Slow Bleep that I am, I've just run across Eric's Grumble

"The Sovereign Individual."

Here I've hacked out the heart of it, to show it to you. If you want to see the whole body alive and breathing, follow the link. [And follow his links from it, if you want to see how Freedom works.]

Robert Heinlein, who first described Rational Anarchy, said, "A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else."
...
Sovereign, as an adjective, means self-governing, or independent. We understand that a sovereign nation is completely responsible for its actions as a nation, the conduct of its leaders, the laws and police powers it applies to its citizens. And, just as importantly, we understand that there is no law that is superior to that of a sovereign nation, unless that nation chooses to agree to such law. Using this understanding of sovereign, and observing the behavior of individuals, both in and out of a social group, we can understand that ultimately sovereignty is housed within the individual. Which is what a Rational Anarchist believes.
...
This sovereignty does not exist because of the inherent rights of the individual, but rather because of the inherent responsibility and power of the individual. Every action is, ultimately, the result of the decision of an individual. This applies even to the ultimate expression of national sovereignty, making war.
...
With our current understanding of government and societies, we recognize that they are established to protect certain inherent rights, including life, liberty and property. What is important, though, is to understand that those inherent rights are the result of behavior by the individual, behavior that establishes sovereignty. The individual creates rights by taking, holding and improving property, by defending their life, by the acts of free association and free movement. And in the very act of making the decision to take such actions, the individual establishes that they are sovereign.
...
For responsibility for your actions and your moral decisions is inherent to you, the individual. Whether you want to accept it, or not. Your individual responsibility comes before your individual rights. It is what establishes your individual rights. And it cannot be taken from you, nor abdicated by you. No matter what anyone who believes in collectivism, of any political variety, may try to say, this fact, that you are sovereign and responsible for each and every action and decision is an unalterable, immutable fact of intelligence and consciousness.
...
Whether you choose to acknowledge it, or not, you are responsible for everything that you do, or don’t do. Trying to shift that blame is self-delusion. This is the difference between a child and an adult. An adult is capable, emotionally and mentally, of accepting responsibility for self, a child is not. You, ultimately, are sovereign, subject only to your own morals and ethics, responsible for yourself.

TANSTAAFL-There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch: everything has to be paid for. Are you willing to accept the price?

That IS libertarian morality. And it kicks YOUR morality's butt any day.

Update: Kyle Bennett reminded me that I hadn't included the link. Sorry about that.

And speaking of "sorry about that," I swear to God, I thought I had a permanent link to Kyle's blog. That oversight will be rectified momentarily.

Amartya Sen shows the brilliance that earned him a Nobel Prize

(Economics) in today's Wall Street Journal:

[T]he history of Muslims includes a variety of traditions, not all of which are just religious or "Islamic" in any obvious sense. The work of Arab and Iranian mathematicians, from the eighth century onward reflects a largely nonreligious tradition. Depending on politics, which varied between one Muslim ruler and another, there is also quite a history of tolerance and of public discussion, on which the pursuit of a modern democracy can draw. For example, the emperor Saladin, who fought valiantly for Islam in the Crusades in the 12th century, could offer, without any contradiction, an honored place in his Egyptian royal court to Maimonides, as that distinguished Jewish philosopher fled an intolerant Europe. When, at the turn of the 16th century, the heretic Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake in Campo dei Fiori in Rome, the Great Mughal emperor Akbar (who was born a Muslim and died a Muslim) had just finished, in Agra, his large project of legally codifying minority rights, including religious freedom for all, along with championing regular discussions between followers of Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and other beliefs (including atheism).

Cultural dynamics does not have to build something from absolutely nothing, nor need the future be rigidly tied to majoritarian beliefs today or the power of the contemporary orthodoxy. To see Iranian dissidents who want a fully democratic Iran not as Iranian advocates but as "ambassadors of Western values" would be to add insult to injury, aside from neglecting parts of Iranian history (including the practice of democracy in Susa or Shushan in southwest Iran 2,000 years ago). The diversity of the human past and the freedoms of the contemporary world give us much more choice than cultural determinists acknowledge. This is particularly important to emphasize since the illusion of cultural destiny can extract a heavy price in the continued impoverishment of human lives and liberties.

Mr. Sen, the 1998 Nobel laureate in economics, is the author of "Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny," published next week by Norton.

If he's bucking for a Nobel Peace Prize... well, I'd vote for him. And, maybe, a Pulitzer for this piece.

Although, I suppose I'd better read the book first before I make that promise.

I believe I've been doing more that my promised one out of 3.5 posts

over at The Bourgeois Philistine of late.

Partly because I consider it my workshop and partly because a lot of what I've been thinking about is more suited to discussion under the heading of Shopkeeper or Middle-Class life-style, than classical-liberalism/libertarianism.

Take a look and tell me where you think I've gone wrong. The place is made for kibbitzing.

Blundering about like the typical bourgeois American that I am

I ran across an oldish post of mine that I thought rated reiteration:

I pretty much acknowledge all the collectivist epithets that could be hurled my way as things to be proud of. "Finnlander" is considered an ethnic slur by my ancestors who are still living. It was a term of real social oppression for some who are still living in our neck of the woods. I suppose "Jew-lover" might be used against me in a way that would make me see red. And if someone were to seriously insult my black or Mexican friends I would be very angry. And, as I've said before, I have deep respect for a number of gay people that I don't want to see harmed or hurt.

I do get tired of accusations that, since I'm white guy, I have no understanding of oppression. All of my Finnish ancestors were forced out of the mining careers that they were promised, upon entering this country, by the current members of the unions of the time.

They did manage to find work in the logging camps and/or were allowed to homestead farms, which they managed with great success.

Whoops! Story time!

Rosie would like me to write something funny.

I don't know if I'll succeed, since I'm such a navel-gazer, but I'll give it a shot.

I'll just start off talking about family life and see what turns up.

We, Rosie and I, have story time every night. Since last summer, we've read the Harry Potter series, the Narnia books and now we're working on L.M. Montgomery's Anne books (Anne of Green Gables, Anne of Avonlea, etc.). We're reading Anne of Windy Poplars right now.

I've spent my whole life trying to be a manly man and now it's come to this. (Sigh!) Oh, well. I guess it's more important to me to be a good dad to my daughters than to be macho.

The fact is that I'm enjoying the books a great deal. Montgomery does a fantastic job of evoking the beauty that Anne sees in life, even though she began as an abused orphan waif, and then all the funny or sad things that happen as she grows into her family on Prince Edward Island.

Rosie's still interested in the stories, even though Anne is now in her twenties and a Principal of a school. Of course that keeps kids as a central part of the story. Rosie was watching over my shoulder and she wanted to see a little bit about that in here.

Now she's gone up to watch Extreme Home Make-over and Lena's down here trying to get me to play with her Clifford puppet. Oop! Took me too long. She's going back "upsthtair."

She's back. Giving me five, laughing at the hearts and flowers on her clothes. Counting something, looking for her rubber ducky, coveting my miniature '69 Olds Cutlass S. It's kinda hard to keep up. I can't type that fast.

I put up some pictures of her in "the back room". Well, one of her (more in and older post) and two of Rosie playing outside in the snow. We made a snowman today. And there's one picture of my workshop/weightroom.

My Lenten resolution was to eat only meat and vegetables, but then Girl Scout cookies came out. Oh, well.

Rosie read to me Omni's St. Patrick's Day post. I only had to correct her pronunciation of a couple words. I didn't put her up to it. Not sure why she felt the need, but what could it hurt, eh? She learned at least one new word.

She wanted to look at people I've linked. I tried Mean Ol' Meany first, because she thought the name was funny, but that wasn't really suitable for children. She thought the dog with the beer was pretty funny. But we stopped reading the comments rather quickly.

They fined 'em!? You gotta be kidding!

Dear Editor:

The $3.6 million in "indecency" fines proposed by the FCC against CBS are an ominous attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Just as the government doesn't fine newspapers that publish cartoons that Muslims deem indecent, it shouldn't fine broadcasters that air shows that viewers deem indecent. Viewers are free to change the channel or turn off their TV set if they do not like what they see. They can't be forced to patronize a station they find indecent.

Moreover, it is the parents--not the government--who should be responsible for determining what their children are allowed to watch on TV.

David Holcberg

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Dan Henninger reaches a conclusion I can buy

in his editorial in todays Opinion Journal entitled, "Barry Bonds, Meet Andrew Fastow: There's more to morality than the politics of sex."

The efficient path to an ethical revival would be to call upon religious institutions and the schools to teach morality. Uh-oh. Morality? Entire presidential campaigns and Supreme Court nominations are fought now over someone's idea of morality. What's right and wrong has become as red and blue as our politics.

But look a little closer. These religious wars are about one thing: sex.

After the 2004 "moral values" presidential election, Pew Research surveyed public attitudes. But the only explicitly identified determinants of moral belief named in their questionnaires are abortion, gay marriage and gay rights (and belief in God).

Maybe it's time for the sex obsessives on the left and right to take their fights over abortion and gay rights into a corner somewhere and give the rest of society space to restore some ethical rootedness in an endlessly variable world. Because letting the vacuum persist long enough on values useful to everyday life will breed too many little Bonds and little Fastows. And because the constant public magnification of these ethical breakdowns makes everyone feel like scuzz by association. It has a corrosive affect on the rest of us, on our sense of who we are.

I was taught to spell "scuzz" with one 'z,' but I like his point.

I see the Blog-Ads think I'm an ally of the anti-globalists

I consider that a defamation of character (though I promise I won't retain a lawyer over the matter).

No, indeed! I'm a great fan of Globalization, Creative Destruction, Progress and, what Virginia Postrel calls Dynamism. Does Peter Drucker have a term for it? I'd throw that in too.

I don't worship at the shrine of today's political boundaries. They were different ten years ago. I'd say they're better now and they've been improving, by my JUDGMENT for the last thirty or so years.

I believe in political boundaries; they shouldn't be violated by their neighbors... as long as The Authorities inside said boundaries weren't violating the rights of their citizens.

The economics of globalization? Guess what kids: Adam Smith and Ricardo (and Malthus, Say and Bastiat) mastered the field over 150 years ago. That is: open trade to Everyman and both sides will profit.

Celebrate The Ides responsibly, please.

That means no stabbing.

(Well, all right. Maybe a little. Insert photo of your favorite tyrant here.)

"Caesar had his Brutus," as Patrick Henry put it (in the footnote), on this day... I want to say 2050 years ago, but since the monks who made up our calendar didn't have zeroes, don't we have to subtract two years from that?

So we'll have to wait a couple years for the big wingding.

Here's a quote to go harangue

The Mises Institute about (the link is to the blog where haranguing is allowed):

I urge traditional believers in laissez-faire to remember that the market economy is a dynamic order. It is misleading to look at "jobs lost" due to some factor or other and ignore the jobs created by the same underlying processes. For example, I am quite sure that over 100 million US jobs have been destroyed by machinery during the 20th century, in the sense that one could count up every single job that was eradicated by the introduction of a particular labor-saving device. Naturally this doesn't mean that currently the vast majority of Americans are unable to find work, and that those who do must sell their labor hours for pennies. Yet arguments comparable to this lie behind much of the anti-globalization hysteria.

Before we let Dr. Murphy go, you should read this:

"...[I]t's not merely misleading, but 100% counterproductive, to oppose New World Order, backroom multinational corporation/NGO/Third World slave labor camp deals by saying one has "second thoughts on free trade." Yes, the true friend of free markets and liberty opposes thousand-page regulatory documents like NAFTA and GATT. If a multinational corporation cuts a deal with a petty tyrant and gets villagers to make sneakers at gunpoint, that's not "free trade" by any stretch."
...
Until the critics can come up with at least one actual recommendation that is (a) a deviation from laissez-faire and (b) will make Americans richer, I see no reason to reject the presumption of liberty. As is so often the case, not only is freedom just, it is also pragmatic.

FEE's In Brief post today is pretty good

[Here's the link.]
News & Commentary
Medicare Drug Benefit Woes Continue
March 13, 2006

"Pharmacists say they have been losing money under Medicare's new prescription drug benefit, and they have taken their concerns to the White House, forcing the administration to confront political problems caused by the rocky start of the program." (New York Times, Monday)

In the words of Mises: "Economics does not say that isolated government interference with the prices of only one commodity or a few commodities is unfair, bad, or unfeasible. It says that such interference produces results contrary to its purpose, that it makes conditions worse, not better...."

FEE Timely Classic

"Prescription for Disaster"
by Sheldon Richman

Eugene Tan analyses the declining achievements

of Singapore's Education System.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear:

Yet, in our deep-rooted belief that education is the universal medicine to all social ills, we keep expanding the catchment of education. We believe that if we manage to keep everyone in the school system long enough, everyone will be educated.

But how many times must we remind each other than getting an education and being educated are entirely different issues? Yet, the equivalence is drawn every time. The glaring differences (I won't even use the notion of subtlety here) are blurred with broad strokes.

We expand and expand and expand our educational streams and institutions. In the name of providing differentiated education to different parts of the student spectrum, have we considered that there are those whose real education is from the university of the society? Mandatory education does nothing for them.

It's unnatural to stop quoting him there, but this is a taste. It's brilliant. Read the whole thing.

Crypticism

Al said...
God's not so bad, really. But sometimes his(?) rules make him(?) seem like a s***. (cf. His non-interference in the war between the angels and the demons.)

9:31 PM

It'd be more cryptic, I suppose, if I hadn't given the reference. If I shouldn't have, you know where to find me.

I like people with an edge to 'em.

That's why I have no friends now. None of 'em could stand each other and they all held it against me that I wanted to hang around with one or more of the other ones.

I like cats too. And "our" cat loves me and hates everybody else.

And, of course, I married one of my friends and none of the rest of my friends can stand her.

It's edged things that I like. I also collect knives.

This is all in aid of introducing an excerpt [a word with a bite] from Ann Coulter's critique of the Oscars:

Although I must tell you, overall, this Academy Awards ceremony was a major strategic retreat by Hollywood. Despite all their Bolshevik bluster about how Democratic politicians won't stand up to Republicans, the Hollywood left is as scared of decent patriotic Americans as the Democrats are.

"Brokeback Mountain" did not win best picture, "Munich" won nothing, and the Palestinian suicide bombers movie won nothing. There was no angry self-righteousness from Vanessa Redgrave against "Zionist hooligans," or from Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon for the Haitian boat people. There was no Bush-bashing. There was no Michael Moore. The host was not Whoopi Goldberg, so that's a big fat reward to every man, woman and child in America right there.

This may have been the most American Oscars yet, if America consisted of beautiful airheads in $50,000 dresses. And that was just the guys in "Brokeback Mountain."

I believe this marks the first time in Oscars history that an award recipient shouted, "Thank you, Jesus!" upon receiving his award. Admittedly, this was the only part of the speech that didn't have to be bleeped and it was for a song titled, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp," but it's still a step forward.

She's America's best comedy writer, don't you think? I understand she does a heck of a stand-up show as well.

She doesn't slaughter all the sacred cows that are askin' for it, but she gets a lot of them.

She keeps her tools sharp.

Damn! Kirby Puckett died!

I'm listening now to Kent Hrbek on TV.... This will be a bit hard for me to write anything worth reading.

I loved Kirby. I came to Minnesota in 1987. It probably won't surprise anybody that I became a fan of the Twins that year. I think Puckett won my heart for the Twins when I was working a double shift one night and he hit for the cycle while we were listening on the radio. For those, ignorant of baseball jargon, that means he hit a single, a double, a triple and a homerun. If you don't know what those terms mean, I can't help you here.

Let's make it clear. I wasn't even a baseball fan, though it's hard to be an American boy and not learn a lot about the game. I suppose Moliter's 25 game hitting streak to start the '87 season got me pretty interested. But, as I say, I knew some things about baseball by then. I knew about Joe DiMaggio's streak and Pete Rose's. Actually, I learned about the former via the latter. Looks like 'Roids can't screw up that record.

Pretty sure Puck wasn't a "roid boy". [A friend and workout partner of mine was once called that. He considered it a complement, since he's one of those people who doesn't need steroids. I hope the RCMP is using his talent properly.]

[Interruption to blow bubbles and put bunnies to bed.]

I suppose it's just as well that I've lost my train of thought. There are better sources of info on what's happened.

Stewart Rhodes provokes a thought

in the Liberty Committee's More Liberty blog. In his article Government Supremicists, he argues:

The left and right differ only on what part of the federal government gets to decide when we are stripped of our constitutional protections. Certainly, many liberals disagree about particular policies, such as some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, the invasion of Iraq, rendition for torture, and the manner of confinement and treatment at abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. But we are concerned here with the constitutional law claim that we the people can be treated like the enemy at all. The right insists the president can do it entirely on his own, while the left insists that he must have the blessings of Congress and/or the courts before he spies on us, interns us in military brigs or concentration camps, tortures us for information (or renders us to a foreign nation to do that) or have us tried by a hand-picked military tribunal in a show trial before having us shot (if we get a trial).

These accusations of unconstitutionality need to be tried. It's not gonna happen in a government court, and an ad hoc court wouldn't have subpoena power, but I highly recommend that somebody hire a real, impartial judge who'd do it because he was interested in the questions (interested, as in "curious", not as in 'having a financial, or political, stake in the outcome'--here's a WOD for you: disinterested is a synonym of impartial, not uninterested--what I'd like the judge to be uninterested in is political-correctness, left, right, neo-con or anarchist; i.e. I want a disinterested judge). And real attorneys for the defense and prosecution.

And, of course, real procedures for handling evidence, testimony and whatever.

LibertyBob could summon an All-Thing.

It is these last procedural protections of the Bill of Rights (along with the First and Second Amendments) that the neo-conservative government supremacists now seek to destroy to attain their dream of unrestrained, unlimited "war" power in a loosely defined war on terror; a war that will likely never end. And the loyal opposition only insists on a role for politicians and willful judges in this murder of the Bill of Rights, trusting only in the god of democracy and the high priests on the federal bench to secure our lives and liberty. Our Constitution and our Bill of Rights have been largely abandoned by both the Republicans and the Democrats.

In the short-run, I'd say he's exaggerating, but I see his point for the long-run.

War is problematic for libertarians. It's a break-down of the rules of civilization--or, for those who hate civilization to start with (yeah, I've read some of your crap, I don't see that your version of anarch will help my daughters live long, healthy, happy lives), it's a break-down of Love and Respect and an outbreak of Hate and Violence.

I'm afraid that sometimes the Lovers and Respecters have to band together to suppress the Haters and Violators. It'd be nice if governments embodied love and respect, but they never will. They should be the embodiment of rules and procedures to protect individuals who practice those values.

The Liberty Papers is a thing of beauty!

You guys are just kickin' A!

It's the Cato's Letters of the 21st Century. I applaud you! [Though I'm wistful about my lack of time to join you.]

I'm adding a new link to you in my link bar.

Bill Bradford's dead too?!!

[My first thought for a title for this was "AAGH! G** D*** H***!!"]

J****! What are we going to do now?!

I take deep comfort in this list:

R.W. Bradford
(1947–2005)
founder

Stephen Cox
editor

Andrew Ferguson
managing editor

John Hospers
Bruce Ramsey
Jane S. Shaw
senior editors

Brien Bartels
David Boaz
Alan W. Bock
Douglas Casey
Eric D. Dixon
Brian Doherty
Alan Ebenstein
David Friedman
Bettina Bien Greaves
Leon T. Hadar
Gene Healy
Robert Higgs
Bill Kauffman
Dave Kopel
Bart Kosko
Loren E. Lomasky
Sarah McCarthy
Wendy McElroy
William E. Merritt
Robert H. Nelson
Randal O'Toole
Ross Overbeek
Durk Pearson
Patrick Quealy
Jeff Riggenbach
Scott J. Reid
Ralph R. Reiland
Sheldon Richman
Timothy Sandefur
Sandy Shaw
JoAnn Skousen
Mark Skousen
Tim Slagle
Fred L. Smith Jr.
Martin M. Solomon
Clark Stooksbury
Thomas S. Szasz
Martin Morse Wooster
Leland B. Yeager
contributing editors

Mark Rand
Kathleen Bradford
assistant editors

S.H. Chambers
Rex F. May
cartoonists

There are a great many geniuses there. Their eulogies may be read here.

Let me quote from Joanne Skousen's:

In 1991 I gave a talk at the Eris Society meetings in Aspen, Colo. Entitled "Confessions of an English Major," it was about my experience as a politically incorrect but morally erect graduate student at the University of Florida. Afterwards Bill talked to me enthusiastically about my speech, both the content and the delivery, and suggested I should run for president on the Libertarian ticket.

"We need someone like you," he said. "You're a woman, you're married, you go to church, you like raising your kids, and you're intelligent besides. We need you to demonstrate that Libertarians aren't just druggies and anarchists." I took it as a compliment but thought nothing more about it until the week before Labor Day, when Bill started calling me from the Libertarian Convention every few hours to say, "Get out here! We need to nominate you!"

I was in Utah, taking my firstborn to her college orientation, and wouldn't leave her. But I love being able to tell people, "The Libertarian Party wanted me to run for president, but I had to take my daughter to school!"

The fact that Bill was serious about nominating me says a lot about his attitude toward liberty. He knew that liberty isn't just for anarchists, or technocrats, or druggies, or men, although that is the impression the media seem to have of libertarians. Bill knew that libertarian principles are as relevant for religious stay-at-home moms as they are for pot-smoking single males. He also believed that a libertarian political victory was possible. His wasn't just the purist, out-of-the-ashes-of-anarchy libertarianism, but a workable, electable libertarian style of limited government.

May Mr. Cox and the rest of those on that list worthily carry on the work of the Master.

Oh my God!! Harry Brown died!!

The Libertarian Party has the announcement here.

This is Harry website.

I own his books, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, Fail-Safe Investing and Why Government Doesn't Work, and the videotape The Great Libertarian Offer.

I also own a couple tapes of him speaking at Liberty Magazine conferences and I think he's in an Advocates for Self-Government set I bought. I still intend to buy Libertarianism A-Z.

I voted for Harry in 2000. (I was still a Republican in '96.)

You deserve a quote from How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World. Heck, I'll give you a whole section of the chapter "Freedom from Government":

Three Principles
The first principle in in dealing with government, then, is: Don't be awed by it. What little the government accomplishes is almost always due to the voluntary participation of its citizens. Those who don't want to help the government can go their own ways without running into much trouble.

The second principle is: Don't confront the government. A sure way to make your life miserable is to attack the government head on. Its resources are limited, and it can't waste them tracking down every possible violator of every law. But it will certainly aim its power at anyone who publicly defies it. So keep to yourself, do what you have to do.

The third rule in dealing with government is: Don't organize. Don't get a large group of people together to defy tax laws, promote ways of circumventing the government, or openly violate regulations.

By joining protests, you might wind up in jail. And you won't have much freedom there.

And mass campaigns are easy targets. That's where the government is likely to devote its limited resources. When many people are doing the same thing, it's easy to stop them by passing laws or by applying existing laws against them.

When you act alone, however, you're usually not worth the trouble.

I once summarized the book jokingly to my wife as "Tell everyone who bugs you to f***-off!" Actually, it's more like, "Do whatever you want to do, but don't tell anyone who doesn't need to know." Emerson said, "Every actual government is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well." [I didn't cut and paste that one. I have it memorized.]

I was also rather enamored of chapter 12: The Previous-Investment Trap: my summary, you don't owe it to anybody or anything to "go down with the ship." [I'd say that the Egyptian ferry crew, the other day, misunderstood this principle to the point of justly prosecutable dereliction of duty, if not manslaughter... I mean... What did they think their job was? They committed fraud on the people who depended on them for their lives, to the point that many people died unnecessarily.] You have no duty whatsoever to sink you life with an obvious loser. In fact you have a duty to the preciousness of your own life to cut that loser loose.

[I just posted the latter paragraphs, somewhat edited, as a review at Amazon.

Hm. I might be editing that further, if I can. It seems that there were thoughts I'd thought I'd expressed that didn't appear.]

Apply the stop-loss investing principle across the board in your whole life.

Have I done that?

Not entirely, no. There are still some people in whom I've invests sizable portions of my life who haven't paid off yet, in terms of my happiness, but they may yet. The promise is not yet extinguished. With people, a hard and fast 25% stop-loss order is just another oppressive regulation.

The canon of libertarianism is named Human Action, after all.

Update: there are many beautiful encomiums to Harry on the blog of his latest great effort Downsize DC. An effort that will last well beyond his lifespan and doubtlessly bear the fruits of Freedom and Peace beyond its own lifespan.

Business Know How, besides having a ton of great articles

on how to run a small business, also has a pretty good blog.

Oh, I just had a link... Here:

Theory of Capitalism

Practice of Capitalism. (That's where to find the Business Know How articles.)

I hate to make excuses, but

it seems, lately, that everytime I have an idea for a good post I get interrupted.

See! The baby just came down with an earache. We're trying Dimetap and a heat-pad. Earaches almost always start with a runny nose, and she's had one for a few days now. I know how to keep gunk out of my eustacian tubes, but it's tough to teach that to a baby.

I suppose I should get in the habit of calling her a toddler. She definitely toddles these days.
________

I'd say the minimum research for a good post is three news articles. Four, if one's an editorial. Sometimes I post on less--when I think it's a good idea to just get my gut reaction out there, as I did on my last post. My opinion on the UAE deal stands until I'm proven wrong.

Hannity's on right now citing Dubai Ports World's support for Hammas and other shady UAE dealings. I haven't expressed my thoughts about Hammas winning the Palestinian elections, I guess. I think they'll actually do better than the PLO. If they look like they're pulling a Hitler, they'll be stopped.

Though, ugh! That reminds me of a theory I used to hold--and maybe still do, though it hasn't been tested much lately: stopping fights between people who want to fight only brings on greater catastrophes later. And, more importantly, delays (or destroys the opportunity for) a reconciliation.

Sadly, that means that, in the short term, there will be violence. But the combatants will burn out their hostility and learn to respect and love each other afterwards.

I developed this theory in Junior High, with the help of some friends, and I have yet to see it disproven.

How should it work in practice?

1. Don't interfere with the initial blow up. As long as deadly weapons aren't involved, third parties should mind their own business.

2. Third parties must confine themselves to ensuring a "fair fight." That is, one combatant versus one opponent. Third parties must not judge the adequacy of either, lest they unfairly weight the competition toward one or the other. However obvious the outcome may seem, you could be wrong, and interference will not bring about love between the opponents.

This is the essence of The Rule of Law.

I saw many fights in Junior High in which the combatants learned to respect each other and made up to become the best of friends. I've seen no evidence that international relations are carried on on a higher level of thinking, though I've seen plenty of evidence that diplomats think they can make people feel what they feel.

Another example from my personal experience comes from my time at the Grand Canyon. Back in 1986 I lived in a dorm with all the other lower-echelon schlubs there, and the neighbors were given to having drunken parties. I would have joined them, but my job started earlier than theirs, so I had to get to sleep earlier, and my work-week ran Thursday-Monday.

Anyway, one night the neighbors were partying and one of the drunks grabbed this girl's ass. She was rightly offended and dressed the offender down thoroughly. Unfortunately, she didn't let it drop at that point. She threatened the guy with everything she could think of-including a thorough pounding by her boyfriend, as soon as his work-shift ended, and hounded him with these threats for the next several hours until her boyfriend did finally arrive.

All this was going on on the other side of the paper-thin walls of our dormitory while I was trying to go to sleep.

For the next hour, the two men kept trying to have a proper fight and the neighbors kept separating them. The monkey-wrench was that the offended girl would start screeching at the offender every time she saw him.

Finally, the offender went back to his room--which was unfortunately, right next door to mine--where he pulled out his revolver. The girl goaded her boyfriend into finally confronting him there.

********

The boyfriend is no longer with us.

********

I blame the girl first, for not taking care of her own ass, and demanding that somebody else do it for her.

Second, I blame the people who thought it was a great idea to interfere with a fist-fight. Instead of peace, they got death.

I want that case to be studied by all so-called Peacemakers.

I am neither a Nativist nor a Populist

So I don't think the Bush Administration's stand on the UAE/American Ports issue is the wrong one. You want an American company to do it? Guess Who is the only company with the expertise. Can you say "Halliburton?"

Ha! Ha! Hahahahahaha!

[Do I sound like my big brother? Sorry. Or maybe I'm not. Kind of a Romulus and Remus thing, if you know what I mean. (We're not twins. I've accused him of raising me. Anybody remember Lucan?)]

OK, Kellogg, Brown and Root. Who's counting?

I worked for Halliburton one day. It was a day-laborer position in--or, I should say, out of--Odessa, Texas. I was a Newby and I acquitted myself like an FNG. But, luckily, everything went right and I lived to BS on the WWW.

The crew I worked with that day was so professional that I have no f***in' idea how they could do what they did even with me as a dead weight to slow them down.

I'm a big, strong man, but I still don't know how to wind up 300 yds of frayed steel cable in two minutes without shredding my leather gloves, let alone the hands inside them.

That's what they asked me to do, and that's what they ended up doing for me. They paid me for my 13 hour day with them....

Wait a minute! That was Burton Well Service that I'm describing. I ended up working for the summer of 1984 for Welltech. It's Welltech that was a byword (future WOD) among the oil well servicing companies of [the extremely hazardous] oil field of Permian Basin.

Oh, yeah. WellTech was a subsidiary of Halliburton.

They centralized their operations and canned my ass.

"Are human interests, left to themselves, harmonious or antagonistic?"

That's a question from this long article about Frederic Bastiat.

Bastiat did not claim that laissez-faire was bound to produce a state of perfection. His contention was that, where private property is respected, a natural order comes into existence in which individual interests are not antagonistic but mutually supportive. Society then constantly progresses, even though it might never be perfect at any point of time.

Al's efforts at a great article on Bastiat are, as Jed Clampet would say, "Pitiful. Just Pitiful."

Here is a brilliant answer to the ARI letter I posted the other day

from Tunku Varadarajan in the Wall Street Journal (in the free part, so take a look):

To the free-speech absolutists in the blogosphere, I say that making this episode the test of our Western manhood is not the right way to go--for a number of reasons. To start with, some points should be obvious: Every right--and here, specifically, the right of free speech--is not a duty; nor does discretion or good taste or a desire to be constructive amount to a spit in the eye of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech and imagery is sacrosanct; but it is not compulsory.

The First Amendment means that you can, but do not have to, exercise the freest lawful speech. It means that you are responsible for your speech, not the authorities. The absence of legal restrictions also means that institutional dispensers of speech--such as newspapers and TV channels--need to exercise their freedom wisely.

What? Am I taking both sides?

No. I'm on this guy's side. Although I worry about phrases like "the freest lawful speech."

Ah! My Beloved Objectivists!

Dear Editor:

Bravo to all the newspapers that published the Danish cartoons that many Muslims have responded to with violent riots. And shame on every newspaper that sacrificed the principle of free speech in the name of "sensitivity" to Islamic dogma.

The moral and practical response to the Muslim attack on free speech is for every newspaper of the free world to publish--as an act of solidarity and defiance--the Danish cartoons with the following message: "We proudly defend free speech against anyone who believes that their religion entitles them to suppress it."

Glenn Woiceshyn
Ayn Rand Institute
Irvine, CA

2121 Alton Parkway
949-222-6550 ext 226

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

I have to say that I like the sound of these elements

Of Sue Jeffers' - Libertarian candidate for Minnesota Governor - platform:

Work For People, Not Special Interests
In a climate of partisanship and gridlock, as governor I will work with both parties to find common ground, instead of the special interests.

I will work with Democrats on issues we agree on including:
- stopping corporate welfare projects
- helping the working poor with lower taxes
- protecting our environment from dangerous polluters
- protecting our civil liberties

I will work with Republicans on issues we agree on including:
- protecting property rights
- advocating choice in education
- reforming excessive regulations

Sounds like the way to go to me.

BTW, Sue Jeffers owns Stub & Herb's Bar down by the U of M in Minneapolis, and she's been leading the charge for Bar and Restaurant owners rights over what they may allow or ban on their premises.

Oh! Update: Checking out her FAQ, I saw this: Why is the smoking ban not an issue on your web site?
I have been very vocal on the issue, but to clarify: smoking bans are just one assault on property rights. I believe these bans are against state law, if not, the law should be changed.

And, I have to admit, she's got that strong, competent woman look that makes me so... uh, that I like.

Ah! The eternal question...

Why Aren't You an Anarchist?
by Fred E. Foldvary

Say "anarchy" and many people think of chaos, violence, and everybody running amuck. The word "amuck," also spelled "amok," comes from the Malay language, meaning guys who suddenly become aggressive and homicidal due to some perceived insult.

But anarchism also has a totally different meaning, that of the belief in social harmony without an imposed government. It is a peaceful anarchy with a spontaneous and contractual order.

Most people are not in favor of peaceful anarchism because they think it cannot work. Many philosophers have been telling us that people form or support a government in order to establish security and order, otherwise society will fall apart and run amuck.

Econ Professor Foldvary is pushing Georgist Anarchism, or Geoanarchism as he calls it, which is Communitarian rather than Individualist; public goods are paid for by a single Land Tax.

The article is short and I don't want to leach all the good stuff out of it. Give it a look.

Questions about the Trade Deficit.

I just had Michael Savage on...

I'd really like to like the guy... Well, the fact is that I do like him. He has a lot of the qualities I like in a person: he's friendly; he's crazy; he has a hard edge... He's tough. He's cool.

And he's smart... but he don't know nothin' about economics. George W. Bush knows a lot more. Keynes and Marx knew more economics than Savage. And I have zero respect for them: Marx for placing political prejudice above science and Keynes for placing personal gain above Truth - political, scientific or philosophical. "In the long run we are all dead" indeed. He died rich. Where'd he leave us? With Samuelson (who had to revise his estimates of Soviet productivity downward with every edition of his famous economics text) and Krugman, that's where!

But Savage... What's his excuse? He, and his beloved Pat Buchanen, keep espousing the economics of the Unions, who learned everything they know from Karl Marx. Who learned everything he knew from Ricardo and Smith, who, for some bizarre reason (Rothbard blames Calvinism) created the Labor Theory of Value (Smith, which led directly to Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages); a theory held by none of his predecessors that was blown out of the water by the Theory of Marginal Utility in the 1870s. The Physiocrats were closer to the truth (though they were also wrong).

But Smith, Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Marx and Keynes ALL understood economics better than modern unions, Pat Buchanen and Michael Savage.

The Trade Deficit means that we have money (somehow) that others value (somehow) and they have goods that we value. My question is: why do they value our money? And further: how do we make it valuable, and how do we keep from f***ing that up?

You can buy gold in 1/10 oz coins. If you're really worried about our money, you should buy some. I'll plug in some links when I have more time, but a Google search will tell you as much as I will. I'd recommend California Numismatics if you're really concerned.

And there's some Great News I came across via that last guy.

Scaling back socialism:
Sweden looks to fuel growth via economic, market reforms

That article looks like it has too many theses. And I don't know that the thesis that it's titled after is that well supported. It all depends on the voters electing their Non-Socialist Alliance.

[Would that be like an Antisocial Association?]

Via the last guy, specifically, in a comment on this post.

Hey! Just what I was looking for!

A blog about Finland by someone who advocates "liberty, individuality, equality and tolerance."

Finland for Thought

His links alone are enough to buy a place on my linkbar.

After neglecting my Mark Steyn for a while

I finally got around to reading him today. I've got to admit that his take on the Joel Stein issue seems pretty persuasive to me. I also don't understand how you can support our troops and object to what they're doing at the same time. You'd have to want them to be sucky at it.

Okay, let me delve a little deeper. You wish them the best, but you want to get the Administration to bring them home. The CINC and the troops are two different things.

But, I gotta tell ya, kids: if the troops do their jobs in exemplary fashion, the natural human desire for freedom will be victorious, though not without hardship. Remeber what Tom Paine said, "Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily conquered..." amd let's not forget how that thought continues, "yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

Yes, we must place more and more responsibility on the Iraqis to maintain their own freedom, and we must eventually (very soon, in fact) allow them full indepedence. I suspect that we'll leave a sizeable garrison there, as we did in Germany and Japan to fight the Cold War, and if we're lucky it'll work out as well.

It's not empire, but it's almost as much of a drag, economically, as empire. To pay for it, we don't need draconian taxation. What we really need is freer markets. Not an "Open Door" policy as we had from the 1880s through the 1920s-where we employed our troops to kick open doors in Japan, China and Latin America [yes, that was a pretty fascist way to operate-almost as shameful as slavery itself], but true openness. Openess that helps poor economies rise to our level. Openess that takes advantage of the comparative strengths of different regions and diverse peoples. Openess that doesn't fear "creative destruction" or the uncertainties of "spontaneous order."

That kind of openness won't protect your current job or give stability to your firm, but, if you're willing to retrain, it'll make sure that you continue to have a job or firm.

President Bush and the Neocons are using the Japan and Germany models for their template. Let's hope they learn all the lessons from the Wirtschaftswunder and Macarther's reforms.

Eh?

Update: I added that link, which I got from a November post by Chase Bradstreet over at Peace for our Time.

I have him listed as an anarcho-capitalist for some reason I can't explain. A relapse, no doubt.

I haven't abandoned

The Bourgeois Philistine. I love the name enough to keep it going.

Family life and The Super Bowl on the last post. (Verb? What's a verb?)

HO! HO! Nobody gave me the Worm!

So I can say whatever I want!

Thus I shall praise Herr von Mises, who has managed to say everything I've been trying to say for the past two years in four paragraphs, and explain what it all means besides):

Human Cooperation

Human cooperation is different from the activities that took place under prehuman conditions in the animal kingdom and among isolated persons or groups during the primitive ages. The specific human faculty that distinguishes man from animal is cooperation. Men cooperate. That means that, in their activities, they anticipate that activities on the part of other people will accomplish certain things in order to bring about the results they are aiming at with their own work. The market is that state of affairs under which I am giving something to you in order to receive something from you. I don't know how many of you have some inkling, or idea, of the Latin language, but in a Latin pronouncement 2,000 years ago already, there was the best description of the market — do ut des — I give in order that you should give. I contribute something in order that you should contribute something else. Out of this there developed human society, the market, peaceful cooperation of individuals. Social cooperation means the division of labor.

The various members, the various individuals, in a society do not live their own lives without any reference or connection with other individuals. Thanks to the division of labor, we are connected with others by working for them and by receiving and consuming what others have produced for us. As a result, we have an exchange economy which consists in the cooperation of many individuals. Everybody produces, not only for himself alone, but for other people in the expectation that these other people will produce for him. This system requires acts of exchange.

The peaceful cooperation, the peaceful achievements of men are effected on the market. Cooperation necessarily means that people are exchanging services and the products of services, goods. These exchanges bring about the market. The market is precisely the freedom of people to produce, to consume, to determine what has to be produced, in whatever quantity, in whatever quality, and to whomever these products are to go. Such a free system without a market is impossible; such a free system is the market.

We have the idea that the institutions of men are either (1) the market, exchange between individuals, or (2) the government, an institution which, in the minds of the many people, is something superior to the market and could exist in the absence of the market. The truth is that the government — that is the recourse to violence, necessarily the recourse to violence — cannot produce anything. Everything that is produced is produced by the activities of individuals and is used on the market in order to receive something in exchange for it.

First: Happy Birthday Miss Rand!

The first celebratory piece I've read today was from The Objectivist Center and I like it. Here's a couple paras:

Rand developed an ethos of rational self-interest, but this "virtue of selfishness" was not an anti-social creed for predators. Instead, it led Rand to her great insight that there is no conflict of interest between honest, rational individuals. Since individuals are ends in themselves, no one in society should initiate the use of force or fraud against others. All relationships should be based on mutual consent. This became the credo of the modern libertarian movement, found today in think tanks, publications and public policy proposals.

True individualists would not debase themselves by living the life of a thief, whether robbing a store with a gun or their fellow citizens with a government mandate or wealth-redistribution scheme. Rather, they would take pride in taking responsibility for their own lives, actions and moral character. Rand wrote, "As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul."

The last line is what you call a "hard saying" that took me a while to get, steeped as I was in altruistic teachings, but if you find the rest to be common sense, good for you. You're on my side.

And in other news, Punxutawney Phil saw his shadow today, so six more weeks of winter. I'd like to know where that's not the case.

I got my first "Amber Alert: Penny Brown" email today. It didn't look right, so I googled her. No official looking websites, but a bunch blasting the email as a hoax. I didn't see Snopes on the first page, and that made me think that maybe the perv who took her was setting up websites saying that as fast as he could. But then I went to Snopes directly.

Oldest missing persons hoax they've got. I sent that news up the back-trail.

Snopes said, "the e-mail itself provided few of the details that generally appear in legitimate pleas to help locate missing children. Not even the city or country the child went missing from was mentioned, and other than the pointless "has been missing for now two weeks," no date was given for the disappearance. ("For now two weeks" statements are entirely useless in a medium wherein undated text is circulated — the "two weeks" ago of an e-mail can and often has referred to events years in the past.)" I noticed all that immediately. What's wrong with the 500 people ahead of me that they didn't?

Whoops! Only 15 minutes to Kama Sutra time! I think I'll go see if I can't put mine into action before then.

An Interesting Op-Ed from The Ayn Rand Institute:

The Injustice of Saddam's Trial
By granting Hussein a trial, justice is perverted.
By Elan Journo

The American-endorsed trial of Saddam Hussein is touted as an opportunity to render justice and lay the groundwork for an Iraqi transition from the arbitrary courts of a dictatorship to a proper legal system. But the trial will accomplish neither goal.

A trial that presumes Hussein's innocence can achieve nothing but a travesty of justice.

Saddam Hussein is not a private citizen, whose guilt requires proof in an objective court of law, but a dictator whose incontestable evil was manifest to any rational observer of his tyranny. The Bush administration, after all, determined that Hussein was so vicious that we had to go to war to topple his regime.

Once we defeat and capture a militant dictator like Hussein, he deserves to be definitively condemned as evil and then executed--immediately, or after any valuable information is extracted from him. Prior to his execution, there can be a legitimate reason to hold a public hearing--not to establish his guilt, but to fully expose his secretive dictatorship by publicly cataloguing its myriad vile deeds. Such a hearing would recognize that, unlike a private citizen, a dictator is responsible not merely for his own individual acts of violence but for all crimes committed by his regime, whether or not in any given case he himself pulled the trigger or gave a direct order to murder the victims.

But the trial now underway evades Hussein's incontrovertible culpability, absurdly presumes him innocent, and demands that his "command responsibility" be established for particular acts of murder. In the case that began Oct. 19, the prosecution is required to prove that Hussein specifically ordered his thugs to carry out the 1982 massacre of some 140 people. This is as perverse as presuming Hitler, Stalin, or Mao innocent in the millions murdered by their regimes--and then groping for evidence that they personally ordered the execution of a handful of dissidents in one small village.

It is outrageous that after more than two years into a war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of American lives, we regard as legitimate the possibility that Hussein could be found culpable for only some minuscule number of murders or even not guilty. It is outrageous that he is given a defense team of 1,500 lawyers, that he is granted the right to appeal a guilty verdict, and that he is allowed to address the court. In one more injustice against all his victims, domestic and foreign, Hussein has eagerly exploited this international stage--paid for with American money and blood--to challenge and scold his Iraqi victims, to rail against the United States, and to cheer on the insurgents murdering Americans.

And yet this trial, the epitome of injustice, is defended as paving the way for a truly just legal system. Proponents argue that, whatever one thinks of the specifics of the trial, it marks the transformation of Iraq's judiciary from courts subservient to a dictator's whims, to courts objectively determining guilt or innocence. But the trial does no such thing.

Observe that only Iraqis were deemed qualified to decide Hussein's culpability. With President Bush's encouragement and blessing, the Iraqi leadership was given full control of the proceedings--and deliberately excluded American judges. Though there are plenty of American judges with decades of experience under a proper legal system--and few, if any Iraqis with comparable experience--American participation was viewed as unacceptable. Why were only members of Hussein's ethnic tribe deemed fit to judge him?

Because justice, on the premise of the trial, is determined by the tribe; the tribe alone is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, good and evil, innocence and guilt. On this view, a meticulously logical assessment of universally available facts has no bearing on justice. Whatever the tribal group feels is just--regardless of evidence or logic--is just. A trial conducted on this premise is a repudiation of justice as an objective principle.

The trial is not, in essence, a departure from the subjective courts of the former regime. Instead of Hussein capriciously prescribing a "just" verdict, that arbitrary power now belongs to the Iraqi tribe--or any sub-tribe (whether Sunni, Shiite, Kurd) that wrests control of the courts.

This trial is irredeemably corrupt. The United States--which gave Iraq millions of dollars and sent lawyers and forensic investigators to launch the proceedings--must immediately withdraw its moral sanction from this travesty of justice.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.


Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

We wouldn't want our leader dealt with that way should we be conquered, you say?

&^%*+! We'd have more important things to worry about.

Minna raised a good point in her comment to my last post

She said, "And you can do business and be a socialist at the same time. I'm a small business owner and measure my success by how much taxes I've payed each year!"

My analysis is this: i... let me capitalize that: Individualism is so deeply ingrained in the souls of Scandinavians that they don't even realize they're doing it. If you have a population of people who tend, uniformly, to act responsibly, and don't have crushing restrictions on economic activity but only ones that are in accord with your culture, it doesn't matter whether you call yourselves Individualists or Socialists. It only matters for prosperity that the vast majority of people act responsibly.

That is, as long as your culture doesn't crush economic activity, by either encouraging anti-economic activity or discouraging economic activity.

Hey, Finland has a woman Prime Minister

Just thought I'd mention it.

Somebody oughta.

That fact that she's a woman is, unfortunately, the only interesting thing I can find on her. Not too impressed with her New Year's speech.

Amusingly, Finland is only a hundredth of a point behind us in the Heritage Foundation's 2006 Index of Economic Freedom.

And you call yourselves Socialists! Marx would be ashamed!

I Wonder if Mr. Ringer will mind if I post a bit of his new article

"Beware the Big Mistake," before he posts it on his own site. It's not primarily about politics, but he can't quite resist this dig:

Politicians have perhaps the lowest EQs of all. That's why the U. S. keeps getting itself into wars -- then, having made the first mistake, never fails to adopt a no-win policy. If you are not willing to kill innocent civilians, if you are not willing to torture enemy combatants, and if you are intent on granting the enemy the same legal rights as your citizens, war is the wrong business to be in.

From a moral standpoint, I am against war, against killing innocent civilians, against all forms of torture, and against depriving anyone of their legal rights. But the problem is that the bad guys on the other side of all of our wars use a completely different set of rules. Again, I repeat the haunting observation of 9/11 "pilot" Mohammed Atta: "The enemy is stupid."

I promised [promises, promises] I'd get after this Edward Feser

article, The Metaphysics of Conservatism.

I was bouncing around between my emails and the blogs, so, when I started reading it, I was thinking that I was reading an Atlasphere article and that it was endorsed to some extent by Objectivists. I assumed Feser was promulgating an updated or metaphorical version of the theory of Forms when he mentioned Plato, rather than endorsing a separate Realm of Being somewhere where, for instance, Perfect Roundness exists absent a thing which is round.

This is what Realists believe: that any concept you can imagine exists in its perfect form in heaven, from which it emanates its essence to imperfect copies out here. If you are a Realist (for this discussion, I insist that you see and understand the capital 'r' there, I've given my understanding of a technical term; I'm not discussing realists, pragmatists [big or small "p"] or pessimists), I'm not intending to be flip. That's the understanding I was given in Intro to Phil, and I was so disgusted I haven't looked further.

Goodness and Right... Justice and Honor and Power exist. But they don't exist absent things or beings which manifest them. Or rather, their manifestation in people we can see doesn't prove their existence in pure form in a pure place.

Piss, gotta quit.

Paraphrasing Thomas Sowell slightly,

from the article Political Corruption at Townhall.com:

Present members of Congress win votes by promising ... goodies. That leaves it up to future members of Congress to figure out how to welsh on those promises, which could not be met without jacking up tax rates to unprecedented levels.

Well, I was going to cut off the last bit after "promises", but it seems to me that it would be a bit intellectually dishonest of me to do that without discussion. Quoting Sowell to me is like playing the trumpets of heaven. I don't want to see the conductor start rapping his baton on the podium to explain some difficult bit to all the kids in the audience.

"...[J]acking up taxes to unprecedented levels." Obviously a bad thing. You know it, I know it and the American people know it, as Bob Dole would say. [Actually it was more like, "YUNOITINOITANTH'AMERICANPEOPLEKNOWIT!!!"]. Good thing he - Sowell - doesn't stop there:

Even that probably wouldn't provide enough money, since confiscatory tax rates confiscate the incentives needed to keep the economy going. An alternative political ploy would be to pay people the amount of money that was promised but in dollars so inflated that they won't buy anything close to what dollars bought when they were paid into the Social Security system.

Getting millions of people to rely on pensions that are not going to be there is corrupting government on a scale that makes bribing a few Congressmen look like minor league stuff.

By which he means, of course, 'Slap Abramoff on the wrist and just ignore those culturally corrupt Republicans behind the curtain.'

Oh! Sorry. Didn't meant to feed MoveOn etc. their lines.

Simply put, the US Govt has grown a mass of experiments that haven't panned out. They need to be excised like... Sorry, I already spent my allowance of metaphors.

Sowell: "What can be done about such corruption?"

It takes big bucks to run a political campaign and all that most politicians have to sell is the power of government that they control. That is what they do sell in various ways to various special interests.

Finally, he fires the shot to be heard round the world:

What really needs to be done is to put a limit of one term in one office and a waiting period of several years before being elected or appointed to another office in government. In other words, make political careers impossible.

Can people who are not career politicians run the government? People who were not career politicians created the government and the Constitution of the United States of America.

It was one of the most incredible achievements in history. Who among our career politicians today would be capable of such a feat?

Rudy Carrera kindly notified me that my link to him is about a year out ot date.

I, oddly enough, just haven't minded the round-about trip to his blog so I never gave it a priority to update it.

I need to apologize for that.

I'm sorry, Rudy.

Rudy's got the perfect blogging package: short, pithy, meaty posts. You know Lileks? He's like him sans the need to write at least 1000 words.

Though, he might consider the fact that I (at least) will drop everything to imbibe whatever Lileks brews up.

I'm sayin, I like readin' ya, Rudy. Push your comfort zone, buddy. I'll bet somebody would pay for that.

Currently, he's posting at http://rudycarrera.blogspot.com/ howhoover, his main site is http://rudycarrera.com/rudyblog.htm. That's the one I'll give my permanent link.

What does this sound like to you?

"Throughout the 1990s, while the U.S. markets were soaring in an ever-hotter speculative boom, Japan was undergoing a painful depression that helped clean out its excesses, especially bad debts." -Martin Weiss, Money and Markets Newsletter, Jan. 20, 2006.

Classic ATBC (this article isn't about that particularly, but this is a nice summary of the theory in light of events we all remember).

In the aftermath both of the 2001 recession and the September 11 attacks, it was all too clear that many large businesses were overextended, having predicted a much more rosy future than what actually came to pass. Furthermore, the previous business boom had followed the classic pattern as explained by the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle (ATBC), with the Federal Reserve System aggressively pumping up bank reserves, something that ultimately led to speculative bubbles, malinvestments, and the near-collapse of some business sectors most influenced by this artificial boom. As I pointed out five years ago, the vaunted "New Economy" was little more than the same Fed-induced, boom-fed delusion that ultimately brought us the gloomy economic climate of the 1970s and the disastrous Great Depression of the 1930s.

[Friedman and Schwartz disagree with the latter. As I understand it, Rothbard and the Austrians claim that more things act like money than our governors account for, though they claim to be able to manage the Economy.]

It is not surprising that many firms became highly-leveraged during this boom; indeed, it makes perfect sense for companies to increase their indebtedness during a time of easy money, since it permits them to pay back the debt in the future with cheaper dollars. Those associated with the Austrian School of Economics do not endorse such behavior, and certainly condemn the Fed's inflationary policies, but the response of firms to this situation is quite rational.

But back to the original point: deflation isn't all bad. It's left Japan with a very strong business base from which to face Asia's great economic expansion.

When Bush started flinging money around after 9-11 he propped up a lot of stupid ideas that should have died. A lot did, but not enough.

Anybody buying commodities these days?

Looks like time to buy some. I can't afford to get into stocks, but I could probably buy some coins. You take a pretty big hit at your local dealer, but the analysts I've been reading are saying that at this point the potential looks like it'll overcome their charges.

Whoops! I guess that might be a little misleading. It's the metal that's rising. I haven't heard anything about a run on coins as coins.

Here's some more Austrian economics for you

from todays Mises Daily Article (sorry, can't get the link right now):

The future is impossible to see or calculate. This has been proven through the market by not empowering fortune tellers and palm readers. Economic calculation of future events is similarly impossible. Error after error has shown the mistakes of economic calculation. Why does then it persist? Because the free market is not involved in the process. No one is replaced in the government for making mistakes on budgets. There is no profit incentive. Without the incentive, any number is thrown out to satisfy particular groups or political motivations. The incentive of coercion is the only extant incentive in politics. With coercion, the act of theft and misinformation about the future is proliferated to the masses.

I happened to catch the end of PBS's The American Experience

show on Eleanor Roosevelt the evening.

The mention that she sparred with the Russians while she was chairing the Committee forming the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Is there a resource for the documents from that debate? It strikes me as being almost as important as the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates.

And it might just add another hero to my pantheon.

Here's an article, but it says little more. It does have links, though.

Steve led me to this article

in TCS daily that really hits the nail (if not many nails) on the head:

"Realist Conservatism," as we might call it, affirms the existence of an objective order of forms or universals that define the natures of things, including human nature, and what it seeks to conserve are just those institutions reflecting a recognition and respect for this objective order. Since human nature is, on this view, objective and universal, long-standing moral and cultural traditions are bound to reflect it and thus have a presumption in their favor.


But this does not necessarily entail a deference to the status quo, for since human beings are by their nature free and fallible, it is possible for societies to deviate, even radically, from the natural law. When this happens, it is the duty of the conservative to "stand athwart history yelling 'Stop!'" (as the editors of National Review so eloquently put it many years ago). Such yelling ought of course to be done with tact and wisdom, but if the cause of the Realist Conservative should end up a lost one, unlikely to win elections, that is irrelevant. What matters is fidelity to the True, the Beautiful, and the Good.

I believe I'll have to write my objections to this article tomorrow.

The Objectivist Center cuts to the heart of Martin Luther King's most famous saying:

Th[e] individualist understanding of character stands in stark contrast to a racist approach. Race and ethnicity are accidents of birth and tell us nothing about how to judge any given individual. Racism insults and degrades all individuals by judging them as members of a biological group rather than on their own achievements. No individual of moral character would want to judge others or to be judged by such a standard.

Dr. King rightly fought against government laws that treated individuals differently based on skin color. Fortunately those laws have been gone for many decades. And fortunately, most whites now accept Dr. King’s standard of moral character rather than skin color as the measure of individuals. But unfortunately, most black leaders in America today have taken up the ugly racist ethos that they fought in whites.

(Link here)

I'M #2 in DOG POOP!!!

[Number two? No. 2? What's better? That's a serious marketing question. Numero II?] On this Google search anyway: "dog poop" minnesota Brooklyn.

I'M #2 in DOG POOP!!!

Haven't made a nickel yet, but you've got to see the inspiration: it must be A Sign!

Number 2!!

Can you feel it?

Forgive the Ad

But I'm dead serious. I see this as MY route into the lawn-care business. I know quite a bit about lawn-care - and pet poop removal - already, and I my step-son is an expert on tree trimming.

I'm thinking that I'll start with poop scooping, go to general lawn cleaning and then, maybe aerating, levelling, dethatching and mowing. I can learn serious landscaping pdq, though all I've done here is tree and brush removal. But cat and dog poop removal strikes me as a mainstay that people with pets will always need. Restoration of pet damage would come a close second.

And I love doing lawn clean-up!

It's a bit tough in the snow, but I'll do it.

For money.

There's Poop That Needs Scooping in Brooklyn Center

And I'm just the man to do it!

This really isn't the venue for an ad, so I won't give out my personal information, though, if you look at my profile, you'll find my e-mail address.

Al's Pet Waste Removal Service
20% off 1st Month's Service

(763) 560-7026
only $47.95/Month!
(regularly $59.95)
($10 additional discount for smaller dogs)
For Regular Weekly Pet Clean-up!
Reliable, Competent, Friendly Service

Dear Northwest Suburban Homeowner,

My name is Al Erkkila. I am a hard working Minnesotan, pursuing the American dream of owning my own business.

What this means to you, is that I am now accepting a limited number of new clients for my complete pet waste clean-up service.

I can provide you prompt reliable service at a price that is EXCELLENT!

WE PROVIDE IN OUR WEEKLY SERVICE:

careful removal removal of pet waste
safe, ethical disposal

I can only accept a limited number of clients, so call today to reserve your spot today!

Call (763) 560-7026 Today!

If you live in Brooklyn Center, or within a mile or two of my hometown, give me a call.

What?! Is David Strom dead?

The guys covering for him on The Patriot, Pioneer Press columnists Mark Yost and Craig Westerman, keep saying Strom's "gone gently into that good night"!

He sounded perfectly healthy last time I listened to him.

OH!

[Whoops! I see I've screwed up my Taxpayers League link. I can't believe nobody noticed that. I'll fix it in a minute.]

Well, to quote Rosann Rosannadanna, "Never mind."

He (and his wife) have just moved to a 100,000 watt FM station. [Hm. Can't find a website for them.]

Media whore. [Smiley]

And, of course, now he's in direct competition with the Northern Alliance, the bleep. And I'm late to the dance again. All those guys have already discussed this.

They've (Strom and Martin) got a bit of an echo going.

Minnesota is a low spending state?!

FEE points out this article in the WaPo about government growth [FEE pairs it with this 1993 article by Steven Moore]:

More interesting is how states fared in per capita federal spending -- the amount of federal money spent per person. The national average was $7,223 per person.

The top five states were Alaska ($12,885), Virginia ($12,150), Maryland ($11,645), New Mexico ($10,437) and Hawaii ($9,651). The bottom five were Nevada ($5,469), Minnesota ($5,644), Wisconsin ($5,728), Utah ($5,728) and Michigan ($5,981).

How about that?

The Old Whig finds inspiration in the Dictionary

While reading The Voyage of the Dawn Treader to my daughter this evening, she asked the question, "Why do they call it the 'poop deck'?"

My answer was as ludicrous as you might imagine: "Because that's what sailors did there. ...Or maybe it's called poop because they did it off the poop deck."

So, naturally, while she was brushing her teeth I pulled out my aforementioned Webster's and looked it up. My second guess may still be right. It seems to be derived from the Latin word "puppis," which simply means "the stern of a ship."

I haven't yet studied the history of latrines.

Anyway, farting around in the dictionary, I was - I suppose unsurprisingly - drawn to the definition of "Whiggishness, [n. the quality of being Whiggish.]," which portended a discussion of the philosophy of Whiggism. I was disappointed, of course - it's only a dictionary, after all - but I thought I'd say something about their first and third definitions of Whig:

1. in England, a political party (1697-c. 1832) which championed popular rights and change in the direction of democracy: it later became the Liberal Party: opposed to Tory.

I have no great difficulty there, except that I wouldn't define democracy merely as the ability of the masses to select policy makers or policies of governments with a 50% + 1 vote margin, but rather as the widest possible dispersion of power; which I believe is most effectively promoted by the protection of private property and the right to bear arms.

But definition #3 was of more interest to me:

an American political party (. 1836-1856) opposing the Democratic Party and advocating protection of industry and limitation of the power of the executive branch of government.

On the last clause, I'd argue that the legislative and judicial branches could stand some limiting as well, but I can't fault them for that. But I do fault them for their stand on "protection" of "industry." What they meant was high tariffs and limiting competition for established businesses: the use of the power of government to create and defend monopolies.

I'm all for protecting industry, as in "...intelligent work; skill; cleverness..." or an application thereof. You do that by protecting property rights, but the American Whig Party meant to protect industries, and, since they believed in wielding the power of government to do it, they didn't recognize the government's limited ability and it's need to pick and choose.

I need more time. We're coming up on midnight here.

Here's a couple bits of wisdom from Robert Ringer:

"It makes no sense to concentrate on things that are beyond one's control, given that those things that are within one's control are more than a full-time job."

And,

"I have learned that adversity is the one factor that should never be used as an excuse for not taking action. On the contrary, it is the single most important reason for taking action--purposeful, consistent, bold action. Ironically, then, adversity is life giving because it's a call to action--and action is life."

Both from page 247 of the hardcover Action! Nothing Happens Until Something Moves.

Finally finished the book (it got buried in all the holiday activities). Now I've got to take Action!

"God bless us! Everyone!"

We'll be going to Christmas Eve church service in a couple of hours. We just finished our traditional ham dinner.

We entertained my father-in-law by setting to work on some plumbing problems. No idea what the mother-in-law did all day. Laurie was cooking. And I wasn't in charge of the children, so I don't know what they were up to.

I gotta see where Santa Clause is.

Winter Solstice today, pagans!

Dance naked in your favorite Oak Grove!


Photo credit.

I don't recommend doing it in Minnesota, though. It's 12° F here.

And don't get naked too early; the cops on the Mason-Dixon line are on the look-out for naked drivers.

Blogslackin'

That's not the worst guess, Steve, but the fact is, I've never been afraid to blog while drunk. Nor have I ever had the presence of mind to use Blogger's service to stop any displays of stupidity.

No, I just let the girl play Sims or whatever on the PC until story time every night. Then, after I read to her for a while, I'm just feeling to content with life to want to go opinionate or otherwise explain things to the world.

I also read a while back that my blood pressure medicine is being tested for its ability to reduce the trauma experienced by...well, by victims of rape when they remember the, uh, episode.

Well, the thought occurred to me that would also have the effect of making it hard to learn from your mistakes. Hmmm...

So now I have to worry about that possibility, AND the placebo effect of having thought of it.

Come to think of it, I'm not really all that worried.

Rosie had her Christmas Program at Church yesterday.

It was a pretty good show - little kids being cute and all that. Rosie seems to have been bitten by the I-gotta-look-cool bug. She didn't smile once. She looked like she had a migraine, though she was perfectly cheerful afterwards.

When she really looked cute was she she and Aliina were sitting together on the low sill of the big picture window in the entryway eating cookies afterward. That would have been a great picture.

Too bad I won't be able to take pictures like that until I pay off the deductable of my car insurance. I had a little fender bender in the old F150. "T-boned" on the passenger side. Accustomed to driving beaters as I am, my nature would be not to even have it repaired. Just bang out the dents myself and rehang the running board so the wife can get in easier. And paint it, of course.

Unfortunately, we're still making payments on it, so the bank insists that we have the bleepin' thing restored to newish condition. You should see the list from the appraiser. Apparently the whole chassis and box have to be disassemble.

It's quite the bummer.

Anyway, that's going to be our Christmas gift to each other, so I don't think we'll be getting a new digital camera anytime soon. The digital video camera claims to be able to take stills, but I haven't figured out how to download them seperate from the video yet.

So The Prince of Darkness is leaving CNN.

Robert Novak hasn't been on the air since he stormed off the set of his show last August:
Novak said the switch to Fox had nothing to do with finding a more comfortable home for his views.

"I don't think that's a factor," he said. "In 25 years I was never censored by CNN and I said some fairly outrageous things and some very conservative things. I don't want to give the impression that they were muzzling me and I had to go to a place that wouldn't muzzle me."

© 2005 Associated Press.
Meanwhile, The Atlasphere publishes an excerpt of another Prince of Darkness's assault on a Turkish Sultan's invading camp - from In Defense of Dracula, by Marianne Grossman.

Coincidence?

Whatever, dude.

My Daughter thought I needed a day off so she barfed at school

It took me an hour and a half to line up someone to cover for me, then I went and got her and we spent the rest of the midday reading the climax and denouement of Harry Potter and The Half-Blood Prince.

It looks like my fears about how she would take it were unfounded. I think I took it harder. You want a spoiler? Lily, James, Cedric, Sirius and Dumbledore share the most important of fates. I get into my fiction, and I've discovered that it shows when I'm reading aloud to someone. My voice breaks when the writer speaks of bravery and loyalty (to an obviously honorable person).

Anyone looking for voice talent? I find that I sound a lot like Sean Connery after I've been reading aloud for little while.

Of course, upon finishing the book I immediately offered my thoughts on how the next book(s) would go, which may have mitigated the apparent tragedy somewhat.

Here's a message from The Rammer,

As Jesse Ventura used to call him (I miss Jesse on talk radio--the dude flat-out has a lot of great stories to tell):

December 16, 2005


Alan Erkkila
[Now, I wouldn't mind if my regulars sent me stuff, or stopped by the house, but the whole world doesn't need to know my street address.]

Dear Alan:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the federal
budget deficit.

Over the past decade, federal spending has far outpaced the rate of
inflation, and it's past time for this disturbing trend to stop!

I am pleased that recent estimates by the Congressional Budget
Office show a decrease in this year's budget deficit of over $100
billion from previous estimates. And Congress must continue to
work to cut the pork from its annual spending bills.

Rest assured of my continued strong commitment to reining in
federal spending and curbing the growth of the federal
government.

Thanks again for contacting me, as I appreciate hearing from you.
Please let me know whenever I can be helpful to you or your
family.

Sincerely,



JIM RAMSTAD
Member of Congress

You stick to that philosophy like glue, dude and you've got my vote.

Here's a comely lass!

Well, it's Saturday night
And I ain't got nobody...
[Other than that gal in the easy chair
About six feet above my head and four feet ENE (who can't be considered chicken-feed, since she is my wife and has considerable skills you-know-where).]*

Oh! The pic!
See if you can guess who this is:

All right, she's earned a link.

I had trouble deciding between her and this gal:

That's a pretty hot pic if you think about it. Meditate on it for a while.

*Skills to reckon with, now that I think about it... I'll see ya later.

A brilliant summation, from the Mises Institute:

Mises taught that all societies in all times, and their governing structures, are the result of the ideas prevalent in the culture. He took it for granted that no government is classically liberal by nature. They all want maximum power and wealth, which they can only obtain at the direct expense of the people. How much will they agree to give? It is the public belief in liberty — originating with the intellectual class — that ultimately restrains the state's ambitions.

Totalitarianism is not an aberration, in this view, but the expected result of any state that is not so restrained. After all, the state can use any ideological excuse. In ancient times, it claimed to be a god, as with Pharoah. In more recent years, the excuses have included the need for community (communism), national greatness (fascism), central economic planning (the New Deal), or homeland security.

If the population is passive and uninformed by contrary voices, the state can succeed in its aims. Yet if cultural convictions are intolerant of power, and embrace the inviolable right to person and property, liberty prevails.

The Wife's late comin' home tonight.

I'm worried. It was snowin' pretty good today.

I went out and scraped off the driveway.

18 degrees. For you foreigners, that's 14 degrees below freezing. Or, let's see, that's 1.8 times... no, divided by 1.8... Oh, divide by two and subract a little! -6 degrees Centigrade! That's my story an I'm stickin' to it!

Anyway, I was expecting the wench at 6:00 and she's not home yet at 8:00.

[My daughter just handed me a bag of Nestle's Semi-Sweet chocolate chips for some unknown reason. But I'll take 'em. Damn good chocolate!]

OK, the wife and youngest child got home at 9:10 and kept me busy until now, but I can stop worrying at least. They stopped at the picture store to pick up the portraits of the girls that we bought. ...Portraits that we bought of the girls.

Oh, well. I still have the chocolate.

Steven den Beste is the best!

Cogent commentary from the Master may be found here.
.....
OTOH

Cryptic comment: 2-9. There's no effin' hope.

I get a newsletter from a guy named

Karim Hajee, who does a good job here of summing up my estimation of people--or rather, the position he advocates is the point of view I usually take:

How you see people is what you bring out of them.
For example: If you see a sales person as annoying you're going to always
find and attract annoying sales people. If you see a family member as a pain -
your always going to bring out the side in that person that is a pain towards
you. If you see your colleagues as jealous, competitive or vindictive then
you're always going to bring out those qualities in them - because that's what you
see in them and that's what you believe is their character.

What you believe is what you get.

Now I know some of you are going to say: "Karim, these people are that way -
I'm not making this stuff up. They really are nasty." Sure they are - and you
keep bringing out the worst in them by only seeing the dark side
of their character.

Everybody around you has some redeeming qualities - look at those positive
qualities within in them and you'll get them to display those qualities more
often.

Next - challenge your current perception.
Ask yourself: "Is that really the way they are?"

I rarely see anyone's bad side until they've been out of my life for a while. Then I find myself thinking, "You know, when you really think about it, that guy was kind of a #*&@ wasn't he?"

I tend to keep giving people second chances. Of course, how serious a problem can they be? I'm not moving in with them. [Hmmm. I can think of three episodes in my life where they did, in fact, move in with me. Hmmm... Knowing me, I've probably suppressed a couple of memories.] My experience is that most people do eventually step up to the plate and learn how to bat by the end of the season. [Though I haven't played in the majors.]

The only way you will truly see the good in the other person is to focus on and look for their good qualities - then you'll actually see them displaying these qualities more often. Look for the good in someone and you will only attract good things to you.

So, sure, I can believe that attitude (other's perception of mine) can affect my level of prosperity. It's when they start talking about how my attitude toward inanimate or ineffable entities can affect how they repay me that doubt creeps in.

Okay, I don't doubt that if I learn how to manipulate big rocks I'll learn to build big buildings. But will being generous with rocks really bring a karmic return of rocks?

I'm being a bit facetious, of course, but I don't get the process here. Enlighten me.

FFF, after a delay of only 450 years, has finally gotten around to

including John Lilburne in their magnificent Freedom Biographies.

I've given the links they give before, but I'll just show the articles. FFF deserves to have you go through them for the links.

John Lilburne, c.1615-1657
British Civil Wars

John Lilburne
Spartacus.net

The Bill of Rights
by Hugo L. Black
Future of Freedom Foundation

The Levelers: Libertarian Revolutionaries
by Nicholas Elliott
Foundation for Economic Education

On the 150th Page
by John Lilburne
Constitution.org

The Resurrection of John Lilburne
by John Lilburne
Street Corner Society

I've been reading the Harry Potter series to my daughter lately.

Exciting, funny, well-written, all that junk... It's really easy to just keep on going. She's been late to bed quite a few nights because of it.

She gets a lot more out of it than you'd think, since she kind of wanders off to play while I'm reading. She's pretty much memorized the stories. When we they refer back to something in a previous book, and I can't think of the episode, I'll ask her and she'll remind me what happened there.

She bounces around, fluttering her hands during the battles and scenes of evil villainy and treachery and laughs uproariously at the jokes. The other night she was moaning indignantly at Harry as he screamed at Dumbledore and trashed his office.

That was almost at the end of Book Five. I've read ahead and... Well, no. That would be a spoiler. I wonder if Book Six might not be a bit too intense for a little girl. The enemy is growing stronger and more vile. The only reason Harry was able to handle him in the early books was because Voldemort was handicapped by his lack of a body.

Now he has his body and his followers back and the War is on. And we're beginning to lose people we've come to care about.

I guess we'll keep going, but I'm not sure...
.....
We went to Rosie's Parent/Teacher Conference last night. She's kickin' butt in school. The teacher said she reads and does math very well. He showed us some tests she took in which she was the only one to get a perfect score.

She doesn't do as well in the Math speed quizzes, but, well, she's kind of given to taking her time at things.

Anyway, all this reading seems to be paying off.

I was just "checkin' my look in the mirror," to quote The Boss,*

of ClustrMaps.

I am deeply pleased to see the number of hits I'm getting from Brazil and Northern Europe, particularly Finland. I want to know what I can do to keep those people coming back. I want to know what I can do to invite comments from Finns, other Scandinavians and Brazilians.

I certainly don't mean by that to denigrate my fellow upper-Midwesterners, from Indiana through the Dakotas--you're my life's blood! But... It's contact with the whole world that makes life on the Web a compelling experience.

As I sit here tonight at my computer, I have Robert Ringer's essay, The Survival of Western Civilization, in print form in my pocket. I'd very much like to hear comments on it from all over the world.

I suspect my comments would be strongly in it's defense, but I know that I am easily swayed by strong civil-libertarian, Objectivist and anarcho-capitalist arguments as well.

If you let things stand as they are now, I will remain, as Ringer is, a theoretical libertarian/pragmatic conservative.

My vote is actually up for grabs here. In the last election, from what I had heard, had I been a citizen of either Virginia or Colorado I would have voted for the Democrat candidate for governor just to teach those effin' Republicans (In Name Only AKA RINOs) a lesson. At least, if they didn't have a good Libertarian opponent. I did, in fact, vote for the Democrat against our local RINO Rep. Jim Ramstad, in the last Congressional race.

The guy was a Commie, but what the hell's the practical difference?

*Dancin' In The Dark the theme song of my summer of 1984 (absolutely no relation to the book 1984, which is, none-the-less, a must-read. I need to tell that story. Though, it absolutely was not as torrid as Summer of '42, so don't get your hopes up. I think it would be interesting in many other ways. It began with me quoting Davey Crockett's famous phrase, "Ya'll can go to Hell! I'm goin' to Texas!"