The O'Donnell Conundrum

My Facebook news stream has taken on an interesting tenor lately. It is awash with opinion articles decrying the idiocy of Christine O'Donnell, and defending the "elites" she opposes. Liberals are nodding their heads in such unison, that I'd swear they were Republicans.

The meme of a pretty conservative lady with questionable credentials was, of course, pioneered by that lightning rod of liberal disdain, Sarah Palin. Her critics fell over each other to find new ways to call her stupid. She has been used to cast the entire Tea Party movement as merely a know-nothing rabble.

Enter one Christine O'Donnell. Riding on the Tea Party momentum, she ousted the Republican incumbent in the primary. Representing for many Delaware voters a political outsider who might better represent them, she has created a media firestorm.

Images and videos of her deep past have come to light, casting her in a sharply negative light. In fact, the media's obsession has boosted her campaign contributions significantly, and she has collected more money from outside of Delaware than inside.

Yet these things have not helped her campaign. She is a 15-20 point dog, with little chance against her Democratic opponent. And herein lies, for me, a conundrum:

Why does the Left continue to bash her so viciously?

Here's what I think. For one, they are attempting to position her as the figurehead of the Tea Party, so that her loss can be framed as a victory of Democratic Reason over Tea Party Madness.

Second, by piling on, the Left can all feel good about a common cause against the Tea Party menace.

Thirdly, and most interestingly, the Left feels compelled to say, "I'm not an idiot!!!" by loudly insulting Ms. O'Donnell, because if she's a dolt and wrong about everything, then the Left is still smart and right about everything (even though Obama and the Democratic Congress has clearly shown this to be false).

It's the same reason some closeted homosexuals express violent homophobia. To deny their own perceived weakness, they lash out at anyone who reminds them of it.

In order for the Left to deny it's own stupid mistakes, and thus bolster their own belief that they have all the answers, they must excoriate a relatively harmless candidate for perceived stupidity.

In other words, "the lady doth protest too much."

Free Trade Is A Bust

The free traders told us that free trade would usher in a new level of prosperity, as we eliminated the costs of tariffs and quotas from our international economy. And they were right about that prosperity...in China.

Now, I'm all for free peoples being able to enter into agreements across borders. But as NAFTA and Chinese trade have shown us, these agreements don't always work as planned.

Free traders will tell you that reducing trade barriers produces a net increase in prosperity. They are right. What they didn't tell you was that net prosperity wont happen in America.

China, Mexico, and other nations with which we have easy trade all share advantages not available to us in America. They do not have the strict (and monetarily expensive) environmental protection policies that we have here in the US. They also have much lower minimum wages. These advantages allow them to produce the same products for much lower costs than US manufacturers. Hence why so many US companies produce their goods overseas, only to sell them in American markets.

The result of this regulatory imbalance is apparent. American manufacturing is dead. Huge portions of the products we consume are made outside the US. We suffer an enormous trade deficit, which in any other country would destroy currency value, though for us the affects are blunted by the US dollar's global reserve currency status.

Our labor and environment policies have applied costs to American industry that industry in other countries can avoid, setting our industry up for failure. We simply cannot compete in these markets without efficient, large scale automation, but even if we do succeed with automation, we have still shed jobs from our economy.

Free traders might reply that this means Americans must advance, and work in higher skill businesses that China and others aren't able to do yet. They are right, but leave out the fact that retraining and building new high tech businesses takes a lot of work, time, and money, adding more costs to our already (relatively) expensive labor/business environment.

We have to change our trade policies. Low or no tariffs simply don't work when trading with nations who are not on the same playing field. And I don't want to eliminate environmental or labor standards. So we have to apply costs to imports through tariffs. We have to apply them broadly, but also slowly. We don't want to shock the global market with sudden new costs. We also must be cautious of making tariffs to high, thus stifling trade too much.

Our economy is dying. We have to do something. Some will call this policy "protectionist." I call it common sense.

The Great Shift

I've been trolling the nets for a good story to post, but I don't think a single news story could do justice to the overall picture I'm seeing. Wheat fires in Russia. Gulf oil spill capped. Google making deals with Verizon. Economy in the sewer tank. Corporate profits up. Regular jobs down. Gay marriage legal. Police focused on victimless crimes. White collar criminals running free. Democrats avoiding their taxes. Republicans offering nothing. Tea Party gaining support.

It's so much, and it keeps coming faster. The world is shifting beneath our feet, and it's all some of us can do just to keep up. Average Americans are bearing the costs of mistakes made at the highest levels. Technology is inventing magical devices. The future is upon us. And we are just trying to figure it out.

Like an infant opening its eyes for the first time, the human race is blinking in the bright light of information brought to us by the internet. What does this all mean? How can we make sense of all this information? How can we make use? How can we make money?

Our world, our culture, our selves, are changing faster than ever in history. Changes that used to take generations are now happening in just a few years, and I only see it getting faster. The interconnected minds of the internet are showering us with information as we struggle to keep our heads above the waterline. The waterslide of information seems to have no end, but damn is it a fun ride.

Separated families are sharing pictures on Facebook. International debates between regular people are happening on internet forums. Videos of important events fly across the globe before we even know what it means. (What does it MEAN?)

Corrupt businesses and government officials are being exposed at a fierce pace. Every other day another bank committed fraud, another congressman evaded his taxes, another ex-vice-president caught with his pecker out. The leviathan of government and business is being exposed for the sociopathic money machine that it is. And we, the people, watch with interest.

The wars we don't want to talk about brought into focus by criminals stealing classified records. The president we hired to end the wars expands them, telling us he will draw down. Next year. Or later.

The health care we were promised, where is it? A 10 minute doctor visit is still a hundred dollars or more for those without insurance--where's the fix for that? Americans now required to pay money to insurance companies--this is reform?

The internet brings the picture into focus, sharpens the contrast, and it is a chaotic picture indeed. Our leaders are corrupt, kowtowing to whoever gives the most to their campaign. Our businesses are using government to extract more profit from the over taxed, over spent, drowning in debt populace. And we are starting to see it, in a way that no one has seen it before.

We've seen it. We've talked about it. We've lived it. Now one question remains:

What are we going to do about it?

American Idol: Political Edition

I have an idea for a new TV show that could change the world.

What if we created a television show, for the presidency of the United States, in the style of American Idol? We Americans love that show apparently, so why not deliver politicians to us in a style that we are accustomed? We could text in our votes each week, and we could slowly whittle down the candidates until there were only 2 or 3 left, and then do the actual vote.

We could even mix in a little Real World, and have the candidates all live in a house together. Tell me that wouldn't be entertaining as hell, getting to see the politicians in their natural setting. We might actually get a sense of their character after a few months of close observation.

Is this asking too much of the candidates for most powerful man in the world? With the number of incompetent/morally wavering buffoons we have had in office, I think this invasion of privacy is more than justified. And honestly, would these attention whores really pass up a chance of hours of free primetime air-time every week? It's win-win.

An additional side benefit would be that candidates would spend less time and energy raising money, since they would be featured on live television every week. This has the potential to reduce the influence of money on the most important government position we have. And if we are really serious, we could require that the candidates take NO money in exchange for a spot on the show.

In keeping with tradition we could pick the group of candidates based on the existing primary system. Let them garner national interest, then pick the top 10 to face off in a series of challenges designed to test their wit, knowledge, leadership skills, and singing ability.

Tell me you wouldn't watch that show.

Another Day, Another Blog Post

If you've been following my blog (you two know who you are), then you'll have noticed I stopped posting. I started work on a new blog project, but it fizzled because I lost hope in humanity. So now I'm just going to poke fun at the catastrophic cluster-fuck that our nation has become, and laugh all the way down.

Because, really, what else is a boy to do? I've considered sniper assassination of those who I feel hurt America the most (politicians, lobbyists, CEO's of evil corps, etc), but realizing how stupid most of America is, they would probably lionize these dead corrupt power players, turn them into martyrs and start praising them for the great things they did for America. So that plan is out.

The current plan is to simply nuke Washington, D.C. I have no nukes, nor access to nukes, nor access to people with access to nukes. But if someone came to me with a large red button, and said, "Congress is in session, press this button to send a nuclear warhead directly to the Capitol Building," I would press it without hesitation. I hate our system that much.

And it wouldn't be an attack against America. I love America. Which is why I hate seeing these assholes in power destroy this country, take our freedoms, and then leave office for a $2.4 million-a-year lobbyist job. These people are attacking America, and it's up to a patriot to stop them.

And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before some Fed wearing a black windbreaker and sunglasses knocks on my door and escorts me to Guantanamo Bay. To protect America. Ha.

The Illusion of Taxes

Oddly, taxes have almost nothing to do with the way the FedGov's finances work.

This was also the case during the WWI time period. In fact, the entire point of taxation is to divert attention from what is actually happening financially. Because if people understood that, there would be a revolution by morning.

No practicable amount of taxation could possibly come close to allowing the United States government to honor its financial obligations. Anyone who can add knows this. And most of those "obligations" are simply empty lies and promises to the public. Empty promises traded for obedience.

A tiny minority of Americans pay the overwhelming majority of taxes....And yet this tiny minority of taxpayers receives far more in special privileges from the government than it pays in taxes. Essentially they own the government at rather affordable prices with really massive return on investment. A single dollar sent to D.C. can result in hundreds if not thousands of dollars extracted from the public in return. Perhaps not necessarily extracted in cash (although this is often the case) perhaps extracted in terms of obedience.

And so the overwhelming majority of Americans who "pay no significant amount of taxes" pay with something else. They pay with their lives. The entire economic structure of their lives is being centrally managed for the benefit of others.

Our economy is being run in a manner which centralizes money and power while preventing capital formation and destroying real wealth and prosperity.

The greatest threat to "the rich" is not taxation but rather competition from the emerging middle class. This is, after all, what destroyed feudalism in Europe.

The entire point of "socialism" or "fascistic corporatism" is to consolidate the power of the State and protect the rich and powerful from emerging middle class competition.

The point is to turn a human being into this:

[written by Glasperlenspieler]

How to Fix America: Elect a 3rd Party President

It's really quite simple, I'm surprised I never thought it before. In order to fix the American political system, that is, in order to save America, we can do one thing, one singular action, and do more to right the ship than we have done in decades. All we have to do is elect a third party president.

It hardly matters who it is. Ralph Nader. Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich running as an independent. As long as there's neither an R nor a D by their name, they will suffice. Because until a third party can make it into the presidency, this country will bend to the wills of the Democratic and Republican parties. One of them is bad enough, but we suffer from both, and we will never force real reform of the political theater until we admit that it is broken, that the parties no longer represent America, as they are now but hyper-polarized caricatures of American political thought.

They and the mainstream, old media are to blame for controlling political thought for many years. By cleverly stoking and channeling political energy, they have taken power and torn a nation apart.

Extreme views and hard positions must relax if we hope to reconcile our differences and make the government work for us. We must set aside old grudges and not just reach across the aisle, but forget the aisle completely. We must let go of the hard ideologies that have pitted Americans against each other, because the more we fight each other, the less we run the country.

So think about it. You still have two years to decide. Obama claimed he would bring change, but he's really just more of the same.

It's time to send a message to the parties, to BOTH parties: We won't stand for it anymore.

The Constitution is Dead

Every person elected as President of the United States must recite the following oath.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Every president since FDR has utterly failed to uphold this oath.

Upholding the Constitution's sharp limits on government was once a sacred duty for the men who worked in the oval office, even if that meant making unpopular decisions.

They knew that limiting the scope of the federal government was crucial to the continuation of the American experiment. They knew that turning the federal government into a giant money pool would ultimately destroy the freedoms our forefathers had fought so hard for. They knew that, sometimes, they would have to make the hard choices, even if it meant they would be ostracized.

That is why they took that oath.

President Franklin Pierce’s 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill read, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

One cannot even imagine a president today vetoing a reading program for the mentally ill. But that is exactly what presidents of the past did, on a regular basis. Our government, by design, was never meant to be a public charity. But that is exactly what it has become.

On the issue of using federal funds to build up infrastructure, something similar to Obama's recent Stimulus Program, President James Madison had this to say:

“Having considered the bill this day presented to me . . . which sets apart and pledges funds ‘for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense,’ I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution. . . .”

Madison could find no provision in the Constitution allowing federal infrastructure projects precisely because no provision ever existed. The federal government, as the founders envisioned, was never intended to take on the responsibility of building roadways or transport. In their minds, these were best left to the states.

The definition for what is allowable under our constitution has shifted so much in the last 100 years that today's federal government would be unrecognizable to presidents of the past.

Today, every congressman goes to Washington with his or her hand out, trying desperately to funnel as much money as possible into their districts. This comes in the form of road projects, bridges, government office buildings, financial assistance, tax breaks, etc.

This system has shifted the focus of our lawmakers from good governance to begging. They beg for campaign contributions so that they can go to Washington, D.C. to beg for money to pay back their campaign contributors. Then they must beg for more to keep their constituents happy, so that they can win another election and beg for more. This cycle is destroying our nation. It is obvious from our ballooning federal debt. And We always want more. But we never want to pay for it.

This is where principled men and women are supposed to stand up and shout "No!" No to stimulus spending! No to health care spending! No to education spending! No to welfare spending!

We want all these things, of course. We think these things will end our reliance on our crappy jobs, or on our crappy economy, we think these things will set us free, free to do the things we really want to do.

But what many do not realize is that these things end up controlling us. Huge swathes of our economy, including millions of jobs, live or die depending on how much our government wants to spend on a particular project.

Our spending through Medicare and on health insurance tax cuts is driving health care prices through the roof, making health care unaffordable to anyone who is not receiving federal benefits.

Our spending on education has centralized control of tens of thousands of schools, millions of teachers, and tens of millions of students into the hands of a few people in Washington, D.C.

Our welfare spending, which we say helps people without jobs, takes money out of the economy, money that could have been used to create jobs for the very people we claim to be helping.

Just Say No

It is time to say "No." If you want special interests out of Washington, remove what is bringing them there: the money. If you want to cut spending and reduce the deficit, you have to remove money. If you want to bring politics back to the state and local level, where you actually have a voice, then you need to take back the money. But it begins by saying "No."

The transition will not be an easy one, but when have Americans ever shied away from a challenge? Living under a paternalistic government is easy, but it quickly builds dependence. And once you are dependent, you are no longer free. We claim we want freedom, but we need the government constantly. We need the benefits it gives us. We have stopped providing for ourselves. Instead we look up to the government, with our hands out. We have given our freedom away, in exchange for convenience.

America was not meant to have a government that cares for you, that picks you up when you skin your knee, that makes you sandwich when you get hungry. Americans are supposed to be brave. We are supposed to take what life gives us, good or bad, and thrive.

America was meant to be the land of opportunity, the land of freedom, the land where you did what you want, and took responsibility for yourself. That is what the founders had in mind when they penned the Constitution 224 years ago. The government was there to protect your freedom to follow your dreams, and little more.

America was not supposed to be easy. It was supposed to be free. We have strayed so far from that ideal that I do not know if we can ever find our way back. But I will try, because I know what must be done. I know what must be done to revive the American spirit, to get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded, to get back the ideals that made this country great.

It starts by saying "No."

Obama Inspires Hope, Skepticism with State of the Union Address

Well, it wasn't an apology, but more of a mea culpa, concerning the bank bailout. I'll take it, I guess.

As for the rest of the speech, it was very well written and delivered, no surprise there. Obama attempted to distance himself from the bank bailouts while simultaneously saying they saved us from the crisis--nice move. However, we're still supporting a broken banking system, so I'm still not a fan. Nevertheless, he showed some balls, calling out Congress on its numerous failures. That I liked.

He also plans to give tax cuts and loan incentives to businesses, both small and large, to increase job creation. Sounds like something out of Reagan's playbook, which isn't surprising considering the similar hands the two were dealt.

He calls for a financial reform bill, and says he won't sign it until it's right. We'll see how that goes. As we're still relying on the banks that got us into this mess, I'm not terribly optimistic. He does have a plan to place fees on the big banks to help out smaller ones--not sure how I feel about this, but it could facilitate the changing of the financial guard.

For energy, he called for new nuclear plants, which is a no-brainer. He also called for more investment in the standard green energy BS, biofuels, etc. So he still wants a comprehensive energy bill, but I don't think Congress can produce anything I'll like.

His executive order to start a commission to bring down the deficit sounded great, but exempted defense and entitlements, i.e. 3/4 of our budget, at least. Considering defense and entitlements are creating the deficit, this is a show and little more. If it's the beginning of a move towards a balanced budget, I'll be happy, but again, we'll see.

The part I liked the most was when he called out Republican leadership for simply saying no to everything, how that's not leadership. It's true, but at the same time I'm sure Nancy Pelosi doesn't exactly have an open door policy for every Republican house member with a workable idea. Either way, he called on both parties to quit quibbling and figure it out.

It was a good speech, probably the best State of the Union I've seen, but as always with State of the Union speeches, I'll believe it when I see it.

The Necessity of Morals

America was originally designed to operate a very limited government. Such a limited government cannot care for the survival needs of the populace, but depends on the goodness of its people to support each other in times of need. Without a strong moral fibre or tight social bonds, we inevitably turn to the government to meet our collective needs, and our politicians oblige us, enabling our addiction to easy public services.

The sword of moral fibre cuts both ways. As the people's moral code grows ever weaker, so do the morals of our leaders. This code that once encouraged self sufficiency and dominion over your own life has given way to a code that encourages dependence, allowed by the weak fibre of our so-called "leaders." The ability to take care of yourself and your family was once highly prized. Today, many pass that responsibility to their elected officials, who are only too happy to promise more services in exchange for votes.

Our leaders are in the process of creating a society of incompetence, a society of dependence, a society that would utterly collapse without the constant support and nurturing of a paternalistic government. Most institutions eventually outlive their usefulness, and continue to exist only to prolong their existence. Our government should be no different.

It is only with the highest resolve and integrity that we could maintain a government that stays a blessing, instead of becoming a burden. We have lost that resolve, as our leaders offer us more and more services for "free." We have come to expect the government to care for us, and are losing the ability to care for ourselves. We have forsaken the morals of our ancestors by taking the "easy way."

In many cases, morality amounts to self denial. You may have the urge to steal some trinket, but morality dictates you must not. You may have the urge to sleep with your friend's wife, but morality dictates you must not. You may have the urge to pass the responsibility of caring for yourself and your community to the government, but morality dictates you must not. It is this denial of the easy route that creates a strong culture, one that can face difficult challenges and succeed.

Our tremendous wealth has made us soft. We no longer NEED to deny our urges, we have money to burn, and when the money runs out, credit cards. We are constantly bombarded with commercial messages telling us to buy, buy, buy. Before long, this consumer pattern leaves us broke and owing thousands to credit card companies. And we turn to the government for help, our hands out, begging for relief from the problems we created with our need to have things now, now, now.

And the government, as a reflection of the people, is just as bad. Our desire to have an unstoppable armed force, and a social safety net, along with the host of other spending, which now includes a corporate safety net. These enabling institutions insulate us from the consequences of poor decisions, and are paid for on credit. And as the consequences pile up, more institutions are needed to "correct the wrongs," and more debt to pay for them. It is a seemingly endless spiral, one that we can pull out of only with severe self-denial for the things we want, but don't need, or can't afford.

It is not too late. We are still a great nation, but our priorities have been corrupted by money and power. The decadent lifestyle we cling to is quickly eroding, as our government dances faster and faster to maintain the status quo. But we can all see where this is going.

The change cannot come from the top. Our president can talk about change until he is blue in the face, but real change comes from the bottom. From each of us, making the prudent decision, forgoing the easy route, even when we don't have to, because moral people do what is right, even when it hurts.

The Buck Stops Here

I'm done beating around the bush. The reason health care is so expensive is because of our government subsidized employer based insurance. This is the root of the problem and must be attacked if we wish to see any real change.

Some history first: during WWII, wages across America were frozen, forcing businesses to get creative in luring the best talent. Many opted to offer health care insurance in lieu of a higher salary, and people for the most part liked it. Soon, a great number of people were insured through their job, and the government, seeing the people cared for, cemented the system into our society with a tax exemption on insurance premiums for those who got insurance through their job.

This system worked for a while, and many Americans were able to get health care when they needed it. However, the problems of such a system soon became apparent.

Due to a lack of incentive to find a less expensive doctor (hey, insurance is paying the bill so who cares?), price inflation in the health sector exploded. Now, costs are prohibitive to anyone who doesn't have insurance. So uninsured should just buy insurance, right?

Strangely, the government tax exemption applies only to insurance through an employer, not individual policies. So those people who don't get insurance through work are at an immediate disadvantage.

Further, the employer based system has segmented the market and created small, disconnected risk pools that exclude individual policy holders. This means individual policy holders, in addition to paying taxes on their premiums, must also pay a higher premium from the beginning.

The problem only goes deeper from there. Our current insurance model is severely disjointed; insurers may only compete in one state, and in many cases, this has created state monopolies. In NC, for instance, Blue Cross/Blue Shield owns 73% of the health insurance market. Insurers like BC/BS can use their monopoly position to squeeze hospitals for lower prices. Hospitals then pass this cost to the smaller insurers, hurting their ability to compete. Hospitals also pass the cost to the uninsured, making already expensive care even more unaffordable.

Liberals will often tell you that to bring costs down we must give people preventative care, that we can stave off expensive procedures with preventative measures. While partly true, this only treats a symptom of a very sick system where costs are still out of control

Don't get me wrong, preventative care is important, but the best preventative care anyone can do is to get exercise and not smoke. If we allow the market to work (and it does work, just look at the rapid decrease in prices of procedures not covered by insurance), then going to the doctor and getting medicine when you're sick will be cheap for everyone, or better yet, you can get a checkup before you get sick.

We cannot continue this game of "pass the buck" forever. Middle class Americans pass the buck to insurance companies who pass it to health care providers who pass it to small insurers, or to uninsured Americans. And now Americans, via the government, are trying to pass it to wealthier Americans through higher taxes. But we all know what happens when you try to pass the buck to the rich and powerful: they pass it right back to you and me.

So how about we stop thinking about ways to bandaid our horribly broken system and instead reform it from the beginning, where it all started: employer based insurance.

After that, we need only allow nation wide competition, you know, what we have for virtually every other business, and it seems to be working.