Friday, March 19, 2004

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…

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

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.

Saturday, March 06, 2004

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)

Friday, March 05, 2004

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.

Wednesday, March 03, 2004

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.