The Z Spot

Why Every Capitalist Should Think Like a Lefty

2011-11-26T13:19:00.000-08:00

So I recently lost my job, and wound up getting one in L.A., rather than staying in Vegas. The funny part is, I got really, really excited about my new job, my new company, and everything it stands for, even though it is usually pretty associated with the left.

My new job is at a craft beer bar and restaurant with a very local, sustainable focus. All but five of our 72 beers are CA craft beers. All of them are on draft. Even our wine comes in kegs, to reduce waste. Our entire menu is locally sourced, with an emphasis on local, small, sustainable farmers. This is like a hippy's wet dream.

Thinking about it, though, it should also be every Libertarian, economic conservative, or free market Republican's wet dream too. Part of the reason we should not feel bad about deregulating, or about cutting social services is that we should insist that the free market is capable of "doing the right thing," without regulation and over-taxation. That is, we would wind up donating more to charity if so much of our hard-earned income didn't get taken away for welfare and social security programs. Businesses would have an incentive to protect the environment, and the rights of workers, especially in today's world of free flowing information, if the government let competition take its toll.

My question is this, though. How many Republicans or Libertarians have made a conscious choice to buy responsibly, or to help a charity, recently? Let's put our money where our mouth is.

I'm not really huge on the environment, or on animal rights. So why is local, sustainable, vegan-friendly dining such a big deal to me? The human rights aspect. Last time I took a class on this, the world produces enough food to feed its population three times The issue is not a lack of resources. It is an uneven distribution and supply chain. The vast majority of food produced in "developing" nations (poor places), goes to the U.S. market. Moreover, a lot of it is not consumed by humans as food. Instead, it goes into gasoline as ethanol, or gets fed to our livestock in factory-scaled farms. By buying locally sourced, grass-fed food, we leave more grain in those poor countries to support their populations. I guess it is also more humane, and more green, but more importantly, it is a good step toward basic human rights.

Prove the left wrong and prove that the free market can be green, humane, and compassionate. Donate some time or money this holiday season, do your Christmas shopping at a local small business, or eat a meal you know was sourced locally.

Occupy Oakland and Wells Fargo

2011-11-18T20:58:00.000-08:00

So this story really cracked me up the other day when I saw it. But when I thought about it, it made me sad and mad, more than anything. Occupy Oakland's depositing their money at a large, "Wall Street" bank highlights three major problems, two with the movement, and one with our society.
First, the movement doesn't really seem to be asking for anything, or protesting anything in particular. It's really very interesting. There are thousands of people across the country camping out in intersections, parks, and empty lots, and nobody is quite sure why. They're protesting Wall Street and the big corporations (especially the banks). Well, what exactly are they protesting? And when exactly are they going to leave? When Wall Street or its banks cease to exist? When they lose control over the U.S. and global economy? Is there an official measurement for how much influence a particular group of companies has on our economy and politics? Is it going to end when everybody is happy? My guess is people will be camping for a while. The movement is so un-focused that the closest thing that they have to a clear target was just given a large deposit by one of its "chapters." With no focus, and with so many people unemployed (and therefor otherwise un-comitted), plan on being Occcupied for a while.

The second problem is another problem with the movement. There is no real action involved. If every single person who is currently parked on their ass in an intersection or a park, or who is donating money, or posting supportive comments on Facebook, Twitter, or a blog right now, or is otherwise involved in Occupying Wall Street, L.A., Chicago, or Lincoln, Nebraska, would get up and do two things, we could effect real change. First, vote for someone other than a Democrat or Republican for at least a state-wide office. Second, close your accounts with Wells Fargo, Chase, Citi, U.S. Bank, etc. Open accounts at a local credit union. Get your loans through microlending sites like LendingClub.com. The amount of money that would leave the big system, and the amount of votes that could collectively be sent just to send a message, would be a real force for change. Although, one wonders what the bank account of someone who has been sitting in a park for three months looks like.

Finally, this is irritating because of what it says about our society. Even these protesters went straight to a major bank to drop off their check. I feel like our society has become one where morally, socially, politically, and environmentally responsible choices are more plentiful and more convenient each and every day. Yet we are part of a generation that thinks only about what's easiest and works best in the moment. Depositing this money with a credit union could not possibly have taken that much longer than finding the nearest unoccupied Wells Fargo. Even those who are supposedly more politically and socially conscious couldn't be bothered though. They found somewhere "easy" to put the money until they figured it out. We're a generation that does what's easy, and then when we get caught, or it catches up to us, go back and fix it later.

This maneuver was both amusing and a little depressing. Thanks a bunch, Occupy Oakland.

Free Trade Agreements and Libertarianism

2011-09-24T17:17:00.000-07:00

So this is an issue that I think all Libertarians should consider (along with targeted tax breaks). I guess it comes down to how idealistic we are versus how pragmatic we are as Libertarians.

I saw this link, but the speech itself is not really what poses the question.

The question is, from a Libertarian perspective, are free trade agreements a good or a bad thing? The good side is fairly obvious. Free trade is a good thing. It encourages competition, and reinforces the rights of business owners (both here and abroad) to practice their business as they wish to.

The bad side is a little more complex. Yes, free trade is a good thing. Financially, and for the individuals in the countries involved, or American businesspeople who do business with them, this is obviously a very Libertarian step.

On the other hand, the idea of individual bilateral free trade agreements is very anti-Libertarian, anti-free market, and anti-capitalistic. Instead of removing regulation and leveling the playing field, it creates an even more stark, government-induced contrast between the restrictions different sets of business owners face.

It creates two classes of international countries, and with them, two classes of American businesses. That is, those businesses who choose to do business with countries we have free trade with, and businesses who choose to do business with other countries.

In short, if lower government regulation is what we think of as Libertarian ideals, then I guess these agreements are a gift.

If, on the other hand, less government involvement in our individual and business lives is what we see as Libertarian, this is terrible. I would rather have more regulations, but have them be simple, and consistent, than have no restrictions for some countries, but a government web of individualized agreements with other nations. Am I a bad Libertarian?

Another Reason to Support Ron Paul

2011-09-24T13:06:00.000-07:00

I saw this video the other day. Now, I know only Ron Paul was given the opportunity to answer this question, so it may seem unfair to use his answer as a reason to support him. But ask yourself, what would the other candidates have said?

Paul is the only candidate, from either party, who seems to have a really firm grasp on the whole Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a genuine interest in enforcing it. If we want a return to a free country, made up of united states, not one big state, Ron Paul is the best candidate for our country.

Asthmatics vs. The Ozone

2011-09-23T23:46:00.000-07:00

This was shocking to me. Our government, and apparently the international community, value the ozone over the lives of asthmatics. This is what happens when a society becomes over regulated. There is no effective, OTC alternative to this medication, yet our government has decided that asthmatics should not have access to it.

The only non-CFC-containing alternative medication is not approved for market yet, which is a whole different issue with over-regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.

Imagine that someone is traveling. They are away from their regular doctor, and their insurance company (through a local company) charges huge prices for visits to out-of-network doctors and clinics. The airline loses their son's bag, which has his inhaler. The family now has to put their vacation on hold, find a doctor, pay huge doctor's bills, and wait for a scrip to be filled, because we were worried about the small effect that an OTC inhaler has on the ozone.

This is another example of our government's harmful effects, especially when they put being "green" over the interests of our people.

Obama Encouraging Union Harrassment

2011-09-22T17:17:00.000-07:00

I saw this the other day, and although the public comment period is now closed, I found it important enough that I had to share it, so that we can at least be aware of what's going on in our government.

First of all, it's very scary that the DoL is collecting this information about replacement workers and making it available to the unions. Although, in reality, most unions, especially in right to work states, have clauses in their CBAs requiring employers to give up names, addresses, and other personal information, of anyone hired to work in a CBA-covered position.

The scarier part to me is that we have just raised the debt ceiling, and given a very unclear, non-specific, almost certainly doomed-for-failure mandate to reduce government spending. Our national debt and deficit problem is growing. Why are we paying government officials to due unions' dirty work, and collect the names and information of scabs to pass along to the unions?

Oh wait, more government jobs. That's just what the economy needs. Hire more useless, pointless, government employees paid on taxpayers' dimes to work. But make it better. Their job is actually to make it more difficult and scary for people to go to work in the private sector. That's right. A strike or lockout is a huge opportunity for the millions of unemployed people in this country who are desperate to feed their families to cross the lines and actually earn (read, not be entitled to because of Union membership or seniority, but EARN) a living. We now want to help the unions discourage them from doing just that. This is absurd.

Surveillence State

2011-09-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

I saw this a few days ago, and it really hit me. This is a big part of why I am a Libertarian. Although our current government may not be out to harm us, the technology available to it is scary. All it would take would be one individual in the White House, Congress, or any of an ever-growing number of arms of the federal bureaucracy with less than kind intentions to turn this technology against us.

A state, or, for that matter, any other organization, which has the ability to monitor someone's every moves is only one short step away from controlling that individual. Especially in our technology-driven world, where blogging, Tweeting, Facebooking, and texting are such large parts of our lives, this is scary. The government can literally see where any American is planning on meeting their friends later this evening, what they had for dinner, who they took a photo with at the bar last night. They can see your personal conflicts with friends, family, or your boss. They can even tell whether you liked last night's episode of Glee.

Almost as concerning as the government's ability to collect this information is the fact that with our benevolent government, this is all useless information. A true conspiracy theorist, or a pessimist, might fear that our government has sinister motives for wanting this information. As an optimist, I believe that our government has no intention of misusing this information. Why, then, are we paying thousands of people to collect and sift through it? Why are we spending millions of dollars developing the technology to assist in this task? As government debt and deficit rises, why are we wasting this money?

Just as importantly, there are actually bad people out there (within the U.S. and abroad). As a highly trained, highly educated specialist sifts through my personal life via Facebook, this blog, Twitter, and my texts, how many of those bad people and their bad plans are slipping through the cracks? As our government collects massive amounts of voice and text data from millions of American citizens, how many phone calls or messages planning the next major attack on America are sitting in a backlog of data somewhere?

Obama on the Seals and Seal Team 6

2011-08-25T01:41:00.000-07:00

I saw this the other day and found it interesting. Just some more examples of "candidate" Obama differing dramatically from President Obama. It will be interesting if he starts to switch back into candidate mode now.

It's interesting because to the extent that his administration has been successful, it has been largely by not following through on his own campaign promises. Guantanamo was not closed. We got valuable information out of Guantanamo. Obamacare is a reality. Because he did not work across the aisle to achieve consensus, and because he did not bring "change" to the political system. Change would have been a common sense, plain English bill that legislators on both sides had carefully considered, and had come to a consensus on. Instead, you have leading Democratic lawmakers saying that they will find out what's in the bill once it is passed. You have the President posing for "bi-partisan" photo ops with Republican lawmakers, telling them his plans, and refusing to consider their suggested changes.

We are still in the recession, and the two wars in the Middle East. We have also gotten involved in Libya. Guantanamo is still operational. Politics in America is still a game of partisan chicken now that one house is controlled by the GOP. Has Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises?

Why the Libertarian Party Should Nominate Ron Paul

2011-08-19T14:33:00.000-07:00

Alright. So, as a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, here's my plan and advice for 2012.

Keep in mind I live in a closed primary state. I cannot caucus as a Republican unless I officially change my party affiliation before the caucus, which I might actually do.

The Libertarian party should nominate Ron Paul. Why nominate a traitor, you ask?

Well, there's a few reasons. First, the matter of principles. Although Ron Paul may have left the Libertarian Party, he still holds firm in many Libertarian beliefs. Best example? Ron Paul has been an outspoken opponent of the U.S.'s Middle Eastern wars since 2001.

There is nothing in either law or the LP bylaws which states that candidate must actually be a party member in order to be nominated on the Libertarian ticket.

Second of all, practicality.

Best case scenario for Libertarians (and small "l" libertarians as well) is Ron Paul actually wins the Republican nomination. A candidate can appear on the ballot with multiple nominations. If this happens, one of two things happens, depending on each individual state's election laws. Either the candidate appears twice on the ballot, with each party's name, or the candidate appears once with both parties.

Scenario a) the candidate still gets the votes from both names. We could actually have a Liberty minded president in 2013. More importantly, the LP could leverage these states to show how popular Libertarian ideas actually are. Although Ron Paul, Libertarian, would appear below Ron Paul, Republican, on the ballot, both votes count the same (for who wins the office). On the other hand, the total per party is calculated separately. In this case, the Libertarians could appeal to Republican voters to choose the Libertarian Ron Paul if they hold Libertarian values. Without the risk of them "wasting votes" or "stealing votes" from Obama's opponent, they could still vote for the same candidate but express their true, Liberty-minded, political opinion at the same time. Since Ron Paul's own campaign, and the Republican Party, would likely be paying most of his campaign expenses, Republicans could focus on these states and voter education to encourage voters to vote for Ron Paul, Libertarian.

In Scenario b), the candidate only appears once. Sharing a nominee with a major party would mean a lot of "Libertarian" votes. Which could potentially help with ballot access issues, as well as raise general awareness. Just seeing the name of our party next to one of the two real contenders in a presidential election will arouse a lot of curiosity.

Now, the other possibility is that Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination and wins the Libertarian nomination. Should Paul have a strong showing in the Republican primaries, but not win, he might choose to actively campaign as an independent, or, more to the point, Third Party, candidate. With the huge amount of fundraising he is sure to do leading up to the primaries, this could provide the LP with significant sources of campaign funding. Moreover, as shown by the whole Ron Paul rEVOLUTION thing, he has many, many, very devoted followers. Although most will surely vote for the "lesser of two evils," some are actually Democrats or Independents, and some are hardcore liberty-minded Republicans, all of who might very well choose to support Ron Paul over the Republican nominee. It is doubtful this would be enough votes to win the election. But it might very well be enough to get the Libertarian Party some attention, and, more importantly, to have the "largest third party in America," be viewed as a viable political force and option.

Is our government addicted to spending?

2011-08-04T12:58:00.000-07:00

I saw this article by former Libertarian VP nominee Wayne Allyn Root and it raised an interesting prospect. Is our nation's spending problem the national version of an addiction?

Let's look at it. Like the alcoholic who takes the first sip, we started collecting taxes to build roads, schools, etc. Then, when our nation hit hard times (like the Great Depression), we needed more. The government "needed" to help the unemployed. We started giving out welfare. Which required more taxes. We started government-funded infrastructure projects to both employee people and improve our economic infrastructure. We needed more taxes. Maybe it started off as an addiction.

But to me, our government's spending problem is more like methadone treatment for a heroine addict. We are in an economic crisis. Instead of cutting off our spending, we redirect it. The government is about to hit its debt ceiling. The private market has stopped creating new American jobs. We borrowed too much money, and now our economy is on the verge of collapse, largely because we borrowed too much. Well, what do our elected officials do? Do they stop spending? No, they continue spending. They redirect their spending to more "healthy" and "productive" outlets, like... extending unemployment benefits. Continuing to hire more "czars" and "advisers" to build our President's national monument to the Chicago Democratic machine. Giving cash to first time home buyers. Giving cash to people to buy "greener" cars. Giving cash to companies that create "greener" jobs. Where has it gotten us?

Just like a junky who is in the hospital for heroin use, and leaves just as stoned (although perhaps less at risk for diseases, ODs, and antisocial behavior) on methadone, our economy is still screwed. We are in the hospital for debt, overspending, and economic restrictions which make us uncompetitive in the labor and industrial market places. We are leaving with more debt, but this time it is debt in the service of "sustainability" "redistribution of wealth," and "social justice."

The solution is not to spend on different things. The solution is to stop using. For our government, that means stop spending.

American Animal Farm?

2011-08-03T17:01:00.000-07:00

I read this post the other day, and it really got me thinking. I like to think that I am less biased and right-wing than a lot of other bloggers out there, even the ones I sometimes agree with. This particular post reinforces those thoughts. Although I think this is a little bit too far on the anti-Communist scale for the 21st century, the overall message is one I agree with.

Let's be honest. The President and Democrats acted as if the debt crisis was a must-be-avoided situation. As if, on August 2nd, if the debt ceiling was not raised, our entire country would collapse. Obviously, social security and medicare recipients, as well as veterans, might not get their checks if the debt ceiling wasn't raised.

Instead of refuting these scare tactics, the Republicans we elected to office agreed. Their point was not that any of these "inevitable" tragedies were not really inevitable. Their argument was that they were, in fact, inevitable, and that the Republican-majority House would block any efforts to avoid them that did not include significant spending cuts.

Now let's look at the reality. There is, in fact, an alternative to the "inevitable" tragedies quoted by the Obama administration. 4 out of every 10 dollars we spend are borrowed. Which means that the government could continue to operate with 60% of its funding. Do we really think that social security, medicare, and active duty and veteran pay and benefits add up to more than 60% of government spending?

What if, instead, extended unemployment benefits were cut off, retired Congressional pension payments were suspended, or Congressmen got paid 10% less or temporarily worked without pay? What if federal bureaucrats were laid off or asked to work temporarily without pay? Unfathomable? FAA inspectors and air traffic controllers are already doing it! If the people responsible for the safety of every person to fly in American airspace can work without pay, surely the people we elected to make tough choices, who have caused the enormous deficit which causes this problem, could do the same? After all, can anyone argue that FAA inspectors and controllers caused the debt crisis? How about Congressmen? Can anyone argue that retirees, who faithfully paid into social security out of every paycheck for the last 40+ years of their adult life caused our bankruptcy? How about the legislators who have resisted social security reform, even though we have known for decades that the system would eventually run out of money?

Democrats threatened inevitable tragedies to the most vulnerable and/or deserving people in our country. Republicans agreed and used this as leverage. In the end, we have just extended our credit limit without cutting back our spending. In reality, neither side grew a pair large enough to make the tough choices necessary to fix the long term problems of our debt and deficit economy.

Were the veterans, the retired, and the disabled really saved? Or were the elected representatives, making their livings and receiving health and retirement packages most of us could only dream of at our expense, saved? Maybe it's time for a bigger change and more hope than Obama, or the Republicans, ever asked or hoped for.

Obama's Stance on Libya

2011-05-31T18:40:00.000-07:00

This is a few days old, and I'm going to be very brief here, but does this remind anyone else of the start of the Vietnam War?

What starts as a non-combat role soon turns into a few dozen military advisers, and then thousands. This is wrong. The idea behind the lag between authorizing military force and declaring actual war is to allow the military to respond swiftly to a direct, time sensitive threat on our national security, not to allow the POTUS to impose his/our political goals on the rest of the world without Congressional approval. Shame on you, Obama.

On bin Laden's killing

2011-05-25T20:27:00.000-07:00

This subject, as well as this post are somewhat old now, but important enough that I still feel I should comment on them.

Let me preface this by saying that I don't miss bin Laden's life at all. I am perfectly content that he is no longer with us.

I do, however, agree with some of the points Ron Paul made, as well as have some of my own as to why this was carried out incorrectly.

First of all, there are international norms. First and foremost is sovereignty. We had no business sending military and intelligence personnel inside of another country and essentially assassinating someone without at least asking for the host country to arrest him first. Unless there was a credible reason to believe that the security of the information would have been threatened by involving Pakistan, that country's government should have been involved.

Second, from a norms and moral standpoint, capturing an enemy is always preferable to killing an enemy. Osama should have been arrested, not shot.

On the same note, Osama lead a movement based on a religion (radical Islam, not all Islam) which still believes in martyrs. The men bin Laden funded and trained to carry out the 9/11 attacks gave up their lives fighting for their cause. They are considered heros by radical Muslims. By killing bin Laden in a military attack, we have made him a martyr. By capturing him and putting him on trial in a U.S., Western style court, we would have brought about his end through the very system he has spent his whole life fighting. This would have been a much more clear message to terrorists around the world.

Quite frankly, between the anger over his death and our blatant disregard for the sovereignty of the Pakistani government, and the fact that he died a martyr, I am a little surprised that nobody has stepped up and publicly claimed the leadership of al Qaeda yet. I also doubt that we will see the anniversary of bin Laden's death without another major terrorist attack. We have enraged radical Muslims, and given bin Laden the hero's death so many of his followers actively seek. Do we really think this was the best way to handle the situation?

General Criticism of Moral Politics

2011-05-04T21:45:00.000-07:00

So far, I've discussed in my last two posts my issues with Moral Politics and its handling of Libertarianism. There is a far more general, larger problem with the book, however. Although the author exposes his political bias both at the beginning and at the end of his work, even without his explicit acknowledgement, it would be fairly obvious.

He is right to repeatedly use the disclaimer that he is speaking of "central" cases, and that there is such a thing as an "ideal case." His bias, however, clearly affects what he views as both the central and ideal cases of the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent models of family values, which lead to certain moral worldviews, and thus, certain political worldviews.

In particular, his view of the nurturant parent model seems much more central, and ideal, than what he points to as the real, central case of the strict father parenting model.

The style of parenting which he calls strict father parenting, and which he points to as a large part of his reasoning for being liberal, would seem extreme to many strict parents. In fact, he debunks with the idea of strict father parenting (and thus, conservative politics) largely by quoting the religious right in their parenting manuals which support physical punishment, often extreme physical punishment, and then citing research which shows the negative long term affects of physical punishment.

Many conservative, traditional, or otherwise strict families believe in and use strict parenting, without physical contact, and certainly without abusive physical contact. Many strict families also do not value the maintenance of moral order over all other values. The most obvious example that came to mind reading this section is a severe, and troubling one. Would most traditional families really punish a female child for accusing an older male relative of molesting and/or raping her? While this is a common fear of many victims, that they will be accused of lying, or blamed for the attack, very few parents, if they believed their daughters, would punish her for speaking out. According to the image painted in Moral Politics all strict father parents would.

Moreover, I can tell you, that while there were certainly nurturant aspects of my upbringing, being raised by my mother who worked a lot of hours, in a big city, it was mostly strict parent child rearing. I was spanked once, when I was three. But I was punished for breaking the rules. I was allowed to debate with my mother, and to ask questions, or ask for exceptions to rules. But, for example, when I was in high school, my curfew was generally 10 p.m. If I wanted to go to a concert that didn't end until 12, meaning I would get home at around 1 a.m., I could ask my mother. I could explain it was a band I really wanted to see. I could tell her I would be right home after the concert. Sometimes she would agree, sometimes she wouldn't. When she didn't, 10 p.m. it was. I was home at 10, and I knew that there would be consequences to my actions if I was not. Never physical violence, but punishment.

Although I was only spanked once, I was often disciplined, even in public. I was taught manners very early. Keep in mind that I did not grow up in Las Vegas, but in the more temperate Midwest. If I misbehaved at a restaurants, my parents would warn me once. If I couldn't behave appropriately for a restaurant, I wouldn't eat in a restaurant. If I continued fidgeting, running around, crying, playing with my food, throwing a tantrum, or whatever other inappropriate behavior I had engaged in, they would take me to the car, roll down the windows a bit, and lock me in until our food came. They would then ask for the food to go, and we would eat it at home. This was obviously a punishment for disobeying them, as well as disobeying society's norms, or "the moral order." It was not physical agression.

I was not allowed to eat dessert if I didn't finish my main meal. If I was bad, I went to bed early and without watching TV. If I broke something at school, I paid for it out of my allowance and was not allowed to go out and use my allowance for anything fun until it was paid for. None of these sound like nurturant parent parenting to me. Yet, only once was a finger lifted in disciplining me. And it was not by the more active parent in my childhood.

I would argue that most conservatives, or even liberals and moderates who believe in strict father child raising, had similar experiences. We were respected, and allowed a voice in the family discussion. But when our parents made up their minds, we knew they meant it. They were the boss. And we knew there would be immediate, non-negotiable punishment for disobeying them. A strict parent can be strict without being physically violent. This simple reality invalidates most of the author's arguments in favor of liberalism.

Finally, to look at the biased and unfair treatment of these two systems by the author, we need only look at the titles he has given the two models. They are loaded with moral judgment for the liberal, or even modern, reader. The idea of a "Strict Father" parenting model screams sexism. "Nurturant Parent" on the other hand points toward an egalitarian, PC, modern-style family arrangement. The reality is that "parents" can be strict, and "fathers" can be nurturant.

Lakoff presents an interesting way of looking at politics, but perhaps because politics and political science are not his specialty, his bias is obvious throughout the book, inhibiting him from providing a truly balanced view using his paradigm.

More on Moral Politics and Libertarians

2011-04-29T21:59:00.000-07:00

So, having re-read all of Moral Politics, the author actually specifically addresses Libertarians within his frame of thought. And it is even more irritating than what I thought was his total emission.

First of all, he covers Libertarianism in all of one page. Second, he uses that page to basically say, "Libertarians won't admit it, but they are Conservatives at heart." His argument is lacking in several aspects.

First, he defeats it with his own arguments. His explanation of Libertarianism is that inherent with "Strict Father" (i.e. Conservative) morality and politics is the inherent reality that a) a strict father raises his children that way so that once they are mature, they can be self reliant, and b) there is resentment from an adult child whose father is overly intrusive and does not allow him to "sink or swim" in adulthood. Libertarians focus, rather than on other aspects of Strict Father morality, on this resentment of the overly-intrusive father figure (i.e. the government). Well, that would seem to make sense, except for a couple things. First, this is a side effect of the Strict Father morality and politics, not a central issue of it. Focusing on a side effect of the system does not mean Libertarians buy into the system. Second of all, according to his own explanation of Strict Father morality, and why Conservatives can support policies that don't seem to actually achieve their ends, he brushes this off, as saying that, in Strict Father morality, preservation of Strict Father morality is always priority number one. So, if his explanation of the priorities of Strict Father morality is true, then Libertarians cannot truly be a part of this, if their emphasis is on removing an overly-strict father from the picture, rather than on preserving absolute adherence to Strict Father values.

Although he does not address it in his discussion of Libertarians specifically, the author dismisses the idea that Libertarians, or anyone else, could have a political theory based on something other than either "Strict Father" or "Nurturant Parent" family-based morality. He argues that because the family is biologically and socially our primary point of reference, it is impossible to look at morality without considering the family. And, because politics is necessarily moral, it is therefor impossible to have a political theory not based on morality, and thus on the family. This argument looks bullet proof at first glance. Upon a closer look, however, it is faulty. This would be equivalent to saying that because physical nutrition is our foremost requirement, everything we do, think, or say, must be based on food. Just because something ranks high on our ladder of priorities as individuals and a society does not mean everything below it must be based on it. It just means that, at the end of the day, if it comes down to food or family, we take food. If it comes down to our family's survival or our moral values, we choose family. Look, for instance, at conservative families who embrace their gay and lesbian children. They place their family over their personal moral values.

Yes, our political discourse is filled with references to the family. It is also filled with references to money, war, sex, relationships, geography, death, survival and dozens of other things. This does not mean it is based on any one of these things. It means that either a) they are all factors, b) our politicians are skilled at using terminology that will pull at people's deepest instinctual and emotional strings, or c) some combination of the two. In sciences, and even in social sciences, there are two questions too often overlooked by people trying (consciously or subconsciously) to prove a point. First, is the relationship causal, and second, which direction does the causation run? While Moral Politics lays out a relationship between family values, morality, and politics, it does not answer either of these questions. Are the three linked by a causal relationship? Do family values lead to morality to politics, or some combination of them? Or are they all just such large factors of our lives that they inherently cross paths and influence each other? If we accept that there is, in fact, a causal relationship, which way does that run. Do people hold the values they hold because of their family values? Or do we raise our children a certain way because of our political and/or moral outlook? The book does not adequately answer any of these questions.

Finally, even if we accept that Conservatives are Conservative and Liberals are Liberal because of their respective systems of child-rearing and the moral values those systems instill, it does not mean that every political ideology will necessarily be based on a family-based moral outlook. Even if we accept that they all are, however, there is no evidence to support the idea that these are the only two ways of raising children, or the only two systems of moral values that guide child-rearing.

In short, the author has laid out a wonderful hypothesis. It's time to prove it. Using links and value hierarchies, however, does not prove a causal, much less an exclusive causal relationship.

I would argue that Libertarianism could just as (if not more) easily be viewed as a Nurturant political system as a Strict political system. In fact, it is based on the (according to the work Nurturant) idea that we should be able to make our own choices, and choose to be creative, to express ourselves, etc. There is also another factor. Libertarians believe that perhaps the government is not the best at nurturing its citizens. Libertarians support private charity, small businesses creating jobs, freedom of expression to express ideas and educate each other through art, etc. Perhaps, then, Libertarians fit within our own family values system. Perhaps it is the Nurturant Sibling, or Orphan, family morality which guides Libertarians. Like families who have been neglected by parents, where an older sibling supports and raises a younger sibling, Libertarians may feel our government has not been there to provide the nurturing "upbringing" it was supposed to. Despite years of over-regulation, social welfare programs, public education, arts education, etc. look at where we are? We are soon to be overtaken as the world's largest economy. A (relatively) small dip in the world markets has left millions unemployed and kicked out of their homes. The poverty rate in our country is still abysmal for a country which consumes so much. Perhaps the Libertarian philosophy is that our parents (the federal government), our foster parents (local governments and government subsidized big business), and the system have let us down. It's time for them to back off and let the big siblings, who have done well, create jobs, education, and other infrastructure, and nurture our "younger siblings" who need a little extra help.

The Truth About Education and Teachers' Unions

2011-04-14T20:46:00.000-07:00

This is an old article, but important enough that I'm still going to write on it. Basically, it goes into the numbers and debunks the myth that teachers' unions lead to better schools. More interestingly, it uses statistics and facts usually hailed by liberal and progressive groups to do so.

In short, liberals are claiming that unionized teachers create better schools. The argument debunks this, pointing out that, in fact, what makes a lot of the model states for this argument either rank well or poorly on education is actually socioeconomic makeup.

Again, to me, the most interesting part of this is that this is a typically liberal argument about education and equality, particularly racial equality. Statistically speaking, poor and minority students don't do as well, and their school districts don't rank as well. The states at the bottom end of the achievement scale have largely poor or minority students, while those at the top have largely middle and upper class white students.

The blogger actually goes a step further and breaks down test scores within each state by race. In fact, many of the non-union states' white students do quite well. It is the effect of combining these scores with the larger minority populations which make the overall state averages lower.

As the author points out, there are several reasons minority students don't do as well. They tend to come from less wealthy, and less educated families, who have survived without the benefit of a college education. They are less likely, therefore, to think that a college degree, and the success it requires in high school to get one, are entirely necessary to survive in today's economy. They also likely come from communities without a lot of well-educated role models. They are less likely to know that if they do well in high school, they will be able to afford to go to college, or to a top tier college.

Many minority groups (with the exclusion of black and Native American groups), also face the increased challenge of many of their members not living in English as a first language households. Not being raised in an English-speaking home can negatively affect performance both in school and on standardized tests.

Finally, there has long been an argument that standardized tests themselves contain a racial bias. While this may be hard to believe, it is quite plausible. Much of these tests revolves around reading comprehension, mathematical word problems, etc. While these are noble attempts to allow students to apply their knowledge in a real world setting, for those who grew up in less affluent areas, or in an ethnic enclave, these backgrounds can be anything but "real world."

Let's not get started on the issue of school funding. The schools most in need of help often receive the least funding, as they are in poorer neighborhoods.

All of these issues add up to explain why minorities don't do as well on standardized tests. This explains far more about nationwide education rankings than the presence or absence of teachers' unions. Instead of trying to fight for or against teachers' unions to improve student performance, perhaps we should focus on making real changes in our education system. Offering school vouchers to allow students and parents to choose the best school for their child. Improving inner city and minority-populated schools. Rewriting standardized tests to be a fair representation of a student's knowledge and intelligence, rather than biased toward those with a fortunate upbringing. Allowing non-traditional teaching methods into the classroom. Rewarding teachers for their performance, not their length of service. All of these are issues which will close the achievement gap, and raise the bottom-ranked states up the national education ladder. Coincidentally, many of these are ideas which teachers' unions oppose.

How Libertarians are Different

2011-03-28T11:15:00.000-07:00

So every once in a while, I like to reread my college books. One that I just started to reread is Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think. It's interesting, because now with my own political views more shaped, even just from the introductory chapter, a lot makes sense.

The basic premise of the book explains why both of the major parties are so similar on so many major issues, and why their basic philosophical stances are so similar. It also explains why the Libertarian party is so different from the Republicans and Democrats.

The basic premise of the book is that our political thoughts are shaped by a series of metaphors based on morality, and, particularly, family morality. According to the author, Republicans believe in a strict father family model, and the Democrats believe in a nurturing parent model. Nevermind the obvious bias in implying that the Republican view is inherently more sexist than the Democratic view.

The key is that both of these thoughts are based on the premise of our nation as a child, and the government as its parent. This view, according to Libertarians is flawed. We are not one child. We are a collection of millions of individual adults. Who should be free to make our own decisions without being concerned about what our government thinks. Moreover, as the author of the book points out, the words for parents have multiple connotations. One is the figure that raises and nurtures a child, another is the genetic figure.

This last explanation provides further support to the idea that the Republican and Democratic models are fundamentally flawed. Our government did not sire, birth, parent, or otherwise create us. We created it. If anything, we should be the strict father or nurturing parent to our government, not the other way around.

The alarming part of my thoughts on this book as it relates to Libertarianism is that it also explains why we will probably never be as successful as the major parties have been in mainstream politics. The author of the book is not a political scientist, but a cognitive linguist. This field concerns itself with explaining the basic functioning of the human mind. The author's argument is that everything we do, think, and say, is based in a metaphorical relationship between that action or thought (in this case politics), our moral values, and our experiential well-being.

The concerning part is that even if we can recognize that the Libertarian view is more emotionally detached, logical, and reason-based than the major political systems, this is not how an election is won. The metaphorical and emotional ties are what win votes.

More On Walker's Union Busting

2011-03-05T03:17:00.000-08:00

Alright. So here's another reason that I strongly oppose Governor Scott Walker's anti-Union "Budget Repair Bill" in Wisconsin.

The poor targeting of state employees.

To start with, let's stick to the assumption that collective bargaining unit-represented state employees really are the problem. Let's look at the two glaring exceptions to the now collective bargaining except for wages proposal. Police and firefighters. Who happen to be the highest paid Union-represented public employees. If the bill is really about the budget, these should be the first employees targeted. Yes, their jobs are essential to the basic operations of a state or local government, even by the most Libertarian standards. Yes, their jobs are incredibly dangerous (some of them). In fact, many police and firefighters put their lives on the line, literally, every day, in order to ensure the security of ours. This post does not mean I do not appreciate or support those efforts. But let's look at the numbers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police, detective, and firefighter base pay ranges in the high 50's to high 70's, without longevity adjustments. This is not counting benefits. Teachers, on the other hand, with the exception of higher education, range in the mid 30's. Also, benefits, understandably, are considerably more expensive for police and firefighters. In fact, many police and fire fighters are eligible for retirement after 20 years of service. Yes, that's right. For a 21 year old entering the field, that means that they are eligible for retirement at age 41. Fair enough, given the physically strenuous nature of their jobs. Unlike most non-union, private sector jobs, however, which are fixed contribution plans, these retirement plans are generally fixed benefit plans. Which means that these employees, regardless of length of service, amount contributed by them, their Union, or their employer, will receive a fixed monthly amount for the remainder of their lives. Regardless of how long that may be. How much is this fixed amount? Often 50% of their pay as of retirement. Yes, that is correct. A 41 year old police or firefighter can be making $60,000+ a year (ignoring the raises they get for longevity, so more likely in the $80,000 range), retire, never work another day again, and make $30,000 a year (again, more likely $40,000+) until they die at the ripe old age of 112. Moreover, union employees are almost universally eligible for overtime pay. Teachers tend to work on annual salaries (not eligible for overtime), and with the exception of special circumstances (special events, weather or illness related issues), teachers, public transit workers, administrative workers, etc. should not be regularly getting overtime, unless it is due to poor management. Police and firefighters, on the other hand, are eligible for overtime pay, and, due to the nature of their jobs, can reasonably be expected to receive that overtime. If this bill is really about repairing the budget, and not about sticking it to unions, why are the most costly union workers being left untouched?

Let's now look at teachers. No, their jobs are not particularly dangerous. They also are not particularly rewarding from an economic standpoint. Low incomes, little career advancement opportunity, etc. Many people argue that paying teachers what we do, when they only work 9 months a year, is unreasonable. How many companies do you know of that will hire a grown adult for seasonal employment at a reasonable wage? Many teachers would be more than willing to work 12 years, if the work were available. It is a decision of the school boards (mind you, school boards controlled by their employers) to run a 9-month school system. Through no fault of their own, teachers have been restricted to doing their chosen work (except for a few offered pennies to instruct summer school classes) 9 months a year. Unlike bears, teachers do not hibernate. Especially during the summer. Just because we have determined that vacationing, camp, and little league are more important uses of the nice summer weather than education our children does not mean teachers stop paying rent, eating, or paying off their student loans. Moreover, if the argument behind excluding firefighters and police is that they fulfill an essential government function, after police and fire protection, I believe even most hardcore Libertarians would agree that at least a minimal public education is an essential government function.

My guess, were you to ask Walker supporters these tough questions, would be that they would argue that the danger of inflaming the police and firefighters unions is higher than that in inflaming teachers and other public employee unions. My response would be twofold. First of all, from an immediate safety standpoint, that may be true. From a long-term economic effect standpoint, this is utterly false. One year, or even one semester, without public schools could set Wisconsin's education system, and economy, back for years. Moreover, the economic effect of having hundreds of thousands of children at home without school to go to for a semester or a year would be huge. Second, this argument is all the more reason that police and firefighter unions should at least be considered eligible to have collective bargaining rights stricken. Without a union, if police and firefighters were upset with their working conditions, what are the chances of a work stoppage that actually affected operations of their departments? Yes, most union contracts include no-strike clauses, and I would wager that labor stoppages by public employees are illegal in the state of Wisconsin. This has not, however, stopped Unions before. When contracts expire, the no-strike clauses go with them. Given the physical, mental, and training requirements for police and firefighters, the prospects of firing any unionized, striking employees before a new CBA was negotiated are slim to none (that is typically the threat employers use to prevent work stoppages during CBA negotiation lapses). Moreover, the law against public employee strikes has proven ineffective in the state of Wisconsin before. How many times have Teachers Assistants and other UW System employees gone on strike, and not been punished by either the University or the State? I tend to think that a strike of police and firefighters is a highly, highly unlikely scenario. If, however, even the threat of this is a factor in their exclusion from the "budgetary microscope," the reality needs to be re-evaluated.

Now, let's stop taking for granted that Unions are the problem here. Let's question that basic assumption of Walker's bills. Yes, there are non-teacher, non-police, and non-firefighting union employees working for the State of Wisconsin, and its local and municipal governments. But there are countless more non-Union employees. From a Libertarian perspective, and from the perspective traditionally flaunted by Republicans, big government is a problem. This is supported by simple business management and economic knowledge as well. A 3% pay cut for all employees in the state will not have the same long term benefits as a 3% cut to the number of employees. It's just that simple. Take a department. We'll call it Local School District X. When we cut the pay, the pension contributions, or the health insurance requirements for all 100 employees of School District X by, say $300, we have saved $30,000. The savings are only $30,000. We still have to pay insurance, licensing, basic benefits, etc. for all 100 employees. Next year, we will likely give all employees a cost of living increase of 2.5%, plus some performance based increases, etc. If, on the other hand, we realize that there are 2 employees whose only job is to photocopy homework assignments for teachers, and we can eliminate one of those positions, we can save $30,000 in pay. We can also save 33% of that, or about another $10,000, in benefits. This is a conservative estimate, as it is the standard used in the more efficient, less worker friendly private sector. We can also save on a phone line, office supplies, physical plant and maintenance costs for one office. Next year, we will continue to see the savings, as we are not paying this employee, or giving them performance or inflation based raises. We have also actually increased the efficiency of Local School District X, and forced them to work with 99 employees, rather than 100. These employees all still make the same amount of money as they were before, and generally their morale will be only slightly less than what it was before.

The reality of it is that the cost of running our government is not mostly due to teachers, firefighters, police officers, or even bus drivers. The cost is mostly due to a bloated bureaucracy. Moreover, an even larger majority of what most Republicans, Libertarians and fiscal conservatives would consider wasteful government spending comes from this bureaucracy and the non-transparent financial situation it creates. It does not come from overpaying people in admittedly needed, typically unionized, public service positions. It comes from paying people (even if it is less than their organized counterparts) to do things that either don't need to be done, or don't need to be done by the government.

Having worked with financial and personnel decisions while on the UW Campus, I've seen first hand what positions are "classified" (i.e. bargaining unit) and "unclassified." From janitors to TAs, to research assistants, classified positions all due things clearly essential to the operation of the University. Unclassified staff do such things as photocopy, answer phones, schedule meetings for other people, etc. Often these people's workloads could easily be increased through more efficient operation. Other unclassified staff include administrators. How many deans, assistant principles, etc. does one school or University need? If anything, because the positions must generally go through both Union and employer approvals, bargaining unit positions are more carefully vetted than their non-union equivalents. Sure, there is fat that could be trimmed from Union positions as well. But "big government" (which the Republicans stand up against in campaigns, but rarely in office) is not really a problem of union employees doing the dirty work (whether it's driving a bus, putting out fires, patrolling the streets, cleaning a toilet, or teaching a class). It's a problem of the paper pushers (some of whom are covered by CBAs, but many of whom are not). In fact, even when pay and benefits are being compared between public and private sectors, the only employees who it can accurately be compared for tend to be non-union, or at least not part of the four big unionized areas which seem to receive the most media attention (police, firefighters, teachers, and public transit). Police officers may make more than the average private sector employee with a comparable (often high school or Associates degree) education. Do they make more than someone professionally trained in criminal investigation, physical fitness, first aid and lifesaving, dangerous and defensive driving, and firearms safety and usage? Is there a comparable profession which requires the extensive, although perhaps not University-provided, training that police officers go through? Or which requires one to put their life on the line, entering unknown and potentially dangerous situations as a daily routine? In fact, many police officers, military members, fire fighters, etc. can find jobs in the private sector. And if these jobs involve the same risk that their old professions did (think private military companies, etc.) they are often much better compensated than they were as public employees.

Public sector teachers may make more than their private sector equivalents. Are the jobs really comparable? Can a public school say, "no, this person is not entering with high enough test scores, we don't want them?" By taking every student in a district, are public school teachers given a pass on the expectation that their students do well at the end of the day? Can a public school refuse to take more students simply because the average class size has risen above 15? Can a public school expel a child whose behavior makes them a distraction, or even a threat, to the other students, themselves, or their teachers? Do public schools do extensive background checks on their students and their families, providing some measure of safety and security for their teachers?

Do city bus drivers make more than cab drivers?

The four most-attacked public service professions do jobs that we cannot possibly compare to any private sector equivalent. So comparing their compensation is also unreasonable.

The bottom line is this. The problem with the state budget in Wisconsin (and everywhere else) is not union wages. It is an inflated government bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that pays people to "regulate," "observe" and evaluate every minute aspect of people's business and personal lives. It is a bureaucracy that has more people sitting behind desks pushing paper than actually out interacting with the public they are paid to serve. It is a bureaucracy which, partly due to unions, and partly due to the nature of politics, tends to be eager to add new functions and departments, but rarely evaluates if those departments are still needed, running efficiently, or worth the money spent on them. It is a bureaucracy which uses the prior year's budget as a starting point, and builds (almost always up) off of that for each department. The solution is not to limit wages and benefits of all state employees, union or not. It is to get rid of some state employees entirely, mainly the ones that provide little or no tangible benefits to the citizens of the state of Wisconsin.

Let's just briefly point out one example of exactly the kind of thing which causes government budget problems. Conveniently, this is a proposal of the very same Governor who is "repairing" the state budget. In fact, this proposal was worked into the very same budget "repair" bill. Any guesses? Yes, that's right. The proposal to separate UW-Madison from the UW System. I haven't read the details of this. Even if we give Walker the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he put this on paper in a way that would remain budget neutral, long term, that's not going to happen. The reason that government agencies (including colleges and universities) that serve similar purposes are often consolidated is because of a duplication of services. And the idea of "shared services." For instance, state fleet vehicles. Yes, the system and UW-Madison will probably need the same number of vehicles, regardless of whether they are one system or two. On the other hand, insurance rates are likely to go up when the risk pool gets split in two. The people who account for the location, condition, and maintenance of these vehicles will now be working for two different employers. Which most likely means that the UW System will keep their current employees and Madison will hire more. The regents who oversee the system will all still be in place, compensation, travel reimbursements, support staff in all. A new board of regents will also need to be added to oversee Madison's operations. Likely, somebody will need to step back and look at the bigger higher education picture in the state of Wisconsin. These studies and evaluations will have to be done by some statewide body, whether an actual department, or a legislature committee (complete with staffers, of course). The bottom line, this proposal does anything but repair the Wisconsin state budget. Notice I have not touched on the merits of the idea itself.

But while Walker is proposing limiting the rights of the employees who few, if any, of even the most conservative or Libertarian Wisconsinites would argue are not needed, he is asking the legislature to turn the page and approve a split in a statewide system that would create many more taxpayer-paid jobs, and create countless duplications of service. My guess, however, is that as long as we can keep the number of TAs, PAs, custodians, campus bus drivers, campus security guards, and other unionized employees the same, Walker's okay with that.

Walker has gotten national media attention with his plan to "fix" Wisconsin's budget. Now, if only he would focus on fixing the budget problem that Republicans claim to see (i.e. big government) instead of expanding the government and paying the most essential state workers less, and removing their rights to collective bargaining, he might be able to set a positive example for the rest of the country.

Walker's Anti-Union Plan

2011-02-17T20:36:00.000-08:00

Alright. I am most certainly not pro Union. But the proposal by new Wisconsin governor Scott Walker disgusts me. As a Libertarian, I believe that in the areas where government does need to be involved (police and fire protection, education, infrastructure, etc.) it needs to be run like a business. Most Republicans, I'm sure, would spout that line as well. They point to the fact that the government must be fiscally responsible. I would also argue that beyond fiscal responsibility, this means that they must find the most effective way to provide services, and treat their employees with the same dignity and respect that they expect private businesses to.

On that note, I have two major issues with what little I have read about Walker's proposal. First, the issue of not forcing public employees to pay union dues, and requiring a vote every year to keep these jobs represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In principal, I am all for both of these options. I believe in right to work states, and I believe that they ensure that a) union dues are kept reasonable and affordable, b) that unions continue to represent their constituents, and c), coming out of a and b, that unions are serving their actual purpose, rather than being corrupt bastions of the Democratic political machine, kept in place because people (both employers and employees) have no other options. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make Wisconsin a right to work state for public employees, and continue to allow other unions to compel membership due payment. Similarly, I am all for requiring an affirmative action on the part of employees to maintain a CBA. It reduces complacency, and ensures that unions are actually acting as unions, rather than as campaign fundraisers for Chicago and New York Democrats. It holds unions accountable to their membership. Again, however, this criteria should be applied to all unions, not just those representing public employees.

My second issue is the idea of a law limiting the positions public service unions are allowed to push for in CBA negotiations. This is ridiculous. This is akin to two teams playing football, and one team deciding that the other team is no longer allowed to use their fourth down, but must punt it. Negotiations are a game, albeit an important one that affects people's livelihood. One side cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game. Unions should not be statutorily limited in the pay increases or other concessions they seek. I do believe that union, especially government union, wages should be kept in line with non-union wage increase rates. But I believe that negotiations are the outlet to express this, not by limiting what options are even on the table.

Not only is this an issue of taking away the rights of unions and their employees, it is also an issue of taking away legal authority granted to other parts of the State and Local governments in Wisconsin. The right to negotiate teachers' contracts is given to the Boards of Education, or, in the case of higher education, the Board of Regents. By limiting the options that are even up for negotiation, Walker and his allies seek to take away the authority of these bodies, as well as the bodies which govern police and fire protection throughout the state.

This is a slap in the face to voters and politicians throughout the state. Walker is essentially saying, "I don't trust you to do your jobs, so I'm going to make it easy to do it the way that I would."

The answer to out of control public services unions is not to limit what they can and can't ask for. It's to elect and appoint responsible people to the positions which are responsible for negotiating CBAs on behalf of the state. Elect and appoint regents, councilmen, and board members who know the word "no," and aren't afraid to use it. Elect and appoint people with the same fiscal viewpoints as the majority of Wisconsinites that elected Walker. Drive a hard line in negotiations, but make sure those negotiations are fair.

Just like private businesses, state agencies should have to deal with absurd Union demands in negotiations. And just like private businesses, those agencies should be willing and able to put their feet down, and say "No," even if that means risking a walkout or a strike. Just like private sector union employees, public employees have medical concerns, children to feed, and mortgages to pay. The state has to have the confidence to essentially dare them to give that up for an indefinite amount of time, rather than receive outrageous pay increases or pension payments. But, the state should not stop them from even asking for those raises.

An anti-union governor? All for it. An anti-union, anti-process, back alley governor? No thanks.

Organizing America a History of Trade Unions

Throw Those Hands Up Already

2011-01-23T04:28:00.000-08:00

So tonight I watched a CNBC documentary on Mexico's drug wars. Not really a lot of new information in there for me, but one thing really got my blood boiling. A Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security from the U.S. said that legalization was not an option, because "it would be like throwing our hands up and saying nothing can be done."

First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send. Alright. So what? Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done? We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs. It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes. We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins. We burn fields of coca and marijuana. We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries. And what happens? Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost. The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down. These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns. Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done? If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.

Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up. The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong. We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so. Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs. How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved? The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug. Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug? Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step. After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs. And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law. So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use? Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors. By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world. We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.

If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth. They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.

If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving. Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be a white flag of shameful surrender.

Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making? It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses. It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.

Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope. Perhaps they're right. Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope. But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.

Travis Corcoran and his right to bear arms

2011-01-21T18:32:00.000-08:00

Alright. A 39 year old blogger named Travis Corcoran just had his gun license suspended after he posted "1 down 354 to go" on his blog, following the Giffords shooting. This goes back to a basic theoretical question of political science, or does it?

The concept of positive liberty is that we are granted liberty by our governments, and that the only liberties we are entitled to are those specifically granted to us by our governing bodies. Negative liberty, on the other hand, postulates that we are naturally intended to be free, and that the only rights and liberties we don't have are those specifically removed from us by our governments.

Either way, this is a transgression against liberty. If we take the negative liberty view, Corcoran should have had the liberty to bear arms, as well as to say whatever he felt like, simply because there is no law which proscribes either behavior.

On the other hand, even if we take the positive liberty view, the U.S. Constitution, the highest "Law of the Land," granted him the right to do both. Even our Constitution, which grants specific rights, granted Mr. Corcoran the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech. Thus, regardless of whether we believe in positive or negative liberty, this case is a case of rights encroached upon. Until Mr. Corcoran went out and tried to make it 2 down, 533 to go, his right to bear arms should not have been taken away, or even suspended.

He is (as far as I know) a law abiding citizen, and this attempt to take away one Constitutionally-guaranteed right (the right to bear arms) for the exercise of another (freedom of speech) is absurd.

Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty

Giffords Shooting and Violent Political Rhetoric

2011-01-16T00:15:00.000-08:00

What happened in Arizona last week was a tragedy. There is no doubt. But what has happened in the media and on the internet, at the hands of the Left, is even more tragic, and worse yet, hypocritical.

A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician. The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting. This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.

In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds. They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal. Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.

It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.

On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office. Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.

The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.

Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground. Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters. Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point. Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.

Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President. This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.

I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else). I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left. We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech. We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.

Why Israel Needs to Freeze Settlements Now

2010-12-22T03:27:00.000-08:00

An obvious sensitive subject in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the issue of ancestral vs. real homelands. The land currently occupied by Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Assyrian Christians, the Palestinian Muslims, and Israeli Jews. For the most part, it has been the real homeland of Palestinian Muslims and Christians. That is, it is the territory in which they were born and raised, and have called homes their entire lives.

By continuing settlements, Israel is really only hurting the Israeli Jewish population. While now it may seem like a good way of providing more, cheaper land and housing to Israeli Jews, it is only harmful to Israel and her people in the long run. Israeli politicians allow the settlement because they are stacking the cards in their hand for future political battles, at the expense of Israeli people, and especially young Israelis.

Although I don't think it is necessarily still feasible, or the best solution, the international community seems to have its heart and mind stuck on a two state solution. If and when this plan eventually materializes, there will now be thousands of Israelis who find themselves inside of Palestine's legal borders. They will face the same issues which Palestinians have been facing since the creation of Israel, suddenly finding themselves foreigners in their homeland. The towns which they have grown up calling "home" and thinking of as rightfully theirs, will suddenly be a part of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian state which is almost sure to recognize the right of return for exiled Palestinians. Which means the return of land rightfully belonging to Palestinian refugees that fall within the new Palestinian state. This can only mean forced relocation of the settlers inhabiting that land at the time.

In other words, the Israeli state's policies on settlement are setting settlers up to go through the same crises of national identity, relocation, and refugee status to which the government is currently subjecting Palestinians.

Until a two state solution is either confirmed or finally rejected, Israel must stop the building of settlements, not only for the sake of the Palestinians, but also for the sake of the Israeli settlers themselves.''
Beyond the Green Line: Israeli Settlements West of the Jordan

My take on the WikiLeaks debate

2010-12-15T21:16:00.000-08:00

Alright. First of all, let me say I am not touching on Assange's current prosecution, the theories that it is probably being pushed by the U.S. government, or anything else.

I am speaking purely about the debate over the morality, and in particular, the legality, of WikiLeaks and the newspapers it has provided information to, publishing "secret" information.

I am not a lawyer. But I once had plans to become a journalist, and as such, we studied issues related to this case. In general, there are three freedoms recognized as relevant to the freedom of press.

First, the right to access. This is the right of the press to access key information.

Second, the right of protecting sources. This is the right to maintain sources' anonymity.

Third, the right to publish.

Coincidentally, these three have been listed here in reverse order of their traditional support from the U.S. courts. Let's break down each issue as it is relevant to Assange and WikiLeaks.

The right to access. Unquestionably, the courts have maintained that in certain cases regarding a public interest, or an individual's rights, the government has right to limit press access to information. For instance, some states do not allow cameras in court rooms. The U.S. government can control "imbeded" journalists. The federal government can classify documents (like those released by WikiLeaks) and attempt to keep them from the public eye.

Second, the right of protection. Many states partially protect this, but many do not. There is also no federal shield law, meaning there is no "journalistic privilege" in a Federal court. Also, in most states, the right to shield a source is protected in a bench or jury trial, but not in a grand jury deposition. This means the federal government could, in theory, prosecute the individuals who illegally gave Assange information and expect him, even compel him, to testify against them.

Third, the right to publish. This is the most protected right involved in freedom of press. In short, a media outlet has a right to publish any information that they have access to, assuming that they did not break the law in obtaining the information. For instance, courts have ruled that a newspaper could publish both a rape victim's name and a juvenile offender's name (both protected by law) because a reporter got access to the information through a lawful viewing of court records. A court also allowed a newspaper to publish photographs from an execution, although photographic equipment was banned from the execution viewing room. The act of taking the pictures was illegal. The act of publishing the pictures once they fell into possession of the newspaper, was not.

In short, the government has every right to force Julian Assange to give up his sources. They also have every right to discipline those sources, both as government employees violating the terms of their employment, as well as possibly as traitors and/or spies. If Assange (a former hacker) is found to have stolen the information through illegal methods, it would be a different story. The problem with this is that because Assange is not within U.S. borders, without accusing him of having violated a serious law, he cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sources.

At the end of the day, though, Assange and the publications he worked with have published information that they obtained legally (it was given to them). They should not be prosecuted. The lying, treasonous government employees who leaked the files should.

Is it Too Late for Two States?

2010-11-30T00:05:00.000-08:00

Ever since I was a child, I remember hearing about the various U.S. Presidents' "Roadmap to Peace" in the Middle East. It was always my assumption, and that of the mainstream media and government here in the U.S. of A. that the path to peace involved separate states for Israelis and Palestinians, for Jews and for Muslims. I remember through high school and college the idea of a unified state being laughed off as the international community declaring Israel and Palestine an "international or interfaith Disneyland."

Well, perhaps it is the time to start thinking Mickey Mouse. The logic here goes several levels deep. On the most basic level, let's look at the simple reality. Jerusalem has sites that are among the most holy of all the major monotheistic faiths in existence. The city could never be split between two countries like Berlin was, because the holy sites are spread throughout the city, as are the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim cultures and populations.

Moreover, even if Jerusalem could be split, we now have the issue of the rest of the land. The traditionally-Muslim portions of Israel have now been so encroached upon by Israeli settlement, which has lasted so long, that in order to provide a contiguous state to the Palestinians, Israelis would have to be forcibly relocated. Darkness can not be met with darkness, but only with light.

Moreover, the idea of two separate states should scare Christians, especially Christians living within the disputed areas, more than anything. By legitimizing political boundaries and political systems based on religion, we validate the idea of a Jewish and a Muslim state. Where does this leave Christians?

In addition, the idea of two states should repulse anyone with even the most minute sense of "political corectness," "social justice," or Democracy. Again, by allowing two states based on primarily religious distinctions, we are accepting that religion is an acceptable political boundary. How can Americans, who oppose discrimination on religious grounds, accept this idea?

Finally, from a practical standpoint, the debate has reached a standstill. First, the right of return question. If a two state solution is really being sought, why does the Palestinian Authority care, or have a right to care, about Palestinians within the borders of the newly agreed upon Israel? With two states, they would no longer represent Muslim interests within Israel, but instead, would represent the interests of Palestinian citizens within the newly defined Palestine.

Most tellingly is the conversation in the pro-Palestine blogosphere. Palestinians, who are now the ethnic minority within Israel and Palestine, stand the most to lose on a true representative Democracy being established in Israel. Yes, they would get equal rights, and finally be treated with some dignity. But their voting power would never equal that of the Jewish majority. Yet, more and more, they see this as the best path forward. When the minority in a society pushes for Democracy, rather than independence, it is showing that the peace, dignity, and respect for human rights that come with Democracy are worth sacrificing political autonomy and true self-determination over. We have obviously reached a new low in the Middle East conflict, and it may very well be time to start thinking outside of the box. Or rather, start thinking inside the box, and outside of the two boxes.

Equity vs. Equality

2010-11-28T01:55:00.000-08:00

Being a poli sci major when I was in school, one thing I hated was looking at definitions, statistics, etc. versus the bigger picture. This particular conversation, however, is one in which the definition is key to the bigger picture and defining issues and "good" policy.

The problem with the left, and even the center, in American politics today, is that there is a sense of "social justice" which uses inequities as an excuse to push for automatic equality for all racial, gender, and socio-economic groups. Understanding the difference between equity and equality, and the importance of maintaining equity, but also maintaining inequality, in a capitalist system is key to keeping the American dream alive and understanding the proper, limited goal of the government in our lives.

Equality, as it relates to "social justice" and politics is the idea that all people are inherently equal, and equally deserving of everything from liberty to the "finer things in life." This is inherently false, and a dangerous idea to democracy, and, especially, capitalism and the free market. The American dream is built on the idea that through creativity, intelligence, natural ability, and hard work, one can set themselves ahead of the masses. Thus, we all start out somewhere on a scale of unequal conditions, and our goal, our drive to give something to our economy and our society, is to move somewhere up that scale.

Equity, on the other hand, is the idea of a fair distribution of resources, and, in particular, opportunity. That is, if two people are born in very different situations, but have the same skills, abilities, intelligence, and drive, will both have equal access to the tools needed to fulfill their idea of the American dream.

The left will consistently point out how inequitable our society is. They point to statistics of the poor barely making it by, sending their children to underfunded schools so hungry that they cannot focus on the lessons taught by unqualified teachers. They point out that there are few jobs available in minority and poor neighborhoods.

This is all true, and these are issues that need to be addressed. The left, however, then turn around and in the same breath oppose school vouchers, and support instead the redistribution of wealth that we know as social welfare programs. They support unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and other programs which redistribute resources to the poor and to minorities.

This does not solve the underlying problems. While making our society more equal, these programs do little to make our society more equitable. They take away the incentive to work, while also not providing the infrastructure or education to make it possible for the people in these neighborhoods to work, and to raise themselves out of their current conditions.

Unemployment, poverty, or drug addiction should not be comfortable or pleasant. It should not be easy. It should not be secure. If it were, what would be the incentive to progress in life?

If we want to truly right the wrongs of an imperfect society with an imperfect history, we should remove the funding from social "safety net" programs, and redirect it all at meaningful, effective, educational reform. From charter schools to school vouchers, what that means is forcing educational institutions to compete for students and funding, even students from low income areas. By continually complaining about underfunded urban schools, we encourage our officials to reward under-performing districts with increased funding. Instead, by offering charter and magnet schools, vouchers, and, if necessary, transportation, we have the potential to force real improvement in our education system. By basing school funding on where parents choose to send their children to school, not based on geographical boundaries, we force school administrators and teachers who wish to keep their jobs to perform.

Although it may seem cold hearted to leave a generation which did not have access to these reforms behind, the best thing we can do to truly make the American dream a reality is to make sure that the current generation is the last to suffer through this. Make sure that every American child has access to quality education, from educators, schools, and systems which are fighting to remain one step ahead. Run our schools like businesses. Make them accountable for the money they spend, and make them compete with the competition. This is the only way to make them perform. When our schools perform for all of our students, we will be a huge step closer to an equitable society.

Libertarians and Taxes

2010-11-27T12:34:00.000-08:00

So one of the problems with political parties is that they often take broad stances and try to attract many, many people who vaguely or generally agree with them. I thought that this was the case mostly with the major parties, but it happens with third parties too. I realized this when I was reading the campaign website of Art Lampit, the Libertarian candidate for Nevada Governor this last election. In all honesty, I voted for him, because of who the other candidates were, but despite his affiliation with my own political party, I really did not agree with him on a lot of issues.

The big one is taxes. The official Libertarian stance on taxes is that they are a government intrusion into our pockets and our lives and they should be lowered.

Now, where do selective, targeted tax cuts and tax breaks fit into that understanding?

I can see the argument that any tax break is good as it takes less of our money and gives it to the government. Baby steps, right?

That to me is what a "practical" Libertarian might think. You know, the "ends justifies the means" type. With this philosophy, a tax credit for providing health insurance to employees, or for creating green jobs, or for being a small business, makes sense because it lowers the overall tax burden.

I, however, am what I would call more of a "philosophical" Libertarian. Beyond taking our money, if we think about why high taxes are un-Libertarian, tax breaks seem like a very un-Libertarian idea as well. To me, Libertarianism is largely about limiting government to its pre-defined (by the Constitution) and necessary role. Our government was given the right to collect taxes as a way of raising revenue to perform certain tasks. Not as a way to manipulate and control our behavior. Taxes should be a necessarily evil way of raising revenue from ALL citizens and businesses, not a way for the government to encourage or proscribe certain behaviors.

Also, the tax code itself is too complicated, requiring massive Federal, State, and Local bureaucracies to interpret, collect, and enforce. This in itself contributes to large government. Adding more loopholes and tax "incentives" only contributes to large government, and increases government spending.

That's why to me, being a Libertarian means supporting a proposal like the Fair Tax or Flat Tax, which would eliminate the IRS tax code, even if it means that the actual amount of money paid to the government by me, or by anyone else, would go up for now.

Overall tax expenditure should be cut by reducing bureaucracy, waste, and intrusion by the government, not by giving tax breaks that reward positive behavior and punish negative behavior.

(One of) The True Meaning(s) of Thanksgiving

2010-11-26T01:04:00.000-08:00

So I know that depending on your time zone, this is anywhere from an hour to a day late, but I wanted to take a minute to reflect in one of the real meanings of the holiday many of us celebrated yesterday.

Most of us think of Thanksgiving as a day to be thankful for all that we have, and to enjoy the presence of our friends, our family, and a good home cooked meal. While this is arguably a more noble cause for celebration than the slew of drunken (but fun) celebrations we hold throughout the year (St. Patrick's Day, New Years Eve, Fourth of July), or the abundance of Hallmark or Hallmark-ized holidays which seem to be about giving gifts and cards (Christmas, Easter, Valentine's Day, Sweetest Day, Bosses Day, Secretary Day, etc.), or even the handful of days supposedly dedicated to hardworking and sacrificing individuals, which we now, without celebration gladly take off of work (Columbus Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, President's Day), it is still an incomplete understanding of the holiday, its origins, and its true meaning.

At least if we buy into the great mythology that we sell our children as American History, this holiday is about a lot more. It is about us, white Europeans, being helpless immigrants in a foreign land, and our (so the story we all acted out in kindergarten plays goes) gracious hosts offering us their hospitality, their warmth, a good meal, and the knowledge needed to survive in a foreign land.

So isn't it kind of ironic that while we sit around our tables laughing, eating, drinking, and giving thanks with our families, that we are neglecting the people who find themselves in the same position? Many immigrants (those lucky enough to have the day off) spend the day alone, without their families, and with nothing to do but go to the movies, and maybe grab a bite to eat at the local Chinese restaurant or IHOP.

This time of year should be an opportunity for people on all sides of the aisle to think about the real "first Thanksgiving," and what lessons we can learn. A people who were decimated by our greed, our disease, and our trans-Atlantic political and military struggles welcomed us into their homeland. Yet today, even as we celebrate and give thanks for their hospitality, many fail to extend the same hospitality to those that land on our shores and at our airports, and who cross our borders. Unlike the white Europeans, who brought disease, war, famine, theft of land, genocide, forced migration, and centuries of unequal treatment to our hosts, many of our immigrants come here not to destroy, but to embrace our culture and our way of living. We should at least attempt to welcome them with the same warmth the Native Americans welcomed the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock.

More Positive Election News from Nevada

2010-11-05T18:52:00.000-07:00

So not a lot of the candidates I voted for, or even liked, won here in Nevada. The election results though, still made me happy in a way. Reid, who I hated, won, but his son, and most other Democrats, lost.

Why would such a thing make me happy? Even if they were unwilling to take the leap and vote independent or third party, voters in Nevada at least researched and formed an opinion on the individual candidates. Clearly, with the election being split between Republicans and Democrats, and very few races being close, this is the case.

People actually looked at the individual candidates, and not just the letter next to their names, and that is a good start.

Good News from Election Day

2010-11-04T19:56:00.000-07:00

This may sound odd, but I'm very pleased with election day. I'm particularly happy that we are now gridlocked, with one house and the White House controlled by one party, and the other house controlled by the other party. Why, you might ask? Doesn't that make government inefficient and unable to accomplish anything?

Exactly. Our two parties have failed to convince me that they have any desire or will to accomplish anything that actually benefits "we the people." So, with a gridlocked political system, hopefully we can maintain the status quo, and hold off any more Republican attempts at restricting our liberties and Democratic attempts at emptying our wallets for a few years until some candidates who propose real change emerge.

Election Day

2010-11-02T20:01:00.000-07:00

Hopefully everyone went out and voted. I know I did. And thanks to early voters, I walked right in, got my voting card, walked right to a machine and was done with the whole thing in about five minutes.

That being said, many in Nevada were disappointed with our choices, particularly for our Senator. I thought of it is an opportunity.

Yes, we were asked to choose between a Left-wing nutjob who has cost taxpayers millions and consistently voted to increase government spending or a crazy (possibly clinically so) woman who has frequently associated with Scientologists, supported giving prison inmates massages, and who thinks abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest.

I, however, viewed it as an opportunity to vote my mind, rather than be concerned about voting for an "electable" candidate. Let's face it. Either way, we are now stuck with a Senator who is at least one (possibly several) cards short of a deck.

So I voted for Michael L. Haines, and I don't feel bad about it. Happy Election Day, and I really do hope everyone voted.

Debunking the Myths on Prop 19

2010-10-22T16:40:00.000-07:00

I recently read this article on Proposition 19, and think it is a worthwhile read for anyone who is not sure what they think about Proposition 19.

It debunks and invalidates five of the most common and "strongest" oppositions to Proposition 19 and marijuana legalization. Not to rehash it, but I think the biggest point is this.

All of the debunked objections could just as easily apply to liquor laws in California and other states. Yet none of these objections have raised serious issues with alcohol or tobacco.

In short, California, take a first step toward ending the failed "War on Drugs," and legalize marijuana. Vote yes on Prop 19.

Moving Beyond Party Lines to Oppose TARP

2010-10-22T13:05:00.000-07:00

Alright. So, the 2010 general election is just around the corner, and I'm sure that many people plan on voting for candidates they think can get us out of this mess we're in. A lot of people will automatically assume that means voting Republican. Think again.

The Libertarian Party recently posted this list of Libertarians taking on TARP-supporting incumbents. Look past the letters next to your candidate's name. Particularly if you live in one of the following districts, seriously look into the candidates' views, rather than just their party affiliation.

Alaska (Senate)
CA-3
CA-26
CA-42
CA-48
Georgia (Senate)
Iowa (Senate)
MI-4
MI-6
North Carolina (Senate)
OH-2
OH-8
OH-12
OK-1
SC-2
TX-8
TX-11
TX-12
TX-13
TX-21
TX-32
VA-10
WI-1

If you live in one of these districts, you are currently represented by a "Republican" who supported the costly and failed TARP funding.

Election Thoughts- U.S. Senator from Nevada

2010-10-21T20:12:00.000-07:00

With the general election rapidly approaching, I've decided to give my thoughts on who I will vote for and why in each race in my district, starting with the U.S. Senate race.

Sharron Angle (Republican)
Pros
While I am always a fan of voting for the best candidate, regardless of their shot at winning, an obvious pro here is that she is not Harry Reid, and stands a (relative to the other candidates) good chance of defeating him.

Also, Angle is a politician who votes with her conscious. In fact, she was the lone "Nay" vote often enough that many votes during her stint in the Nevada legislature were called "41-Angle." More specifically, she was the lone vote against a split roll property tax, because she believed it violated the Nevada Constitution. She has also sued the state three times using her own personal funds to uphold the state Constitution, including a successful case (although the bill later got the required 2/3 supermajority) to stop the governor from illegally allowing a tax increase with a simple majority vote.

She is also for privatizing Medicaid, as well as reforming social security, eliminating and simplifying the several thousand page IRS code, and eliminating the federal Department of Education to bring education administration back down to the local and state level.

She also believes that the government's job in getting us out of the recession is to create business and growth friendly policies which lead to jobs, not to create jobs or mandate what types of jobs (i.e. green jobs) will be created.

Cons

Angle is clearly a social conservative, supporting a federal constitutional ban on gay marriage, as well as opposing abortion, even in the extreme cases of rape and incest.

Angle also abandoned her county board of education seat when her husband was transferred by the Bureau of Land Management from the field to Reno, and I'm not a huge fan of politicians who run away from the commitments they made to their constituents.

She is also sometimes a little shaky on the facts, as when she accused Reid of becoming rich through his time in the Senate, ignoring that he had stockpiled quite a bit of money from his successful legal practice prior to entering office.

Moreover, for someone who consistently rags on Reid for having better health care and retirement benefits than his constituents, it is somewhat hypocritical that she is currently living off of her husband's BLM pension, and receiving federal retirement benefits. It is also alarming that although she thinks the federal government has too much land in Nevada, and that private citizens should be allowed to benefit from that land, her husband's main duty in the field under BLM was to (armed and dangerously) keep private citizens and ranchers off of federal land.

Verdict
I would be willing to vote for Angle, but she is hardly a candidate I would get excited over.

Scott Ashjian (Tea Party of Nevada)
Pros

I can't really find any pros to Ashjian, since even his own campaign website doesn't have anything similar to an "On the Issues" page.

Cons

See above. Also, like my gripes with the Tea Party movement in general, negativity may be great for creating momentum, but it sucks when trying to run a country. This candidate has, as far as I, with the help of Google, can discern, failed to tell anyone what he is for. His entire campaign is based on what he is not, which is a major party candidate. Although she is a Republican, Angle has voted independently quite often, and at least we have some inkling of what she plans on voting for when in office.

Ashjian also had an arrest warrant put out in March (not sure how this got resolved) for writing bad checks for his small business. If he can't run a small business responsibly, how can we expect him to manage a federal budget which several successful lawyers and businessmen have failed to manage?

Finally, he was sued over his rights to be on the ballot. He switched his party affiliation after registering as a candidate. The Tea Party Express sued over his right to use the Tea Party name without any endorsement from them.

Verdict
No.

Tim Fasano (Independent American Party)

Pros

Fasano is for repealing the 16th Amendment and both simplifying (short term) and lowering (long term) federal taxes.

Cons

His positions are a little unclear to me, based on his website. Although he has a pretty good grasp of the issues, his proposed solutions are a little vague to me.

Also, although I support implementing a fair tax (not to be mistaken with the Fair Tax movement), as well as lowering taxes, the specifics of his proposal offend my Libertarian side. With all of his proposed write offs and deductions, he shows that he supports using tax policies to punish and reward certain behaviors (health care saving, and environmentally friendly decisions, to start with). While lower taxes are very Libertarian, tax breaks for engaging in certain behaviors are not. Taxes are a way for government to raise necessary revenues, not to dictate or suggest what Americans should do with their lives and their money.

Also, looking at his immigration reform page, there is a subtle flaw built in. He opposes welfare and social benefits to those who are here illegally. What about those who are here legally? There is no way we will ever get federal taxes down to his proposed 8.8% if we continue to provide social safety nets, even for those who are here legally.

Verdict
No.

Michael L. Hanes (Independent)
Pros

Haines is for a fair or flat tax.

Haines is also opposed to more government spending.

His views on education, that we need more education for our money, and not more money for education, are very appealing, as are his points on where the problems lie (protecting established universities, teachers' unions, and public schools, rather than encouraging competition).

His proposals on the issues are also brief, clear, and easy to understand.

Cons

The biggest thing I have against Haines is that he is for a fair or flat tax. While either would be an improvement, and it is good to see that he would support either one, which does he favor and why? Also, while being brief makes it easy for us to know where he stands, how much does he understand these two proposals, and when he says fair tax, does he mean a tax that is fair, or the Fair Tax as some advocates have proposed?

Verdict

Definitely a candidate I can support.

Jesse Holland (Independent)
Pros

Due to a poorly laid out campaign website, I have a hard time finding what this candidate is for, and thus have no "pros."

Cons

Holland's website does not even have a platform, issues, or on the issues page. His campaign seems to be yet another "against the system" campaign, rather than a campaign for anything.

Verdict
No.

Jeffrey C. Reeves (Independent)
Pros

Reeves is for protecting our Second Amendment rights.

Cons

Although his website has an issues area, the links all lead to the same page, a very brief example of zionist media manipulation. Although I do believe we are too beholden to Israel, this is hardly the only issue, and he fails to address a solution. He seems to be a one-issue candidate. Not only that, but his views appear to be rather extreme on the Israel issue, and unlikely to be taken seriously, including his characterization of 9/11 as a false flag attack.

Verdict

No.

Harry Reid (Democrat)

Pros
Liberal on social issues.

Cons
Reid is a huge porker. While this may seem to directly benefit Nevadans, the damage is worse than the benefits. Before supporting Reid because of all he's done for Nevada, think about how much similar projects he has allowed to pass have benefited other states at the expense of Nevada taxpayers.

As Senate majority leader, he was also instrumental in the stimulus and Obamacare bills.

In addition to Nevada-specific pork, Reid has shown a willingness to try to sneak social policy into bills on defense, spending, or anything else shows a higher regard for his leftist agenda than for our country or its laws and processes.

Verdict

No.

Wil Stand (Independent)
Pros

The candidate either doesn't have a website, or did not promote it very well. It doesn't even show up on the first page of Google results for his name.

Cons

See above.

Verdict

No.

Overall Conclusion
On November 2, I will be voting for Michael L. Haines as the next Senator from the State of Nevada. Many people may think I'm throwing away my vote, since if I really want to see Reid leave office, the smart thing to do would be to vote for Angle. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone would grow a pair and vote for the candidate they think would do the best job, the two parties would lose their grip on our system. Therefor, I will support this independent candidate, who I believe is the best option for our next Senator.

Support Proposition 19!

2010-10-02T05:34:00.000-07:00

After seeing this article I was briefly duped into opposition of Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana.

Several of the points seemed at first like valid counterpoints to Proposition 19, even for those who support marijuana legalization.

First, the argument that this conflicts with federal law about employer's rights and responsibilities to drug test. Proposition 19 specifically outlaws pre-employment or during-employment testing for THC unless the employer can prove that an employee's performance was performed. Federal law requires drug testing for certain professions. Remember that there is a hierarchy of jurisdictions, and that Federal law trumps State law, especially in areas where the Federal government has a valid, Constitutional claim to jurisdiction. While there are some truckers, train operators, pilots, etc. who do not cross state lines, the majority do, or, during the course of their careers, could. The professions covered by the Federal requirement are, for the most part, very clearly covered under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Thus, the contradiction doesn't really exist. A pilot, driver, or train operator crossing state lines must meet Federal requirements, including drug testing.

Second, taxation and regulation. While I think that one of the biggest selling points has been the tax and regulate potentials of legalization, I don't think this is what is important. As a principal, we should have the right to choose what to do to our bodies. Moreover, the legalization would still raise tax revenue, even without marijuana-specific taxes. The trade in marijuana, especially in the state of California, is huge. Even without specific taxes on cannabis, the sales tax revenue alone could greatly help California's budget.

The argument that the smell of marijuana could be offensive, and everyone can have an outdoor 5x5 garden. The smell of trash and dog poop is offensive. The smell of curry is offensive to many. The smell of some other plants, or of compost bins, is offensive. People will just have to survive.

The argument that this will increase crime, citing recent break ins at medical marijuana growth plots. This is actually one of the best arguments for legalization. If marijuana were more readily available, and could by grown by anyone, people would not have the incentive to break into someone else's plot to steal their pot.

I have always been a proponent of supporting a specific policy, not a broad slogan or a general principle. But legalizing marijuana is the first step. Let the legislature iron out the details later. The immediate benefits, from the perspectives of politics, liberties, and economics, far outweigh the negative. The medium-term benefits of lowering incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenses alone will provide huge economic benefits to the state, especially in a state whose current prison overpopulation was recently ruled to be cruel and unusual punishment. Californians, vote YES on Prop 19.

Even Bureaucrats Oppose Bureaucracy

2010-09-24T18:34:00.000-07:00

I caught this article a few days back and was thrilled.

You know big government is too big when bureaucrats in charge of big government regulatory agencies are opposing proposed power grabs.

The head of the FCC recognizes that the Fourth Estate's independence is essential. When a career regulator speaks out against a proposal to increase their own regulatory and financial power, you know something is wrong.

If only the people in charge of money, health care, insurance, and other parts of the public sector had the honesty and integrity that Attwell does, perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are in.

Why Obama Dems and Tea Partiers are Good for America

2010-09-21T18:40:00.000-07:00

It may sound odd to hear someone supporting both Obama and the Tea Party. In fact, I actually support neither.

But I do see the presence of both as a positive force on American politics. Although I would ideally like to see the rise of a legitimate third party, and a system which was not inherently controlled by two parties, I recognize that this is unlikely to happen, and especially to last, with our current system of government. If, however, we are going to have a two party system, it is important that there really are two parties.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the Democratic and Republican parties are really that different on politics? Can anyone clearly define the basic, philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats? In doing so, do they not expect me to be able to find any exceptions sitting in elected offices?

"Blue Dogs" and "RINOs" are great for getting things done. They are great for "working across party lines." In reality though, they blur party lines, and their dominance of the American political system right now essentially fails to represent U.S. voters and their views.

Both parties have moved so far to the center that we really have no choice. You can vote for someone with a D next to their name, who opposed the war, but thinks we need to "support the troops" by continuing our foreign occupation and further endangering our troops' lives, supports bailing out banks and auto-makers, and thinks gay marriage and abortion will come when society is ready. Or, you can vote for someone with an R next to their name, who supports the war, but thinks it is time to wind it down, "opposes" bailouts in general, but thinks that banks and auto makers are "too big to fail," and thinks gay marriage, DADT, and abortion are too touchy and personal to be addressed by our current legislature, especially with the pressing economic situation.

Really, from a practical point of view, what is your choice? The votes will go the same way.

The extremism of Obama's socialist-leaning Dems and the far right Tea Partiers is opening a real debate and providing real options to Americans at the ballot box. Turnout in this midterm election will be high, as it will in 2012. By providing real options, we are re-engaging America in politics. This is exactly what establishment Republicans and Democrats are afraid of.

Hypocrisy on the Left (Again)

2010-09-20T17:32:00.000-07:00

This post had me smiling the other day. First of all, I'm not a huge fan of Jesse Jackson to begin with. Maybe I'll put up a post some day on that. Second, though, the karma train just pulled into its station. The only thing better would have been if something had happened to Al Gore's jet on the way to some global climate conference.

In addition to his divisive and one-sided race-baiting, apparently Jesse Jackson is also supporting the big government scam of "green" job creation. Meanwhile, he is driving around Detroit in an Escalade. Well, the Escalade is now missing its wheels, a window, and probably some expensive stereo equipment. Building parts for a car that gets well under 20 mpg hardly counts as a "green" job.

Third Parties and Run Off Election

2010-09-17T17:59:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Libertarian Party posted an article (I failed to read it in its entirety) pointing out that polls are now showing several Libertarian candidates in Georgia getting enough votes in November to lead to runoff elections. At first, I did not see how significant this was.

Thinking about it, however, I now see that this is a huge step for Libertarians, independents, and third parties in general. Talking to many voters, they often acknowledge that the views of third parties (usually Green or Libertarian) are actually closer to their own political beliefs than those of either major parties. In election cycles where this thought prevails, particularly in election cycles like the current one, where there is huge discontent with the status quo and the party in power, the opposition party usually spends time and money trying to portray third parties as stealing necessary votes from close races.

I have always maintained that it is more important to vote for the best candidate, even if it does, in fact, steal votes. The harm done by one elected candidate in one term is nothing compared to the damage to our society and nation done by a failing two party system over a period of several centuries. By voting for third parties, every vote is another vote of confidence, and will, eventually, contribute to either the fall of the two party system or a change in the two prominent parties.

Runoff elections, however, provide us with an opportunity for an even more concrete gain from our "wasted" third party votes. Essentially, the prospect of a runoff election provides voters with an opportunity to vote for the best candidate without risking pushing the worst candidate into office by "wasting" votes. For example, if Georgians are confident that there will be a runoff election, they can express support for Libertarian values and candidates in the actual election. Although the Libertarian may not win, they will cause a runoff election. The in-power Democratic candidate will not win the first round of the election. Libertarians can then vote in the runoff for the "lesser of two evils" candidate.

We should take this opportunity in Georgia, and wherever else it presents itself this November, and use the elections not as a referendum on the Democratic or Republican Party, but on their two party system as a whole. Vote for the best candidate this November, and then vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the runoff.

The added bonus of this is that by forcing a runoff election, we force the two major parties to spend even more money than they already do on this election cycle, emphasizing just how much time, effort, and money it takes to coerce votes from people who really aren't happy with either option.

Immigration and the Latino Vote

2010-09-16T20:03:00.000-07:00

I have never understood why being liberal on immigration has been linked with the Latino vote. In fact, I think it is often more about the perception of the nature of the conversation than about the actual contents of it. Both politicians and Latinos should read this post and think carefully about what is written.

For Latino voters. Liberal immigration policies and lax enforcement actually hurt your self interest as legal, documented Latinos in this country. By increasing the number of illegal aliens in our country, we increase the negative perception of Latinos in general, and the stereotypes of Latinos as falling into the category of illegal or undocumented. If you are voting, you (or your family) presumably either came here the right way, or, at the very least, have since rectified your immigration status. The jobs which undocumented immigrants are taking are jobs which, if you can legally vote, they are taking away from you just as much as from white or black Americans. And, unfortunately, they are negatively affecting white and black Americans' views of you.

For politicians, bloggers, etc. The way the immigration debate is carried out is part of why Latino voters are so uncomfortable with strict immigration policies. Partly because of an extreme right fringe which is prejudiced and racist, partly by human nature to blame things on people who have obvious differences (race) from us, and partly by the attempts of the Left to make conservatives all look like the Klan reborn, the immigration debate too often becomes a racial conversation. While most illegal entries are probably over the Mexican border, there are a lot of immigrants in our country who enter legally, but overstay their visas. Many of these immigrants are white, and European. They are often working, and receiving the benefit of publicly funded services, before their visas expire, and just continue on that way.

Also, for immigrants, and the first and second generations, understand that there is bound to be sympathy for the situations which cause Northward migration. Many Latino immigrants are coming from countries where the political situation is unstable at best, dangerous at worst. Many come from poverty. Many who come from poverty have made great lives for themselves and their families since being here. They want to see the same opportunity extended to other people. The key to winning these votes is to focus on enforcing existing immigration policies, but not closing the door to immigration altogether. A wall, both in reality and symbolically, is not just about illegal immigration. It is a barrier between us and the several nations which make up our closest neighbors. Latino voters, who feel a connection with their home countries, as well as can relate to the situation of those trying to enter our country, are unlikely to emotionally jump behind a wall or other attempts to cut off all immigration.

Finally, Latinos are not a unified, homogenous group of people or voters. Latin America and the Caribbean consists of many national and ethnic groups. Lumping all Latinos together does not encourage Latino voters to jump on board. Moreover, special treatment for some Latino groups is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of Latino voters as a whole. For instance, many Mexican and other Latin American groups are offended by the current (albeit unavoidable without either Puerto Rican independence or full accession into the U.S.) situation with Puerto Rico. While Latinos from other parts of the hemisphere are accused of stealing jobs and benefits from Americans, and sometimes profiled by law enforcement or employers as "illegal," Puerto Ricans pay no taxes to the United States, but vote in federal elections and have unrestricted movement throughout the 50 states. Another example is Cuban-Americans. Although this has changed recently, for decades, Cubans have been treated differently than other Americans. The policy was always that if a Cuban had one foot on American soil, they were automatically a refugee. This was a political, more than humanitarian decision. This can easily be seen by looking at the different treatment of people fleeing oppressive regimes in Chile, Nicaragua, and Haiti, where the U.S. government supported the governments. Moreover, many immigrants come here seeking refuge from situations, whether political, military or economic, in their home countries. The Republican Party and its pandering (especially representatives from Florida) to the Cuban-American interest groups does not help their perception with the wider Latino voting community.

So, how can Republicans win the Latino vote?

Focus the conversation. Don't open yourselves up to being called (out loud or silently) racist. Make it clear that the issue is about enforcement of existing laws, and national security, not about protecting our culture or our society from an outside, racially separate influence. It is not about Spanish language or Latino culture. It is not about whites losing majority status in some states, and possibly the nation as a whole. It is about not condoning the open violation of our laws, and about ensuring our national security.

Make sure to speak about immigrants in general. Illegal immigration is not all Mexican and Filipino. Talk about not just border enforcement, but visa enforcement. Rather than only deploying more troops and agents to the border, let's talk about visa enforcement in places like Las Vegas, Chicago, New York, and various tourist destinations around the country.

Encourage equal immigration standards. Cubans and people from some parts of Africa should not be given blanket refugee status while people from other corrupt, unstable, or poverty-stricken parts of the world must go through standard immigration proceedings.

Overall, widen the conversation to include comprehensive immigration reform. Although his name has become somewhat taboo, McCain did not receive a huge backlash from Latino voters because of his immigration policies. In fact, even Bush didn't. Along with enforcement, talk about modernizing and updating our laws to reduce the burden, and increase the efficiency, of legal immigration. Don't just shut illegal immigrants out. Provide a clear pathway for legal immigrants to come in.

This is how conservatives can demonstrate that anti-illegal immigration positions are just that, and not anti-Latino positions.

Mexican Independence Day

2010-09-15T20:24:00.000-07:00

Happy Mexican Independence Day everyone. I sincerely mean that.

I also, think, though, that after 200 years of being nominally independent, it is worth reflecting on how independent Mexico really is right now. Every day in Mexico, people die in the battle between the cartels and the Mexican government. Each year, prominent public officials resign in fear or resignation to the cartels.

Each day, Mexican nationals die and get arrested trying to cross Mexico's northern border. Each day, Mexicans go hungry because tortillas and other staple Mexican foods are too expensive.

Now, no nation is without its problems. On their independence day, however, Mexicans should take a moment to reflect on where these problems have come from. Is it the policies of the Mexican government, or the efforts of the Mexican people? No.

It is a liberty-encroaching war on ~~drugs~~ personal choice in the United States. It is a policy of subsidizing U.S. farmers and encouraging "free" trade in North America and throwing corn, which could feed the poorest of the poor in Mexico, into gas tanks of American-made SUVs (which, by the way, have now been bailed out by the government as well).

So yes, two years of independence is something to celebrate. But Mexicans and Americans alike today should take a moment to think about how independent Mexico really is. Stop the War on Drugs, and stop interventionist agricultural policies. Then, perhaps, we will see a truly independent Mexico.

Where I parted ways with FreedomWorks

2010-08-30T19:31:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying that I still frequent the Freedom Works website. I recently read an interview on there that made me rethink my views on the organization and the Tea Party movement.

In the interview, some higher up from the organization (I forget who) kept mentioning that the organization is currently trying to "take back the Republican Party." Well, here's a few issues I have with that. The first is that the organization has consistently said that it does not take stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, foreign wars, etc. because it is focused on fiscal and financial freedom. Fair enough. But by not taking a stand on these organizations, and supporting a party which largely does, Freedom Works implicitly supports the Republican status quo stance on these issues, which offends my sensibilities.

Second of all, before overtly coming out as a a movement to "take back the Republican Party," the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works were a sign of hope for real, systemic change. By supporting any candidate, Republican, Libertarian, Democratic or otherwise, who agreed with them on the issues, the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works represented a real threat to the Republican Party as it was.

In an odd way, openly trying to take over a political party strengthens that party, even the parts of it we don't like. By encouraging thousands of Tea Party and Freedom Works activists to become active in the Republican Party, the organization is implicitly supporting the Republican Party. Yes, they may put a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans on ballots and even in office. But when one of the RINOs they are trying to stop gets nominated, they're also encouraging people to vote Republican, and that RINO will get elected.

What candidates, organizations, and movements trying to change one of the two major parties need to do is show their willingness to give up on that party. Freedom Works should be encouraging voters to vote Democratic, or especially Libertarian, IAP, or Constitutional, in races where the Republican candidate is not up to par. By showing that voters are willing to leave a party they don't think represents them, they put real pressure on the party to change. By trying to change a political party from within, we just show the parties that they need to have barely enough candidates, barely far enough to one side of a couple of issues, to keep Tea Party activists voting.

So instead of trying to take back the Republican Party, show them who's in charge around here. If the candidates don't meet your standards, look at third party candidates. Look at independents. Maybe even take a glance at the Democrat running. Show the Republican Party that being "better than the Democrats" isn't enough.

Political and Social Reasons Not To Do Drugs

2010-08-29T19:41:00.000-07:00

I thought I would take a few minutes to share my thoughts on why, aside from the health and personal problems, and legal risks, anyone, but especially the socially liberal, should not use illegal drugs.

Keep in mind that as a Libertarian, I acknowledge that most of these reasons are more related to the ridiculous War on Drugs and the unconstitutional prohibition on recreational narcotic use in the United States. Until, however, our current drug policy changes, there are several political, social, and moral reasons why anyone (but especially leftists) should refrain from illegal drug use.

First of all, the violence. Both on the streets of the United States, and across the world, the drug trade is full of violence and death. How many people died in the process of growing, processing, packaging, and relocating the bowl of pot that you just smoked?

More important to the leftists, however, is that drugs are really a weapon in class warfare. I mean that in several ways. First of all, when was the last time the head of a major cartel or street gang was imprisoned? I can't remember. The "major" busts that we read about on the news involve the discovery of large quantities of drugs and money. Well, in the world these cartels operate in, both drugs and money are replaceable. So are the poor, who are usually the people (whether in America or abroad) apprehended with the money and drugs. With technology and financial options becoming more enhanced, when was the last time someone at the top of one of these criminal organizations was stopped? Even when they are, they serve out their sentences in white collar prisons. Or, in some foreign countries, like Colombia, where Escobar served, in prisons that are more like personal palaces. Do you think that anyone was shuttling the street level pushers who went down for selling Escobar's coke to and from soccer games?

Let's look at the classist aspects of the illegal drug trade from start to finish.

Production. Poor farmers are the most likely to be tempted (or pressured) into growing coca, heroin, and marijuana. In fact, the class war aspect of this goes back beyond this decision. Many drug producing regions are the victims of protectionist U.S. agricultural policies. For years, Latin American countries enjoyed thriving exports of sugar, bananas, and coffee to the United States. Suddenly, when Asian countries could produce the same products, and gained "favored nation" status, the Latin Americans couldn't compete. When American countries moved directly into East Asian nations (i.e. Thailand, Indonesia, etc.), often subsidized by the United States governments, Latin American farmers were left high and dry.

These are the farmers targeted by the wealthy individuals behind the Latin American end of the drug trade. They don't have much to lose, and have a lot to gain. Because of U.S. subsidies to its farmers and manufacturers, even many products used in their own countries are imported from outside the region. Due to U.S. and Latin American subsidies, the small farmers cannot afford to compete with the large, corporate farms. They have small family plots which they are risking, but the gains can be huge. It is, in fact, these farmers, not the Escobars, Ochoas, or other cartel-heading families, who suffer when fields are fumigated or burned. The cartels will move on to the next farmer. The rural poor have lost their crop and their only source of income.

In trafficking, money, drugs, and big players are kept as separate as possible. This means that the individuals actually carrying drugs across international borders are unlikely to be the wealthy individuals responsible for either the U.S. or the international aspects of the business. At one time, they were likely to be fairly wealthy, as they probably owned boats or planes. With improved enforcement of the U.S. border, however, the methods for trafficking drugs have changed. It is now far more likely that an individual will be driving a car with false panels, or even carrying drugs inside their body. The "mules" who are recruited to do this are usually poor and desperate individuals, either looking to make fast cash and a paid-for vacation, or looking for the financial means to enter the United States. At the very least, they put their freedom in jeopardy. At worst, they engage in physically dangerous methods of transporting narcotics, including swallowing, or inserting into their body in other ways, condoms and balloons filled with highly toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, the cartel leaders sit at home at either end of the route collecting the payouts. The violence has erupted (again) in the border cities of northern Mexico. Do you think the real movers and shakers in the drug trade are anywhere near this border? Were any of their daughters disappearing on bus rides home from maquiladores in Juarez for the last 20 years? Were any of their heads found on the steps of an Acapulco night club? No. The poor along the Mexican border, and throughout the coastal states of Mexico, are the ones suffering right now.

When drugs hit the streets, again, the drugs, the money, and the key players are kept separate. The violence of street gangs is directed at other low-level players in the game, and the police often apprehend these low level players, since they are the ones actually making physical transactions involving the drugs. Meanwhile, gang leaders sit at home and collect the money.

Even drug use is classist and prejudiced. While middle aged, middle class white users, along with celebrities and star athletes, use the (relatively) safe and pure drugs (cocaine, marijuana, abusing prescriptions, etc.); people of color, gays, and the youth often wind up caught up in more synthetic, processed, and therefor dangerous drugs, like crack cocaine, crystal meth, and ecstasy.

Even enforcement is skewed along racist, homophobic, ageist, and classist lines. The penalties for crack, crystal meth, and ecstasy use are relatively harsh compared to those for other drugs, with ecstasy (used by the youth, but mostly the upper-middle class white youth) having strangely lenient requirements for crossing from misdemeanor "personal" use to felony "commercial" use. This leads to a cycle of young, poor people of color being killed by and incarcerated for drug use at a higher rate than their older, wealthier, straighter, and whiter counterparts.

In fact, the imprisonment for drug use among poor youth, and in particular poor youth of color, could very well be seen as perpetuating the racial gap in this country. Poor teens of color are put into prisons and juvenile detention facilities for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes associated with drug possession. There, they are locked up with and surrounded by killers, burglars, rapists, and other violent criminals. To survive, they often must turn to prison gangs. These prison gangs teach them how to become hardened criminals. When they are released, they have new knowledge, new skills, and new connections, which enable them to enter deeper into the world of crime. We send away young black men as kids who may have experimented with, or even sold a bag or two of, drugs. When they are released, they are criminals, with few options, and fewer inhibitions.

What proponents of drug use need to realize is this. The real culprits here, and the ones making the real money off of all of this pain and suffering, are not the street level dealers. They are successful business men, sitting in mansions in California, Florida, New York, Chicago, and around the world. They have stash houses full of cash, and bank accounts with lots of zeros. And they are all connected. So when you smoke a bowl of your (you think) guilt free pot, or do a line of your (you think) safe cocaine, you are actually supporting the same network of wealthy, middle aged men who are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Again, I acknowledge that the ultimate responsibility for many of these deaths actually lies in the oppressive prohibition on personal choice which has been imposed by the U.S. government when it comes to drugs. We spend millions of dollars, and take millions of lives, in an attempt to control our individual choices. My first suggestion would be that everyone advocate for a sensible drug policy in the United States. Until that happens, however, anyone who leans to the left politically, or who is socially and morally conscious, should stop using illegal drugs.

Immigration: Liberalize, Modernize, Enforce

2010-08-23T18:54:00.000-07:00

So illegal immigration is a huge buzz subject right now, so I figured I would take a minute to lay out what I think is the ideal immigration plan. It is a three pronged approach, and all three are necessary in order for the program to be successful.

First, we need to liberalize immigration policy. Make immigration into the United States by those seeking opportunities for gainful economic activity easier. Free flow of information and people is key to a successful free market economy, and we must make our borders more open to people who can add to our society, whether by taking jobs considered undesirable by many Americans, or by providing skilled labor or an educational background to their employers. Or, for that matter, by offering their labor at a lower rate, and thus serving to balance what is an increasingly inflated labor market in the United States. Liberalizing immigration policy also makes it more obvious that the type of people who still continue to enter our borders illegally are not the type of people we want to have here.

Second, modernize. Make agreements with other countries allowing us access to certain criminal records of those seeking to enter the United States. Allow people to apply for visas online, and process those applications online. Make all visas (even tourist visas) digital, to improve enforcement. Use biometrics to track people and ensure they are who they (and their documents) say they are at the border. Also, modernize both the public and government conversation on "border" security. Borders are no longer only on the edge of our country, or on land. They are no longer marked by a fence, a river, or a highway. Borders are present at every international air and sea port in this country. Borders are present anywhere there is a private air strip. Border security matters everywhere, not just in California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona.

Finally, enforce. Regardless of whether the laws which prevented them from legally entering our country are the best laws or not, the people who are here illegally are criminals. Whether they were or were not before, they are now. Enforce current immigration laws, and do so in a manner strict enough to discourage future violations. Enforce the laws intelligently, too. Don't just patrol border cities. Follow up on tourist and seasonal work visas. Did these people leave the country? This goes back to modernizing. Instead of a simple stamp on a passport, or a separate piece of paper, visas should be digitally available information. At best, this would allow ICE to track down anyone on an overstayed visa. At the very least, if this were linked electronically either to the passport itself, or to an electronic card required of anyone using a foreign passport as ID, it could greatly impair those on overstayed visas. For instance, if they tried to go get a driver's license or state ID, their license should expire when their visa expires. If they try to renew, they would not be allowed to, and ICE agents could be notified. If they try to fly, they would not be able to check in (except to International flights) with an expired visa card. If they try to open a bank account, or conduct any other business which requires an ID, their visa status would become clear.

It may sound odd that a Libertarian would propose tougher immigration enforcement. First of all, keep in mind that I do advocate a more open immigration policy. The new enforcement would be of less stringent requirements. Second, anyone who has read or seen anything on human trafficking lately knows that in addition to many who are here for their own purposes, many individuals who are not properly documented, or who overstay visas, are not here on their own accord anyway. Following up on every overstayed visa would greatly improve the likelihood of discovering and rescuing trafficked women and children.

Legalize It!

2010-08-22T17:49:00.000-07:00

The other day, I saw this interview at Reason on marijuana policy, and it caught my attention. Could our decades old losing "War" on drugs finally be coming to an end? With the issue appearing on the ballot in California, and mainstream medical and mental health professionals (even some, like Dr. Fichtner, who have a government background) coming out in support of legalization, we could be there.

Poll numbers show that increasing numbers of Americans support, or at the least, don't oppose, the legalization of marijuana. In fact, I'm guessing that polls, petitions, and other actions actually underestimate the number of people who strongly support liberalization of drug laws. Many drug users (especially the stereotypical paranoid pothead) do not publicly support legalization because they don't want their names associated with a taboo subject, and one which could have serious legal, professional, and personal ramifications.

Do I agree with Dr. Fichtner that marijuana legalization is the key to pulling us out of the recession? Not entirely.

I don't think pot is the next technology or real estate sector.

On the other hand, by legalizing marijuana, we could probably reduce federal and state budget deficits. Prisons would be less crowded, ICE agents could focus on stopping human trafficking, potential terrorists, and hard drug trafficking. Local law enforcement agencies would not be paying officers to search high school students' pockets for pot and pipes.

Moreover, the tax revenues generated by adding this product to the above ground market would be huge. The savings to the average user would also be significant, possibly providing some sort of stimulus spending on the pothead's part.

The lowered medical and law enforcement costs from reduced gang activity resulting from removing the most used illegal substance from the black market would be huge.

Is legalized pot going to save our economy? Probably not.

Will it help, even a little? Absolutely.

Is this just one more reason to add to an already long list to support legalization of marijuana and an end to our War on Drugs? Absolutely.

Californians, potheads and Libertarians everywhere are watching you this November. Continue to lead the way on this issue.

Paul Ryan's views on social medicine

2010-08-21T20:30:00.000-07:00

I saw this over at Conservative Outpost, and it was quite interesting to me.

I think that Paul Ryan is on to something here. Many conservatives use arguments involving Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security to point out what is wrong with Obamacare, and, in particular, the ways in which the cost estimates for the system are likely lower than the realistic costs of the program.

Why, then, when these conservatives were in office, were all three of these programs continued (and sometimes even expanded)? If Obamacare is truly evil, guess what, so are these other government-run healthcare programs. When we take back Congress this fall, prove to the public that you're not all a bunch of right-wing Christian nut jobs, and save us some money. Privatize medicine and elder care, for good, and for real!

Online K-12 Education

2010-08-20T10:39:00.000-07:00

I am not really sure if this is just a new trend in Nevada, or if it is nationwide, but I have been hearing a lot of advertisements for K12, an online, tuition free, public education option.

I have mixed feelings about this. From a political standpoint, I think it is great for two reasons.

First of all, I am all for improving the efficiency of any government programs, including public education. Online education does not carry the expense of purchasing or maintaining a physical school facility. This could lead to huge cost savings if and when this trend catches on on the large scale.

Second, I am all for parental choice in education. Especially in a system increasingly controlled by Federal, rather than State or Local, regulations, benchmarks and policies, parents should have more say in how their children are educated. Especially in Nevada, a state where many people are employed in the 24 hour gaming and tourism industries, this also has the potential to increase parental involvement in their children's education, since online education is not limited to a traditional daytime class schedule.

On a personal and social level, however, it is important to acknowledge that academic knowledge is only part of the educational experience. Socialization, and the learning of social norms and skills that comes with it is another huge part. There is an (in my humble opinion) alarming trend toward ignoring this aspect. From eliminating recess and physical education, to starting online education, we are shying away from the social development aspects of traditional education, in favor of test results to get children into increasingly competitive higher education institutions, so that they can better compete in an increasingly competitive job market. Through numerically-based Federal programs like the No Child Left Behind Act, we are leaving behind no individual children (at least on paper), but we are leaving behind the social development which schools bring.

Particularly as video games, cable televisions, and computers have taken children away from live, face to face (sometimes hand to hand) contact with other children, this is scary. Add to this the realities of our era not being as safe as that in which we, or especially our parents grew up. Gone are the days for most children of being left outside unattended on a summer afternoon to play with the neighborhood kids.

Test results may look good, but especially as our economy moves more and more away from production and into service industries, social interaction is important. There is no standardized test which adequately measures or prepares for social interaction. Practice, social gaffes, and yes, even fights, are how our youth learn what is and is not socially acceptable behavior. This is what truly prepares them for interaction with customers and coworkers in the real world. A college professor of mine once said, "Ten years from now, I doubt any of you will remember anything I taught you about Japanese politics. This class is not really about Japanese politics, or what you learn about it. It is about teaching you how to learn, and how to think."

The same goes for earlier phases of education. School is not about learning multiplication tables. It is about learning study, professional, and social skills which will allow students to prosper in adult life. Online education fails students in this important regard.

Thoughts on Gay Marriage

2010-08-12T19:59:00.000-07:00

With the ruling on Prop 8, the gay marriage debate has suddenly been brought back to life.

Well, I figure this is as good a time as any to share my thoughts on the issue.

First of all, the religious right is correct. Marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Perhaps, if that is what a particular religion believes, it should not be tainted or disgraced by the marriage of a same sex couple. On the other hand, what does the religious right think of Rush's three marriages? Or Republicans who get divorced?

The purpose of marriage (from a religious sense) is the raising of a family, is it not? So, according to most of the doctrines which oppose gay marriage, these couples should not be using birth control, right? Moreover, widows, divorced people, etc. shouldn't be getting married if the woman is post-menopausal, and unable to bear children, right?

In fact, in many of these religions, people probably shouldn't be marrying if the woman is employed full time outside the home, right? After all, women were intended to raise the family, right?

Well, the hypocrisy of the reasoning behind protecting the sanctity of marriage aside, here is my point. The whole institution of legal marriage is a disgrace to both the sanctity of marriage, and the liberty of individuals.

If a marriage is a holy union, why should you need the government's approval? What about couples who are in love, who have their creator's blessing, but cannot afford a marriage license, or for whatever reason are unable to attain one?

Some say that the issue is over a word. A less extreme view of my own perspective would argue that marriage should be changed to a "civil union" or "legal union" for both gay and straight couples, to take the religious fervor out of the argument.

My own, perhaps rather extreme, opinion, is that marriage as a governmental or political institution should be abolished. There are a series of "benefits," "drawbacks," and other effects which come with legal marriage. These should each be considered individually, and be up to the individuals involved to decide.

Many of these issues can be addressed with wills and living wills. Inheritance, hospital visitation rights, organ donations, funeral arrangements, medical decisions, etc. should go to biological family (parents or children), not to spouses, unless a specific arrangement has been made and legally documented prior to the situation arising.

Taxes should be based on living arrangements, not based on personal or romantic relationships or emotional attachments. Roommates (regardless of their domestic arrangement) who choose to live as a household should be able to file taxes as one, regardless of whether or not they are "married."

Health insurance companies and employers should decide who is eligible for non-employee benefits based on their policies, not based on a piece of paper issued by a court.

A couple of good examples before I stop rambling. Many adults never get married. Some get divorced and stay single. Some adults have long-term roommates. For instance, one woman I know has been married, and lived with her roommate for 30 years (almost as long as she has been married to her husband). They pay bills together, pay rent together, and share groceries. The roommate recently became unemployed, and is now being supported by my acquaintance and her husband. When the couple was raising their child, the roommate was there to support them and help them. Their daughter describes it as "almost like having a second mother." From a financial or tax standpoint, is she any less a part of their household than the husband?

Gay or straight, people should have the right (and responsibility) to make choices regarding individual financial, legal, and medical decisions. These should not be lumped into one institution, under a name borrowed from religion, and based entirely (at least in theory), on an emotional, sexual, and romantic relationship. Leave "marriage" and "unions" up to the people and their churches, and let the state worry about specific transactions.

The Murkowski Resolution's Failure

2010-06-29T17:14:00.000-07:00

I caught this over at Freedom Works, but I had a little bit different, and more (long-term) positive read on it.

Hopefully, rather than speaking specifically to bi-partisan opposition to Cap and Trade (although that would also be nice), this is showing a greater understanding of and respect for the separation of power from our legislators.

The executive branch of the United States government, including all of the regulatory agencies which fall under it, is supposed to execute the policies outlined by the legislative branch. It is not designed, intended to, or allowed to pass legislation or policy independent of the legislative branch.

Unfortunately, our legislature has bought into the idea of a bureaucracy of experts (more often a bureaucracy of people with good connections), and has given away both their right and their responsibility to legislate. If people wanted experts on environmental policy with no accountability to the public to have final say on environmental regulations, we would have elected people with those qualifications to public office. Instead, we want the people we elected to make laws for us to do that. And we want to have the power of the ballot box to hold them accountable.

Unfortunately, the Resolution failed. Fortunately, it was closer than expected, with even Democrats supporting it. Hopefully soon our legislators will start legislating, rather than pawning their jobs off on bureaucrats.

Gay Community Blinded By Partisan Politics

2010-06-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

I saw this letter to the editor recently, and it caught my eye. Let me preface this by saying that this is just one example of what I'm sure is a widespread problem.

First, let me point out that the blog this was found on is run by an organization specifically geared toward bringing together gays and the Republican Party.

Second, let me point out as a disclaimer that as a Libertarian (yes, a member of the Party, not just a blogosphere "Libertarian-minded" Republican), I offer a simpler solution for gay and lesbian voters. The Libertarian Party is, in fact, the only political party I'm aware of that actually explicitly supports gay rights to marriage and other gay issues.

But, realizing that most voters are registered with (or tend to vote for) one of the major parties, lets' get back to the overall point. Prominent gays and lesbian, gay and lesbian organizations, and the gay and lesbian media, tend to unequivocally support and endorse Democratic candidates. This may have made sense a few years ago, but given recent political trends, I wonder how wise this is. First of all, many Republicans, including candidates, are Republicans because they are sick of government spending, not because of the Republican stances on social issues.

On the other hand, Democrats seem less firm in their support for gay rights. Has our Democratic President taken a stance yet on gay marriage? Don't Ask Don't Tell? We elected one of the most "progressive" presidents we have ever had. He wants to provide free health care for everyone, raise taxes on the rich, etc. Yet, he has said in the past that he does not believe gays should marry. Granted, he wants to leave the individual decision to states, not the Federal government, but does that matter?

If the LGBT community continues its blind support of the Democratic agenda, we will simply elect state legislators who also oppose gay rights. As Right Pride rightfully points out, there are a number of Republicans in office and running for office who have been vocal in their support for the LGBT community and/or LGBT rights, and a number of Democratic public figures who are vague at best, and anti-gay at worst. Yet, the larger LGBT community continues to support the Democratic Party.

LGBT Organizations and the LGBT media (Human Rights Campaign, QVegas, etc.) are doing a real disservice to the gay community by continuing to blindly support Democrats in politics. While perhaps many gay voters tend to lean left, the role of these organizations and media outlets should be to advise politically based on the common factor affecting their membership and readership, namely sexual orientation. A specific candidate's track record and statements on LGBT issues, not their partisan affiliations, should be the grounds for endorsement by LGBT organizations and media.

Free Market at Work

2010-05-29T19:04:00.000-07:00

So for everyone who thinks that the government needs to be involved in protecting valuable resources, this article may come as a surprise. The exact same industry which is accused of endangering king salmon is paying for the study to determine if, in fact, they are responsible. The free market does, in fact, provide incentives for private industry to become the guardians and safe keepers of our natural resources. In fact, with a direct stake in the outcome of the study (both in terms of public perception of their primary product, and availability of other potential products), the pollock industry will probably make more of an effort to ensure that the research is completed in a timely way. Moreover, with funding coming from a limited, and private, source, the study will be more likely to be completed in a cost effective manner than if the government could simply give another grant out of an over-inflated bureaucratic departmental budget. Kudos to the pollock industry for funding this study.

Affects of Socialism in Europe

2010-05-26T22:11:00.000-07:00

I saw this earlier this month and found it interesting. When advocating for tax increases, increased welfare, or socialized medicine, the American left tends to always point toward Europe, and the supposedly higher standard of living, or at the very least, quality of life, found in Europe.

Having traveled to Europe, it is true that their lifestyle is much different, much more pleasure based, and much more relaxed and happy than our lifestyle here in the U.S. Or at least in major U.S. cities.

Looking at the numbers though, it soon becomes clear that this is an unsustainable lifestyle, at least as executed in Europe. Yes, European youth have more free time to explore themselves and the world around them. Partly because they have a 25% unemployment rate.

While this may seem okay, when the economy takes a dip, where do the funds to support the unemployed youth, vacationing workers, and retired pensioners of Europe come from? And what is the incentive to be a part of the other 3/4 of the European under 25 crowd, that is, the part of the crowd that works?

The riots in Greece and the bailout talks in the E.U. show the dangers of building a system on public aid and welfare. The numbers show just how much of a facade the image of backpacking European youth and happy public employees is.