What is the point of this article?

CIA's prison within a prison at Gitmo
Secret facility holds some al Qaeda detainees

Conspiracy theory du jour: George Soros and the inside circle at MoveOn.org are rounding up the socialist wing of the Democratic Party and purposely leading them to slaughter. This latest news from the mystical left is unbelievable and amazingly enjoyable to observe.

MoveOn to Democratic Party: 'We Own It'

After all the build up, Election Day 2004 is finally upon us - Rejoice and May the Best Lawyers Win.

George Bush, Rock Star

Living in the DC-Metro region, I have the pleasure (?) of listening to C-SPAN radio with much occasion. Since I am in front of a radio more often than a television, C-SPAN is my main my link to the presidential campaigns minus the spin or bias of network television.

After listening to a number of presidential campaign stump speeches, I have concluded that George Bush is a rock star on the road, whereas John Kerry sounds more like a Catholic priest brutally extolling us (Bush) for our sins. Certainly, Bush speeches are more fun to listen to. Kerry's hammering is at times painful (both in its ability to bore and the numerous contrivances he serves up to battle the flip-flop label).

Even if Bush's call for individual responsibility is mere lip service, it’s not the type of talk one typically hears out of Kerry. I like how Bush does his best to explain even his big government outlays as ways to shift decision making away from Washington, DC and back to you and I.

Bush – Kerry Debate – Where the Smart Money is Going

Futures markets were born out of a desire for businesses to hedge against the uncertainty of various factors affecting their business. As futures and derivatives have become ever more important to business stability, more and more markets have been created. It was only a matter of time before markets were created around the expected outcome of political campaigns.

Intrade.com bills itself as “the future of trading.” The genius of this site is that it is the first company that has successfully created and captured the market for political event outcomes. In effect, members of the market exchange are putting their money where their mouths are in terms of whom they expect to win the presidential election, providing quite a different perspective than any Gallup or CNN/Time Warner poll on whom the likely winner of the campaign will be.

Here is how it works. If you choose to buy one George Bush re-election contract, currently priced at 65.9 “points” and he does win the election, that contract settles at 100 points. Each point costs a dime. In other words, you can buy a contract for $6.59 and, if Bush wins, get back $10.00 for each contract purchased, creating a profit of $3.31 per contract (minus a 4 cent per contract commission). The post-debate market currently puts the odds of a Bush victory at roughly 66%.

John Kerry options are currently priced at 36.0 points and are neutral two hours after the debate. That puts the potential profit at 6.40 per contract, with the market-determined odds of a Kerry victory significantly less than his opponent. That’s a nice return, if you can get it. But there is a reason why greater risks demand greater returns.

We will soon see how accurate a gauge of political reality the market makers utilizing Intrade.com are. I suspect the pundits have new competition: options traders.

I have a friend who works for LL Bean taking phone orders from their catalogs. He personally took two calls this weekend from people who are boycotting Beans because they advertise on CBS. Supposedly his two calls were two out of hundreds fielded by Bean's employees since Rathergate. LL Bean put up a special notice telling employees to forward such calls to PR. It is an interesting fallout I did not consider. It is an amazing fall from grace, isn't it?

My friend explained how one conversation went. "We both agreed that Rather is an idiot...but there was another employee sitting beside me getting really mad because she was obviously a hippy granola type."

Germany has an astonishingly depressing political landscape. How and why should new businesses develop in such an environment? If the highly-unemployed younger generation thought they had it bad now, and if the above article is any indication of where they are headed, they haven't seen anything yet. The German people are truly on The Road to Serfdom.

Bush = Hitler = Kerry = Stalin = Huh?

In our attempt to highlight the absurdity equating President Bush with Hitler, here is our rendition of Red Kerry. He makes for a nice Stalin, does't he?

Dan Rather is an early casualty in the war over truth in reporting

There is a war under way for truth in reporting and a defiant Dan Rather is about to become one of the first foot soldiers fighting for Big Media to go down. It is quickly becoming common knowledge that Dan Rather and CBS’s 60 Minutes rushed to judgment regarding the authenticity of Texas National Guard documents potentially damaging to President Bush’s reelection campaign. Rather has unapologetically defended the report, seemingly oblivious to the magnitude of his error and the damage it is going to cause CBS. The fact that Americans are more and more concerned about the authenticity and implications of the 60 Minutes report than the content of the documents is evidence that accuracy in reporting is the big story of this election session.

Ten years ago, the 60 Minutes story most likely would have caused its political damage without challenge. Those with legitimate questions over the authenticity of the documents did not have the ability to reach a wide enough mass of people to matter. Information travels so quickly today that, thanks to Matt Drudge, millions of Americans were hours ahead of the major news networks on this story, all wondering loudly through their own outlets (blogs, websites, et al) why no one was reporting this breakthrough.

The battle lines of this very public battle are drawn and the number of casualties is striking and rapidly on the rise. On the offensive are citizens who desire truth in reporting, many of whom are only recently realizing that the media they grew up respecting may not be worthy of their trust. Entrenched and on the defensive are the Dan Rathers of the world – the media elite.

Books exploring bias in the media have repeatedly reached the tops of the charts over the past few years. Websites devoted to debunking misinformation and exposing bias are spouting up every day. The clear majority of Americans no longer trust Big Media to report the truth. Now that there are thousands upon thousands of alternative sources to read and interpret the news, Big Media’s days are numbered.

The fall from grace has been in the works for years, but is accelerating as more people come to understand the power of the Internet for news gathering and fact checking. The NY Times started crumbling under the weight of the Jayson Blair scandal and internal squabbles over the future direction of the grey lady have been embarrassingly public. USA Today has suffered material damage through the exploits of Steven Glass, while hints of deeper troubles within the nation’s most popular newspaper were exposed. The once revered Boston Globe has taken a beating for its similar penchant for publishing falsities. 60 Minutes will never again garner the audience it once enjoyed. Dan Rather is offending millions who will never believe him again. Certainly, lies and distortions have existed since people started reporting the news; but now there is a way to expose cheaters and counter-balance the damage.

In the information age, where news and data flows to tens, thousands, or potentially millions of discerning citizens at the click of a mouse, getting away with a lie is infinitely more challenging than it ever was. Cheats, liars, and media monopolies beware!

YEAH!!

This is what you call trying WAY too hard...I am starting to feel bad for him. Do his handlers actually think these photo ops present a genuine human being?

I wrote about this problem of Kerry's on March 19. What's next? Lawn mower racing?? We can only guess how he will one-up his previous contrivances.

What would happen if such things were uttered, say, in a NYC mosque?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/05/wosse705.xml

I am curious if such statements are tantamount to the initation of force. If an act of terror is committed and he is proven indirectly culpable, can this man be arrested or destroyed? Perhaps his words have pushed a would-be terrorist already on the margin to commit an act of terror. Should such a thing be allowed to live?

Break down the motivations of such a statement. This animal is proposing moral equivilance to Great Britan's actions in Iraq with the Chechen rebels responsible for the death of 350 children, students, and parents. Certainly, the destruction of western civilization is his answer to his life-long feeling of inferiority. I suppose he has that much in common with 90% of the philosophy professors dominating our western universities; those who sordidly gorge themselves on the best and brightest of our fresh young minds so that they too can become monsters.

So, what do you do? Reject the mystic and work from there.

"It was fantastic," said Bismarck Decastillo, 39, a thrift store worker from the south Bronx. "The people protested, with freedom. When people can get together, we can do something."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/226610p-194667c.html

Congratulations to the protestors who thought blocking traffic in NYC by organzing a large number of bikes to stand in the middle of midtown Manhatten streets would be a great way to protest the RNC. Wow - you held up traffic and really accomplished "something!"

BTW, when you initiate force (which creating traffic snarls is), you cross the line - you are not "peaceful protesters" any more - you are mindless self-loathing idiots. If you want to accomplish "something," engage others in a discussion of ideas in a non-coercive fashion.

As election day nears, I am finding it quite a challenge to distinguish between the two major candidates.

Judge Robert Schnider is the democrat judge who might have just lost the election for John Kerry.

Editorial: Unsealing of divorce records a slippery slope
The unsealing of divorce court records of a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois could impact the presidential aspirations of Sen. John Kerry, who has his own divorce records under seal in Massachusetts.

I think it is safe to assume Kerry's divorce records will eventually be unsealed. All divorces are nasty, and Kerry's is rumored to be especially so. Could the sordid details of the divorce turn off a small percentage of those sitting on the fence? With the race expected to be as close as the 2000 election, it may just take a small percentage of turned-off voters to ultimately determine who wins this election.

Judge Schnider: "The openness of court files must be maintained, so that the public ..can be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and powerful."

While it was an effective way to destroy the repbulican Jack Ryan's senatorial bid, do you think the Judge considered the greater implications of his ruling?

Dork President

U.S. President George W. Bush wears headphones as he listens to the translation of French President Jacques Chirac's remarks during the opening session of the NATO summit Monday, June 28, 2004 in Istanbul, Turkey. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

The AP (espeically the foreign AP) just loves releasing the worst pictures of President Bush on the wire...this one is especially nice...

Onward and upward! Space elevators??

Try to watch this video (requires real player) and not smile or feel like a little kid again.

http://wid.ap.org/video/video/elevator.rm


This has been amazing month for space travel. A private rocket to space! and now this! What an age!

CNN
USA Today
ABC News
Sydney Morning Tribune
China Daily

"One can imagine how much inventiveness, daring and courage were necessary to realise such a plan. Like every feat of engineering, this success is proof of mankind's capacity for invention." - La Nouvelle Republique du Centre-Ouest


"Just like when early airplanes were flying in 1910, we didn't know what the benefits are, but we were doing it because it was fun." - Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites

In 15 years, he predicts, "space tourism will be a multibillion-dollar business." - Rattan

"After this flight, I don't think it will be hard to convince anyone that space tourism is within the grasp of normal people," Rutan says. One hurdle: there's no consensus in D.C. on how to regulate such vehicles. A bill that would treat them uniquely—without requiring the same level of safety as airplanes—is stalled in Congress. Newsday

I urge the State to just stay away from this one - not that they can really stop it. Let's roll!

What’s up with the Bush – Clinton Love fest?

"Over eight years, it was clear that Bill Clinton loved the job of the presidency," recently remarked President Bush upon Clinton’s return to the Whitehouse to see his portrait unveiled. "He filled this house with energy and joy. He's a man of enthusiasm and warmth, who could make a compelling case and effectively advance the causes that drew him to public service."

Clinton responded with similar compassion. "The president, by his generous words to Hillary and me today, has proved once again that in the end, we are held together by this grand system of ours that permits us to debate and struggle and fight for what we believe is right.”

Kind words, no doubt. But is it possible that there is a deeper motivation than a common exchange of pleasantries? Let me posit Bill Clinton may purposely be undermining John Kerry’s presidential aspirations. The latest Pew Research polls suggest Bush is turning back up in the polls. Perhaps Clinton’s remarks have convinced some of the swing voters who respected Clinton but have questions about Kerry.

There is more. Speaking at the launch of his book tour, Clinton offered a defense of Bush, saying "You have to give Bush credit, because he's just doing what he said he'd do during the campaign." This hardly sounds like the standard liberal mantra of “Bush lied to the American public.”

Describing his upcoming 60 minutes interview with the former president, Dan Rather is quoted as saying Clinton was "supportive" of President Bush on Iraq and his view of Bush "will surprise some people."

Assuming the election is down to the wire, consider the potential effect Clinton’s timely words and summer-long book tour might have on the Kerry team. Further, consider his motivation. Might he be keeping the door open for Hillary in 2008. As he is the consummate politician of our time, I wouldn’t put it past him.

The Statist's Creed
By MPH

We believe in one State,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of all that is good and just,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Ruler, the Lord Bill Clinton,
the only Son of State,
eternally begotten of the State,
State from State, Light from Light,
true State from true State,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the State.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from Little Rock:
by the power of the Mighty Vote
he became incarnate from the Ballot Box,
and was made Ruler.
For our sake he was crucified under a Right-wing Conspiracy;
he suffered humiliation and was impeached.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Constitution;
he ascended into the Oval Office
and is seated at the right hand of the State.
He will come again in glory to rule the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in Clinton, the Ruler, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the State and the Ballot Box.
With the State and the Vote he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy Ruler and State.
We acknowledge one State for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the Total State Domination,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Pretty sad commentary from Slate.com
The author, Ted Rall, can be emailed at: chet@rall.com
His website is http://www.tedrall.com/

"Going back to where they came from"
By Pat Buchanan
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38206

This is an interesting article on the neo-cons written by Pat Buchanan - the whole neo-con/conservative/libertarian/republican/socialist dynamic is so interesting. This article is certainly a good read if you are following this important saga.

Another attack on free enterprise: Banning Google’s Gmail


Gmail, the planned free e-mail service from Google, could be facing strong legal opposition in California. Another over-zealous, headline groping politician, Liz Figueroa of Freemont, California, apparently has a problem with Google and is taking a pot-shot at a company that owns the most popular internet property of all time. Google has the potential to be the next Microsoft, but not if people like Figueroa have anything to say about it.

In a brilliant move, Google has announced a free email service dubbed Gmail, offering users more storage space than they can possibly imagine using; 200 times as much as Yahoo!’s service – a full gigabyte of space! The catch is that Gmail’s computers will scan emails for keywords and place targeted advertising next to the message. This same strategy saved search engines from financial doom when Google (mimicking GoTo.com’s revolutionary concept) started placing targeted advertising next to search results, based on search keywords.

Senator Figueroa may not like the sound of a computer scanning her email for keywords and pushing back ads based on certain algorithms, but there are millions of people who understand there is nothing to fear and are eagerly awaiting this service. For this woman to push a law banning this service is beyond ignorance – it exposes her hatred of an amazingly successful private enterprise.

IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT – DON’T USE IT! YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN OTHERS FROM USING GMAIL!

Tell Senator Figueroa to keep her ignorant laws out of cyberspace. Email her at Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov.



Liz Figueroa
California State Senate
D-Fremont (District 10)
Hates Freedom

Kerry is only for free trade where his fortune is concerned

The most disturbing political attacks spewing from the droopy mouth of John Kerry are not the expected jibes over national security policy, but rather his stated disdain for free trade. Kerry’s economic ignorance aside, his anti-outsourcing routine is almost comical in light of the fact that his family’s lifeblood, Heinz Corporation, has outsourced 57 of their 79 factories to places like China, India, Singapore, Indonesia, and other such nations that Kerry exploits for political gain when decrying the loss of American jobs.

Expect Bush, Nader, and any other politicians with an interest in highlighting Kerry’s continuous string of hypocrisies to bring this embarrassing issue to light over the summer, even though there is nothing wrong with such business decisions.

The Heinz Corporation’s decision to open factories overseas is a perfect example of how a business can benefit from strategic placement of jobs where a competitive advantage exists. When more can be produced with fewer resources, everyone benefits. Putting government controls over trade will certainly benefit particular interest groups (and the pull-pusher politicians who pander to them), while hurting everyone else with higher prices. Tariffs are simply a tax on consuming international goods, while the dividends of that tax go to the protected group.

Consider this debate locally. Florida orange growers are in a constant battle with California orange growers. Both factions produce high quality oranges and typically compete on price. If free-trade amongst the American states were not protected under the US Constitution, it would be in the interest of California orange growers to advocate tariffs in other states against Florida oranges. Forced to charge higher prices for Florida oranges, consumers would quickly turn to California’s, certainly benefiting their industry, at the expense of the Florida industry and every consumer of oranges.

In 2001, the US government levied tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber imports. Immediately, certain mills in the USA came back online, and many in Canada were forced to shut down. The price of softwood lumber in the United States immediately went up by the same percentage as the tariff, hurting other industries reliant on softwood lumber (e.g. home construction). Ultimately, it was the consumer who paid the price – all to placate American labor lobbies and a handful of wealthy mill owners.

Kerry’s attacks on free trade are not only hypocritical, as he is a direct benefactor of open trade policies, but potentially dangerous if put into practice. One should feel bad for Heinz Corporation and the families employed by that institution as they are going to be unnecessarily scrutinized over the coming months for successfully meeting their moral obligation to protect shareholder wealth.

Kerry is really in tune with my fun side!




What is John Kerry doing!? Perhaps he is having second thoughts about this presidency thing and is trying everything he can to muddle his image. NY Times journalist David Halbfinger's latest column paints a comical picture of Kerry’s escape to Sun Valley, Idaho for some fun in the snow. I am sure Halbfinger plans to vote for Kerry, but the airy tone of the article exposes a general confusion over the merits of this latest PR stunt. First, we had to watch Kerry rip into Jay Leno’s studio on a Harley he had never before touched. If you thought he was out of his element on a bike, the AP photos of Kerry on a snowboard only serve to step up the hilarity.

Kerry is falling prey to the obvious over calculation he injects into every action he takes. Remember how foolish Bush made a similarly self-conscious Al Gore look in the 2000 debates? Soon you will hear the pundits explain how Kerry just has to be himself – but after 30 years in politics, he probably long ago forgot who that person is…

A Nader Solution for the Left That Will Not Fly

If the mainstream media is so concerned about a “Nader Nightmare” taking down their favored son, John Kerry, I have a simple counter-balance solution: highlight the Libertarian candidate. Certainly, libertarian ideals of freedom and non-initiation of force will appeal to a broad swath of voters who are fed up with both candidates, but have no interest in voting for the Marxist Nader. Of course, libertarianism is revolting to the leftist cowards hiding behind the institutional legitimacy of the NY Times and the litany of left-leaning outlets across the country.

Rather than hide behind the political double-speak Kerry spouts out in order win the hearts of voters, Nader has no problem clearly and publicly advocating Marx’s “Ten Planks of Communism,” almost word for word from the Communist Manifesto. The press will brand him “extreme” to induce fear in the electorate, but that word simply means “unelectable.” Instead, they push on for the Democrat instead, though behind closed doors, they would prefer a Nader presidency.

The problem for third-party candidates who advocate personal responsibility and an eradication of the welfare state is that the mainstream press corps ideologically agrees with the socialist Nader’s positions and hates any consistent message of individual freedom; they simply do not have the courage to admit this.

Because the dominant left-stream press cannot ideologically refute Nader’s positions, he is provided with just enough of a public voice to make a difference in the election. This creates a Catch-22 for the ideologically confused leftists who, above all else, do not want to lose to Bush. Hence, this confusion leads to the anti-Nader uproar from those who on the left who desire power and control of the presidency above their socialist ideals.

On the other hand, the mainstream press corps could not be more ideologically opposed to libertarianism and the rigorous protection of individual rights that weave the beautiful fabric of the United States of America. Out of a fear of entertaining a popular uprising for liberty, news editors around the country do not offer fair and balanced coverage to anti-leftists of any stripe. May they dig Kerry’s political grave in the process.

Is Western Civilization Superior?
Of course it is! The real question is, what is the most effective way to spread western values to people who are literally dying without them? Through force? Through free trade? Through the universities? (oh yeah, that's where they teach us about the evil of western civ - never mind)



Shiite Muslim Mohammed Jomahaa cuts the head of his son with a sword during the annual ritual to mark Ashoura Day in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, Tuesday March 2, 2004. Ashoura day marks the Shiite Muslim's commemoration of the 7th century killing of their most revered Saint Imam Hussein. Al Hussein was a grandson of Islam's prophet Mohammed and is a symbol of martyrdom for Shiites. (AP Photo/Mohammed Zaatari)

Martha Guilty of Highlighting Her Detractors Insecurities

Martha Stewart is now somehow guilty of one count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings, but the real conspiracy lies in the motives behind each party that tore down this woman. The only people who deserve to be behind bars are the envious scum who led to the destruction of one of the most productive and amazing women in the history of the world.

When it was obvious there was no case for the original charges of “insider trading,” the government parasites moved quickly to save face by trumping up charges, arguing that Martha lied about a crime they knew they could never prove she committed. The jury, filled with the same envious cruelty as the government prosecutors, bought the lie and today sealed Martha’s fate.

While the government has spent many millions of dollars prosecuting a woman who did not want to lose money (somehow a crime in America, of all places), it is hardly ever mentioned that Martha’s decision to sell the stock was actually a poor business decision. Imclone’s share price has since risen well beyond her original selling price. Regardless, the amount of stock in question is inconsequential since she committed no crime.

Martha created a multi-billion dollar enterprise out of nothing but her vision and determination. Her business genius and the profits she has generated have supported tens of thousands of families over many years. She has inspired millions of mere mortals around the globe to take pride in their possessions and encouraged people to enjoy the little things in life. Her legendary business accomplishments pale what most people will ever accomplish in a hundred lifetimes – and that is why those who lack a sense of self-esteem hate her.

The ideals and style that Martha espouses highlight within her detractors what they hate most about themselves. Instead of introspecting to discover why Martha makes them feel so badly, they only seek to destroy the menace, and that is their real motivation. Seek and destroy the “cause” of my problems, “since it can’t be my fault I hate myself.” What better weapon is there for a self-loather to take down their enemies, than the government’s monopoly on force? This is why so many scumbags are attracted to a career in politics – since they cannot convince you with a handshake to agree with them, they will force you to follow with government guns behind them.

Gay Marriage Debate - A State Created Problem

Recently, I wrote about the gay marriage debate and how the only solution is to return the practice to its private roots. I have received a lot of concurring and dissenting feedback. As I ponder my premises, I will restate the case that this touchy issue is a state created problem, and the only palatable solution is for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether.

Gay marriage proponents are locked in an argument with mainstream America over the language of our current marriage regulations, and both seek to either maintain or to extend the use of government force to fit their definition of the contract. The only fair answer is a complete deregulation of marriage – i.e. remove the state from having the power to define the contract.

By requiring a state license and sanctioning a specific definition of marriage, the state automatically excludes some specific sub-group from the process. At this time, gays do not fit the state’s definition, and that is what the Massachusetts and San Francisco courts are attempting to change. Even under the newly proposed definitions, polygamists and incestual partners remain excluded. I think the religious right sees the precedent this sets and, while I disagree with their fears, I can at least understand their position. The gay movement attempts to redefine current marriage regulations to include their sub-section of the population, ignoring other groups who might desire the same rights. This inconsistency deserves notice.

Assume the state agreed to a complete deregulation of marriage. Private parties would thereby create their own contract (much like a prenuptial agreement.) Marriage, as a sacrament or ceremony of a church would remain as it always has been. Any particular church would have the right to include or exclude whomever they choose from their specific ceremonies. For example, if the Catholic Church wants to bind a man and a woman into Holy Matrimony, and exclude two men from such a binding, that is their right, and in a free society, no state could force it otherwise. In addition, anyone would be allowed to enter into a secular "marriage" contract with whomever they like, calling it whatever they choose.

Further, the marriage contract would impose rights and restrictions only upon the people who sign it. The contract can make no demands upon a private third party or institution. If McDonalds signs an exclusive agreement to sell Coke products, they cannot tell Burger King which drinks they will sell. If a private institution wants to exclude a gay couple from participating in some action on their property, the gay couple’s marriage contract cannot impose upon that institution’s choice to do so.

Exclusion amongst private institutions is perfectly fine and must remain legal. Just as a non-Catholic is not allowed to accept holy communion; just as a non-Muslim is not allowed into Mecca; just as a non-Mormon is not allowed into a Mormon temple; just as a woman is not allowed to join the Augusta National Golf Course; just as a college frat is allowed to choose whom they want into their clan; just as I am not just given a Harvard MBA without being accepted, paying for and earning it; just as I can invite or exclude anyone I want into my home.

What these examples show is that this is a private property issue – and it is the real reason the major proponents of gay marriage (typically leftists) are refusing to identify this issue as such. Employing the property rights argument (which is the most powerful argument in their favor) is unpalatable because on nearly every other political issue, they are treading on such rights.

The religious right typically argues in favor of property rights, and if not for their mystical blindness to the nature of homosexuality, they would be forced to agree to this reasoning.

The mainstream gay movement must accept that marriage originated as a private practice (yes, between a man and a woman) – and they have to accept the fact that government force will not make the entire population approve of their lifestyle. They should demand their rights to contract with another individual of the same sex and demand that the government get out of the marriage regulation business, instead of changing the language of those regulations.

There are people who do not approve of others who smoke cigarettes. There are people who do not approve of all sorts of things - but this is America – in theory, we can do whatever we want, with whomever we want, so long as we do not impose the costs of our behavior upon others. A union, a contract, or a gay marriage does not impose upon the rights of any heterosexual individual, so long as the origin of that contract is private. The gay movement should identify this issue for what it is and give up trying to rewrite the regulations. If they choose this course of action, they can avoid making the same mistake the religious right is trying to push on them.

Deregulation is the only solution - but both sides are looking for state sanction (i.e. force) to push their beliefs on others. If the state does decide to redefine their definition marriage, it will not bother me one bit – but unless there is an honest dialogue that identifies the true source of this problem, many people are going to be unnecessarily hurt and upset by the final outcome.

Nader's Real Danger

Ralph Nader is a dangerous man. Indeed, he is a threat to the Republican-Democrat hegemony, but the real danger he poses exists because of his willingness to exploit the frustration people have with their ineffective government, all in order to push an even more dangerous regime upon us. While he properly identifies the natural results of an over bloated state apparatus, he assumes a tone of moral superiority while preaching that the answer to these problems is more government – though you will never hear him call his solution by its real name: socialism.

Nader is employing the subversive tactics utilized by intellectual thieves of all stripes – from the Stalins of the world, to Islam’s Mohammed, to the intellectually dishonest Noam Chomsky, to the Bible Belt’s Pat Robertson. These parasites suck in the masses by preaching half-truths, and once they have gained their audience’s trust, they indoctrinate, indoctrinate, indoctrinate.

Nader has risen to the status of a demigod in the eyes of a youthful, anti-establishment, and sometimes-intelligent crowd. Nader knows that his ideas appeal to people who feel the world is unjust (including their own private world) and are looking for answers. In other words, Nader is selling the religion of an Omnipotent State. Interestingly, the majority of his disciples are “atheists” who unwittingly and eagerly decry organized religion, wielding the Marxian “opiate of the masses” line, all the while oblivious to the irony of their own mysticisms. Instead of confession, prayer, or a pilgrimage to Mecca, Naderites are eager to partake in self-deprecation, toking marijuana, and Burning Man festivals. In fairness to the “individuals” that prescribe to the Nader medicine, I am not suggesting they lack for intelligence, though they should check their premises before their next self-righteous tirade against western civilization.

If you drink enough Nader elixir, you eventually believe that business interests are the bane of civilized society and that left unchecked, they will drive “the people” into ever greater poverty. This notion ignores 300 years of history, observing semi-free societies that have afforded a wealth to anyone willing to work that is today greater than kings of old. Any honest observer of political economy must now accept the superiority of private property and free markets to centrally planned socialist economies.

It is Nader’s impotency in the realm of productive employment that has driven him to a career of assaulting “corporate interests” as a “consumer advocate.” The values created by the corporations he decries make a mockery of his “accomplishments.” It is a lot easier to destroy, criticize, and mock than it is to create real values and inspire others to do the same.

I want to believe that Ralph is a tired remnant of the 20th century. Regardless, I am happy he has jumped in the race. He says what most democrats wish they could say and still be elected – the hegemony just will not stand for it yet. Maybe he will inadvertently open the door for more libertarian candidates down the road and at least he keeps it interesting. He may not smoke the preferred weed of his followers, but he was on such a high after ticking off democrats the last time around, why not give it another shot?

The Dutch Parliament has ordered the expulsion of over 26,000 asylum seekers, effectively kicking out thousands of people who escaped tyrannical governments in the hope of a better life. Certainly, Holland has a right to expel these people even if it is a shame. A good friend of mine escaped from Iran as a teenager (it is an amazing story) and ended up in Denmark and eventually in the United States. He is amazing success story and an irrepressible personality and had he not escaped to the free world, he would have been conscripted into the Iranian army to fight for and possibly die for something he did not believe in.

Certainly, many of the 26,000 seeking asylum have dreams of leading such a life and I hope they find refuge in neighboring countries. One hypocritical tidbit to come out of this article is a quote from the Human Rights Watch, calling the decision a "deportation law violating international standards." I am not sure which standards they are basing this opinion on – and it may or may not be true – but how can they say this with a straight face when they were no where to be found during the Elian Gonzalez affair?

The Human Rights Watch has the potential to serve a noble cause, but their definition of human rights is inconsistent and philosophically mucky. Unless they can define what they stand for, unfortunately, it is hard to take them seriously.

From the essay “Man’s Rights” by Ayn Rand:
“The concept of a 'right' pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”

From the HRW website:
“Since its formation in 1978, Human Rights Watch has focused mainly on upholding civil and political rights, but in the last decade we have increasingly addressed economic, social and cultural rights as well.”

Anytime you see the words social, economic, or cultural justice/rights, demand an identification of that person’s premises. If someone can not specifically define what those words mean, inconsistent action is inevitable.

Kudos to the HRW for identifying the atrocities of dictators around the world – now get into Iraq and LOUDLY demand an end to the murder of those leading the reconstruction effort. Demand a popular uprising against the terrorists. Demand an eradication of Syrian and Iranian nuclear threats to humanity. DEMAND and end to Palestinian suicide murderers. Until this group adopts a consistent and proper definition of human rights, we will continue to have to say “that’s nice, but where were you when….”

Divorce the State from Marriage

This entire gay marriage hubbub has me thinking. In modern civilization, the institution of family is unquestionably important for the health and happiness of every individual. Even if you disagree with gay marriage, you should be able to empathize with a gay person’s desire to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple. The issue is coming to a head, and whatever the outcome, I doubt there will be a revolutionary change in the way society at large operates. I am still interested in a positive outcome, which is why I decided to write this article.

Initially, I thought the final goal should be for gay couples to strive for a civil union that grants them the same rights as any married couple and to leave semantics alone. Keep the term “marriage” as it is, for a man and woman – and award the same exact rights to those who are willing to enter into a contract born of a love for another person of the same sex. I remain skeptical of the motivations of the militant gays who demand that semantics are important and argue vehemently that anything other than calling a gay union “marriage” is tantamount to bigotry of the worst kind. I feel such an approach hurts the cause for gay rights. Instead, by striving for rights versus semantics, the gay community can out flank their opponents. Such an approach will force any remaining opponents of the civil union concept to reveal their pure hatred of homosexuality.

Reduce this argument to the premise of marriage, particularly as a contract. When a couple decides to get married, they are not thinking in terms of a contract, say between business partners, but in reality, it is no different. The contract of marriage is a promise between to individuals to be faithful, to support and love one another forever, and to legally share possessions. If one or both parties break the contract, there are then grounds for a divorce. My question is why does the state have any say in whom is married at all? Perhaps it is the market liberal in me speaking, but I see no reason for the state to be involved in shaping the content of a marriage contract at all. Shouldn’t the state simply enforce the marriage/civil union contract as they would for any other legal and binding contract?

Would removing the state from defining the concept of marriage make it any less legitimate or important in stature? If anything, removing state controls over marriage will serve to strengthen the institution. Eliminating state sponsorship forces the couple to overtly consider the potential costs versus benefits of a marriage. As it stands today, some people are married simply for state benefits or without understanding the full ramifications of the act. Breaking up is hard to do – and much more painful once the vows have been stated. Moreover, do not forget the children; nothing is harder on a child than growing up in a broken family.

Removing the state also eliminates the debate over what types of couples are allowed to marry, unionize, or whatever you want to call it. Any two individuals can enter into any type contract they wish, so long as they are not infringing on someone else’s rights. Marriage will return to the churches and the government will no longer be able to discriminate. This solution eliminates the debate over semantics, which to me, is the greatest remaining barrier between the two sides.

In this country, you have a right to love a man, woman, or anything in between. If you want to attach contracted conditions to that love, that is your right in a free country. I am sure the initial popular reaction to this idea will be outrageous, but stop to think about it for a moment. If anyone can provide me with a reason the state should sanction and define and institution of marriage, please tell me.

In an interview in Elle magazine last June, Teresa Heinz Kerry recalled how she jokingly warned her former husband never to cheat on her" " I'll maim you." "Not kill you, just maim you."



Is this the "Real Deal?" As Matt Drudge would say, this story is "developing..."

Bush is in trouble – and it is entirely his own fault. Perhaps it is just politics, but from the sounds and history of John Kerry, I have very little faith in the democratic front-runner’s resolve to win the war on terror. He may be a war hero, but it was not long after his service that he was cavorting around with the traitor Jane Fonda. Never mind his desire to gut the intelligence budget after 911. His populist campaign tactics are disturbing, considering his old penchant to pull out the “Do you even know who I am?” line. However, this column is not about Kerry’s potential, but rather Bush’s self-inflicted potential demise.

The greatest mistake president Bush made when the conflict with Iraq was escalating was letting the left frame the terms of the Iraq argument. The mantra out of the Anti-Bush camp is “Where are the WMDs?” Yes, Clinton, Bush, Kerry and the rest of the Congress saw the same intelligence reports and were equally confident that the weapons everyone talked about truly existed. I honestly believe Bush is shocked that the stockpiles have yet to be found.

At the time, the threat of Saddam holding WMDs seemed like the easiest way to generate public support for an action the administration knew was necessary. Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of a dictator who has killed a million of his own people can scare the living hell out of people. I suppose the administration believes it would be much harder to explain what stabilization in the Middle East would mean for our national defense. Introducing freedom to a formerly oppressed country smack in the heart of the most dangerous region in the world will initiate a domino effect of freedom into neighboring countries that our guns never could achieve.

By not honestly shaping the debate around the greater picture (they might have tried, but they certainly failed), Bush has painted himself into a corner into which he need not be – he unknowingly lost a battle to the media who was eager to shape the issue in minds of the American public solely on WMDs. Now that there are questions about the intelligence regarding the number and whereabouts of these weapons, the war’s opponents are given a moral stature they do not deserve.

This is a complete PR failure and it will be a monumental challenge to convince the fence sitters who will decide this election that we were correct in eliminating the Saddam and the Bathist power structure. A gradual spin is already in the works, as witnessed on this Sunday’s Meet the Press, but I was not impressed.

Bush probably underestimated the American public. He had a responsibility to reveal the true motivations of his administration – I think he had the ability to convince us during the run-up to Iraq that we were justified in taking out Saddam, with the United Nations support or not. My approach would have played off Bush’s no nonsense style, and I would have openly discussed the long-term goals making sure that the existence of WMDs were simply a part of the equation – I think the Post-911 American public had the stomach for this had they known the facts.

This is the tune the administration should have been singing from day one:
"Saddam is a dangerous individual - he may or may not have WMDs, but he is certainly trying to acquire them. We know he has used them against his own people and would not hesitate to put them in the hands of those that would use them against Americans. In addition, Syria and Iran are both trying to obtain nuclear weapons – a potential disaster for world peace. It is imperative that we establish a blueprint for liberty in the Middle East and also have military forces in striking range of the Iran and Syria. In other words, we need to scare the living hell out of their governments so they give up their plans to acquire these weapons. WMDs in the hands of fascists is a disaster waiting to happen, and we have an obligation to protect the United States. Freeing Iraq is the first step in stabilizing the Middle East to eliminate the lifeblood of the terrorist networks”

Behind closed doors, this is the goal of the administration. Nevertheless, the truth is so politically incorrect in the eyes of some, that regardless of this being a matter of life and death, the administration felt they had to bow to common politics. They are currently ruing that decision, and I hope the spin establishes an approach of complete honesty – because regardless of what Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, or the anti-peace peace activists spout out, the cause is just.

Clark Papers Talk Politics And War
General Cites Pressure From Clinton Aides Over Kosovo Conflict
By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 7, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20226-2004Feb6

Wesley Clark is not going to win the Democratic nomination – but I sure am glad that he entered this race. The Washington Post is reporting an amazing breakout story this weekend, releasing the General’s comments to an official NATO historian regarding the political pressure from the White House to end the Kosovo campaign prematurely for political reasons. The Al Gore presidential campaign was scheduled to kick off, and the administration wanted a hurried up offensive in the Balkans, so not to interfere with more important issues (which of course, is retaining power). If this story gets some legs (which I am sure Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and the like will be loath to give it), this could be the most important story of the year. This is the ultimate bookend to the notion that Kosovo conflict was entirely a political creation – born out of the Clinton’s desire to deflect scrutiny during his impeachment days.

'There were those in the White House who said, 'Hey, look, you gotta finish the bombing before the Fourth of July weekend. That's the start of the next presidential campaign season, so stop it. It doesn't matter what you do, just turn it off. You don't have to win this thing, let it lie...' – Clark on White House pressure to end the conflict at any cost

"That's the flavor of it. 'It's not like this is a really serious problem.' It's like, 'Hey, let's jerk this guy's [Milosevic's] chain.' [Then,] 'Okay, we can't stand [it] anymore, it's too embarrassing politically,'”- Clark on his perceived notion of then National Security Adviser Sandy Berger’s opinion

There are tons of observations that need to be expounded upon – but I will merely summarize for respect of space and time.

1) When we heard the first headlines coming out of Kosovo, we were alerted to an “ethnic cleansing” lead by a dangerous despotic figure named Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia. Nearly 500,000 ethinic Albanians were killed in this “genocide,” and Clinton recognizing that this was not a threat to the United States, justified a devastating bombing campaign on Kosovo and Serbian forces as a humanitarian effort. Agree or disagree with the Iraq war, at least it was argued in terms of national defense.

2) Although never appropriately reported by the major western news media, independent research by a variety of countries and even the United Nations showed that after all was said and done (and thousands of innocents were killed and maimed by NATO bombing efforts), the half-a-million bodies never showed up – the “cleansing” amounted to less than 3,000 dead Albanians and zero mass graves. A civil war? Maybe. Ethnic cleansing? Not a chance. Clinton’s justification for action was entirely fabricated.

3) Millions of people worldwide have organized in loud protest to the U.S. action in Iraq against the regime of Saddam Hussein, a proven mass murderer. Yes, there were a handful of protestors crying foul over Kosovo (most prominently Amnesty International) – but the voice against the Kosovo bombing is akin to a cup of water in the Atlantic Ocean when compared to the furor over Iraq. To say this is hypocritical of the protestors is certainly fair – but more importantly, it exposes a twisted motive – you just have to identify their premises first.

4) If any self-respecting individual, fully aware of all the facts over Kosovo can defend Clinton’s actions as just – please make me aware of them.

5) Lastly, US General Wesley Clark, the NATO Commander of charge of the NATO bombing should scare the living hell out of anyone. If anyone should have been aware of the falsity of the charges of genocide, it should have been Clark – but instead of advocating a cease-fire (for Clinton-Gore political reasons or not), Clark was begging for ground troops and a massive occupation on the scale of Iraq. Dr. Strangelove, anyone?

My next blog entry will discuss the Bush administration’s public relations failure over Iraq.

What’s the difference?






Howard Dean revolutionized campaigning and raising funds online, but his penchant for spending money on an ineffective message of rage burned his cash in a fashion similar to the dot-com bombs that disintegrated many of his supporters. Nevertheless, a quick look at his competitor’s websites shows a stunning fear of good old “outside the box” thinking. Not that you would expect anything different in age of focus group campaigning. Put a different title and photo on each website and it is nearly impossible to tell the difference. Hilarious!

All four websites:
- have three columns
- have a campaign picture in the middle column
- have “Make a Contribution” button on the top of the right column
- an “official,” “community,” or straight up blog
- a reference to “Black History Month”
- “Photo Gallery”
- 3 of 4 state “campaign” (Kerry and Dean), “movement” (Edwards) “to change America”
- Calendars on 3 of 4 sites


What did I miss? Plenty, I am sure.

Speaking of Kerry, if it's true that he has been taking Botox injections to firm up his face, I predict the eventual slide could rival the fall of the Old Man of the Mountain.
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=32679


Kerry denied it Thursday, telling a Boston radio station he had "never even heard of it. Never heard of it."
Some skeptics wonder about what the definition of "it" is.
http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/national_politics/article/0,1426,MCA_15116_2615497,00.html


As he telephoned supporters around the country, Dean, a physician and the former governor of Vermont, glanced up and caught a glimpse of country singer Willie Nelson on television. "It looks like he had Botox injections, too," Dean remarked with a broad smile. After the laughter subsided, he quickly added: "I didn't say who the other person was. I didn't say who the other person was."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2004/02/01/democrat_dean_hints_at_rivals_wrinkle_rumors/


If someone turns up genuine evidence that Kerry has had Botox, it would be a disaster for his campaign.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2472982


"The big scandal today is John Kerry got this Botox treatment. I'm telling you, I always thought the mortician did a great job with John Kerry," Comedy Central's Colin Quinn joked yesterday. "But I didn't know that Botox could mix with embalming fluid. Frankly, I like just the embalming fluid. It gives a nicer look."
-Colin Quinn
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0131goodyprimary-CP.html

Kiss Your Cubicle Goodbye
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html
Kiss it goodbye? Or good riddance?

Meet the United States’ newest faux victim in its long line of faux victims – the American programmer and information technology employee. Ever since this month’s Wired Magazine placed an attractive Indian female on the cover along with the words “Kiss Your Cubicle Goodbye,” the idea that American high tech workers are facing desolation as more and more of their jobs are outsourced to Indian “IT Farms,” has been granted a degree of undeserved legitimacy. Expect to hear more and more about this as the year progresses and millions of more Indian workers and American businesses benefit from these cost saving initiatives.

In fact, I know some of those facing this desolation. My old company, CIENA, recently laid off a significant number of engineers and replaced the team with an Indian outsourcing company at 25% of the cost. And while there is undoubtedly a short-term discomfort with any layoff, the word is, almost all of those employees have found new and improved employment.

Just like Mexican workers who come to the United States to “steal our jobs,” the cost savings afforded to American businesses make us “leaner and meaner,” freeing up American capital and talent to create ever more interesting opportunities for all of us. There are currently a billion people in India and a billion more in China who will continue to “steal” our jobs. I wish there were a trillion of them.

At the dawn of the computer age, many intelligent people preached gloom and doom; altruistically warning us to beware of a future race of supercomputers which would obsolete human beings and drive the entire world’s wealth into the fewer and fewer hands that could still afford them. This notion was (and remains) derived from Marxist economic theory which states that the end game of capitalism is a greater concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands while every day, more and more people are left by the wayside. That millions of people still cling to this theory is pure blasphemy to reality. Rather than being left by the wayside, millions are getting in on this good action ($).

These sorts of people said the same thing about industrial machinery replacing farm labor. Raise your hand if you would rather be tilling the soil right now or reading my blog.

Trade and new technology has always freed us up to lead more and more interesting lives. If you want to spend your time degrading the very freedom that has given you the time to contemplate and share your disfigured view of reality, that is your prerogative.

Throughout history, there have been certain subversive individuals chiefly responsible for creating, cultivating and finally manipulating particular groups of people to achieve their own ends – and one of the most effective tools for cultivating masses behind a would-be dictator’s cause is to paint that person as a victim. A victim of “the system,” a victim of “race,” of “the Jews,” of “the almighty dollar,” of “religious persecution,” of “technology,” of your “parents,” of “men,” of “gun manufacturers,” “a fast food culture,” and on and on.

This latest uproar over Asian labor simply needs to be identified for what it is. The manipulators desire to curb the individuality out of some of the most individualistic members of the new economy – the computer geeks. I am not falling for it.

This nonsense will eventually cease. I look forward to seeing this culture of victimization becoming the final victim.

I knew Matt Drudge would get this story out – I just did not realize his method would be so similar to mine. After I posted my thoughts on Kerry’s obvious facial enhancements, I sent Mr. Drudge a link to my blog, hoping to influence his take on the subject (and maybe get a link out of it). I was woken up this morning by my friend Ryan who was shocked by the similarity of Drudge’s photo arrangement, underscored by the headline “New and Improved Kerry Takes New Hampshire!” to what I had posted on Sunday. Obviously, I was not the only person to send Drudge information on the Kerry/Botox phenomenon – but I may have helped inspire the headline. Who knows?!

Drudge tops my commentary by obtaining and posting the following audio excerpt from a Kerry interview on Boston’s WRKO 680AM.
http://drudgereport.com/kerry.mp3

Kerry is asked to “categorically” deny “the reports that he has used Botox or any other cosmetic surgery.” Kerry twice repeats that he has “never even heard of it,” and in effect dismisses it as a useless story. Hmm…

I believe Kerry may have done himself a great (or may I say, grave) disservice by claiming ignorance. Perhaps his upgraded appearance is simply the work of a great makeup artist. Regardless, can he really get away with saying he has never even heard of Botox? His wife certainly has made no secret of her love affair with the drug and his campaign is being peppered with a steadily increasing number of questions about his upgraded appearance. “Never even heard of it?” Come on, John F’ing Kerry…

Many politicians still underestimate the power of the Internet to carry a story – but this is going to be another lesson in why getting away with a lie is a hell of a lot harder in 2004 than it was in 1974. Thirty years ago, this story might have created a passing interest in a few curious souls, but those interested in digging deeper did not have the ability to connect with other like-minded individuals also interested in the story behind the story. If the producers at the major news networks did not think it warranted further inquiry, it would eventually die away, or perhaps not even see any light of day at all. The net allows for stories to create a massive momentum through the sheer multitude of cooperative interest in any given subject – and this can happen almost overnight, particularly when the story has national implications. And there is nothing Peter Jennings can do about it…

Undoubtedly, Kerry was not expecting Drudge to obtain a copy of this local interview and broadcast it to ten million people, many of whom are lying it wait to discover an inconsistency in his candidacy. People love taking down the king of the mountain and Kerry is a king in trouble. Just like the Dean Scream, this is going to blow up in a way that Kerry is not prepared for (or else, he would have used a more honest approach to the radio question). Trust me. This is going to be the next national obsession of the moment – and it will not go away until there is a resolution and/or casualties (Kerry’s campaign, perhaps?).

“Kerry is looking better these days, not only in the race, but in the face. Word is that he recently had a few botox injections around the eyes”

I laughed aloud when my friend, Don Fulsom, sent me an email with that line in it. I have paid as much attention as one can tolerate to the Democratic race to see who will lose to W. Of the hours spent listening to the candidates repeat each other (and proudly boasting the new mantra – “I am candidateXYZ, and I approve this message”), one thing I couldn’t help but notice was how much better John Kerry is looking compared to the last time I cared to watch him tell us why he would be a better ruler of men than the Bushmaster.

Before Iowa, it appeared Kerry was going to be steamrolled by the Dean Machine – and his face looked about as healthy as his poll numbers. I saw Clinton the midnight before his reelection in ’96 at an airport hanger in Bangor, Maine and I thought I would never see baggy eyes like that again in my life – and until Kerry hit the scene, I was correct in that assumption.

But wait…Have you seen John Kerry 2.0 yet? With his slick new look, I almost thought he was competing with the Governator for the most favored politician amongst the 37-year old single mother demographic – but when Don mentioned the Botox rumors, it all made sense, except for the fact that Drudge hadn’t shot gunned that tidbit it to the world weeks ago when it was first noticed that Kerry looked ready for a red carpet stroll hand-in-hand with J-Lo. I did a Google news search and found that this rumor indeed has been floating around, though it is strongly denied by the Kerry campaign. I Photoshopped this comparison photo.


You to be the judge. Is this just extremely good makeup, or did Teresa Heinz-Kerry dip into her thirty-year supply of Botox and share a hit with her husband?

Simply amazing! Imagine staring at a 23-foot high-definition panoramic wrap-around digital screen - seeing real people on the "other side" looking at you - and then conversing with them in real-time, even though they may be thousands of miles away? This is the awesome vision of Austrian cameraman and entrepreneur, Andreas Traint, and he calls it Tholos.



Like the accelerating future of which it may become a part, Tholos’ wonder -- and its meaning -- are founded on the personal.

Read more about it:
Reason Magazine Article
Tholos Systems

Do we need more politicians? Any right minded individual may be induced to vomit at the thought…but I came across the following editorial originally published in the LA Times:

“How to Fix Politics? Believe It or Not, More Politicians”
By George Kenney

In short, Mr. Kenney explains that elected congressional representatives in the House of Representatives currently represent about 670,000 citizens each. This is such a significant number that legislators quickly lose touch with the people who voted them in, special interests have a greater power than they deserve, and campaigns become so expensive that regular Joes and Janes can not afford to run for office. Increasing the number of representatives can go a long way to establishing faith in our government, redefining representative democracy, and eradicating the power elites who claim to be from Kennesaw, Wisconsin, but really only desire to be in DC “doing the people’s work.” Mr. Kenny proclaims that a five-fold increase in the number of reps, with a long-range goal of one rep for every 100K citizens would be ideal.

“The only way to restore genuine democratic representation is a substantial, long-overdue increase in the size of the House.”

I agree. Though with technology, why not make that one rep per 50K, or 20k, or 10? Read on…

Like I stated, I love this idea, but I would like to take it one-step further (and I would be willing to assist in the effort to make this a reality). The logistics of 3,000 representatives and their staffs running around Washington, DC is scary. Why not let them work from home?

What would keep representatives from working together over a decentralized network, right from an office in the heart of their constituencies? Perhaps they could travel to DC a few times a year for meetings, but other than that, all communication and voting would happen literally at the local level. A few advantages off the top of my head:

1) Such an arrangement would instantly make it harder for special interests to corral representatives and write legislation to their own ends.
2) Smaller constituencies = less power to the individual rep, which makes the job less appealing to the DC-lifers and power-mongers who merely desire the glitz and glam of the job and see the job as a stepping-stone up to their next government job.
3) Keeping the reps out of Washington and with the people they are supposed to be representing increases the usefulness of democracy. I guess you can call it “Power to the people.” (even though I hate that term).
4) Increased opportunities to third parties such as libertarians, greenies/commies, reformists, etc. to win elections and bring fresh ideas to the stale demopublican government monopoly.
5) How awesome would it be to strip people like Tom Delay (bling-bling, spendy, spendy), Nancy Pelosi (Clintonista-wannabe) or Tom Allen (George Mitchell-wannabe) to 1/5th or less of the power they currently possess? Drool…

Welcome to the new blog. I had a few friends encourage me to start one up and I thought it might be enjoyable to put my thoughts out there to see what kind of response they might generate. I’ve always thought I lived a few years in the future - I had an ICQ number in the low thousands, I created that rate-a-buddy and hot or not sensation back in ‘98, and I am currently reshaping the way we look at public schools over at RateMyTeachers.com, but I’ve been late to the blog party. Well, better late than never. Since today is Martin Luther King Day, I will devote this first entry to the subject of race and MLK himself.

There is only one solution to racism - individualism. From a political perspective, that means granting no distinctions based on race. To judge an individual based on something they cannot control (skin color) is indicative of a failure to use the mind and an attempt to circumvent reality. Be wary of any government action that makes racial distinctions, yet claims itself to be necessary to eradicate racism

Dr. King is a sacred icon in American culture, loved by just about everyone. To question his ethics, motivations, and the possible consequences of his ideas, can easily make sensible people uncomfortable. If one has the courage to look a step beyond King’s best work, the excellent “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” one discovers that ideals King advocated in both his public and private life had little to do with advocating a nation where people would “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

What was the content of King’s character? First, King’s adulterous lifestyle is little publicized. Publicly, King decried communism, but kept a roomful of red-sympathizing advisers. But, would a man that lied to his wife and children worry about lying to members of the public? As a preacher, King advocated a lifestyle that he was incapable of leading – and I believe he sought power over other men as a means to compensate for his wounded self-esteem.

King advocated racist measures, such as quotas, redistribution, and reparations, to solve racism. But collectivism begets collectivism, and today power-lusters use the same rhetoric used 40 years ago. If he King were alive today, he would be hard to distinguish from the race-baiting, power-lusting Jesse Jackson.

One final note that beguiles me - Dr. King is hailed as a champion of movements on both the left and right. Republicans and democrats alike attempt to claim him as one of their own. Trust me, King would not be voting for W in 2004. However, many people on the right are afraid to question the motives of the beloved Dr. King because of the myth of his greatness so dominates our culture. Instead, they attempt to shape some of his better quotes to argue their own beliefs. On the other side, people on the left who cherish King and all the associated racist government measures that go along with the movement are typically motivated by guilt, most likely caused by their inability to see the world in a color-blind manner - so they advocate destructive laws supposedly created to eliminate racism. People who blindly support these laws do so out of an emotional need to justify their own confusion about race – it is much easier to blame those problems on someone else. Certainly, racism is alive and well in this country, but in our free and global economy, any individual driven to succeed, black, white, pink, or Michael Jackson, can find a niche, or create their own.