to the detail's associated principle(s). Alternatively, a candidate dependent on principle is restricted to the details that fall in line precisely with those principles without any contradiction. With an electorate interested in viability over principal, the most accurate candidate who chooses the most popular facts and presents them in the most attractive way will win. With an electorate interested in principal over viability, the most viable/minutia-oriented candidate will still win because the electorate underestimates each other's ability to identify the subtle contradictions. So, yes, we are all guilty. Might as well just admit it. Words will move around ideas by the very nature of the beast. We are just as much flip-floppers for maintaining our association to one migrating group or another as we are to changing our own positions.

The bottom line is...when a system becomes too complicated for anyone with the standard measure of common sense to adequately align principle to the matrix of interdependent contingencies (clusterfuck), we are left with the potential for mass-abuse of those sound principles. It's low hanging fruit for the least savory of people, and anyone who recognizes this should be tempted to join them. Who among us will stop grinding puppies alive and feeding them to the animal rights activists? And who will be so bold as to take the precious meat grinder away?

Hello (hello, hello) is there anybody in there

I have often questioned the seemingly short-sighted, altruistic, and naive attitude of my liberal tree-hugging friends; often strict Democrats or even all out socialists. They sometimes have simplistic conclusions, and an inability to identify the manipulative demagogues who swindle their votes with ruthless deception. Yes Shawn (other Shawn), they do ask you to help save the puppies, slaughter them, and secretly feed them to you. And yes, you think the puppies are tasty. And yes, you continue to vote for more slaughtered puppies. I know you're not a willing participant in the carnage...you just overestimate the candidates and elected officials. But you are open minded in values and spirit, even if the real meat isn't getting through.

I have seen there is something much worse than the above. Ever walk back into your elementary school in amazement..like everything is a miniature model of what you remember? That is how I felt tonight - like looking at the giant bubble in which I have always lived. I had always assumed the bubble was much larger than it is. I maybe never realized the degree someone can depend on tradition, consistency, and public opinion rather than thought. As if the word "conservative" or "Republican" is the constant, its ideas are permanently sound, and one can bury his head in the sand and permanently trust those words and all that is associated with them with little subsequent concern for thought or reason. As if the Democrats are evil and must be beaten no matter what, regardless of the candidate, the method. That all they need to do is find the one most "popular" and promote him regardless of record, ideas, or mental stability. And that it is appropriate to apply means contrary to your principles in order to perpetuate them. As a newly discovered independent I had the opportunity to observe something once familiar from the outside and now realize with greater precision the difficulty of the true battle that must be fought.

Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative. -John Stuart Mill

I think John may be right, but I think his particular environment shielded him from many ugly realities of life. He was home schooled and had hardly any experience with the exclusive and brutal nature of the popularity contest. Being correct is very often a disadvantage to free thought, especially in an environment of insecurity, fear, and unfamiliarity (elementary school). In many of these these cases, being nonthreatening and blindly cooperative is advantageous. And then when a group develops you have the choice to join them or be mocked by them. This persists pretty much throughout life. It is a strong incentive to keep your mouth shut - behavior practiced by plenty of individuals who are far from stupid.

I guess that is why I decided to ditch the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party and become an Independent. If I believe such organizations are perpetuating the type of behavior that violates the thought incentive, I am part of the problem by identifying with them. Should such superficial tags continue to be depended upon after their core principles have changed or become a retrograde of their origins? Is it possible that when this happens people don't notice because they have come to trust and become very attached to their particular group? Is it possible some didn't really understand the principles in the first place...benefited from the party's platform regardless of the principles? Had to choose between supporting a self-benefiting part of the platform while violating one of its principles?