My Most Favorite Founding Father? He Was Right, Too

- Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost

- I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it

- When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property

- If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be

- It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read

- What all agree upon is probably right; what no two agree in most probably is wrong

- The priests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the fatal harbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they live

- We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it

- That we are overdone with banking institutions which have banished the precious metals and substituted a more fluctuating and unsafe medium, that these have withdrawn capital from useful improvements and employments to nourish idleness, that the wars of the world have swollen our commerce beyond the wholesome limits of exchanging our own productions for our own wants, and that, for the emolument of a small proportion of our society who prefer these demoralizing pursuits to labors useful to the whole, the peace of the whole is endangered and all our present difficulties produced, are evils more easily to be deplored than remedied

Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States (1801–1809)
Principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776)
One of the most influential Founding Fathers

My Least Favorite Founding Father Was Right

- I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations

- A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty

- No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare

- Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad

- During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution

- History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance

- If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy

- Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant

James Madison
Fourth President of the United States (1809–1817), Founding Father of the United States. Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", he was the principal author of the document.

Dumbfuckistan

The Awesome Power Of Establishment Media

Barack Obama

• Community organizer in Chicago,
• University lecturer,
• Civil Rights Attorney ,
• Served in Illinois Senate 1997-2004,

Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is a Consumer Advocate, Lawyer, Author, and one of the 100 Most Influential Americans of the 20th Century (Time Magazine). He has helped improve the quality of life for two generations of Americans. He was instrumental in enacting:

• Mandatory seat belts and airbags,
• Nutritional facts on food,
• Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA),
• Environmental Protection Act (EPA),
• Safe Drinking Water Act.
• Wholesome Meat Act,
• National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act,
• Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
• Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs),
• Public Citizen,
• Disability Rights Center,
• Pension Rights Center.

Because of Ralph Nader, we drive safer cars, eat healthier food, breathe better air, drink cleaner water, and work in safer environments.


Q. In light of escalating home foreclosures, a credit crunch and a possible recession, what role, if any, should the federal government play in strengthening the nation's economy?

***all answer are quoted from the respective candidate website***

Barack Obama Answers:

“As president, Barack Obama will implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods.”

Thoughtcancer says: "vague doublespeak."

Ralph Nader Answers:

"Ralph Nader has a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:

1. No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
2. No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
3. No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives.
4. No bailouts without public hearings.
5. Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
6. Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.
7. Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.
8. Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.
9. Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
10. Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism."

Thoughtcancer says: "obviously, Ralph Nader is unelectable."

Today At Lunch

Today at lunch, I was in involved in a conversation that went something like this:

Me: Man, the market sure is crumbling down around us, eh?
The Other Guy: Yeah, it's unreal. Every company in every sector has been hit hard.
Me: That's not necessarily true. There are still companies that are untouched and thriving.
The Other Guy: Oh yea, which ones?
Me: Well, pretty much any company that deals in War and Porn.
The Other Guy: War and Porn! That's hilarious!
Me: Maybe so, but it's true.
The Other Guy: Ha! Well, it doesn't matter because War and Porn companies don't have many investors anyways.
Me: Are you kidding? The War Industry is one the largest, if not THE largest, in terms of investor capital raised and stock traded.
The Other Guy: C'mon. Who would invest in a War company? That's so plainly unethical, I don't know anyone who'd buy that stock.
Me: Um, does your portfolio include any stock from Boeing, Lockheed Martin, GE, Honeywell, or Raytheon?
The Other Guy: Um...(thinks for a bit)...yea, actually. Boeing, Lockheed, and GE, definitely.
Me: Then you're involved in the War industry up to your neck. Who do you think builds the missiles, planes, and vehicles that the US uses to crush brown people around the world?
The Other Guy: Hey! That's not fair!
Me: What's not fair is you not know what is being done with your own money. You're up to neck in weapons dealers and have no idea.
The Other Guy: Well at least that's better than investing the in Porn industry. The stigma!
Me: (jaw drops)
The Other Guy: What?
Me: Are you kidding?
The Other Guy: What??
Me: Do you really believe that it is morally superior to invest in companies that build missiles which kill children than it is to invest in a company that films adults fucking each other?
The Other Guy: I didn't say that. It's just...
Me: You're so ass-backwards. War=good, Sex=bad. This is why the rest of the world hates us. No one blinks an eye when you tell them that these major multi-billion companies that are literally inseparable from our government build the tools that are destroying the world. But if you mentioned sex, the reaction is visceral.
The Other Guy: Well, that's just how it is.
Me: Well, it's sick. This culture is sick. And you, my friend, are sick.
The Other Guy: Shut up and eat your noodles!

Om nom nom nom.

I Heard He Pals Around With Terrorists!

Modern Conservative Republicanism Has Failed

Modern Conservative Republicanism has failed so miserably that is has effectively become an "anti-philosophy." It has, effectively, become a war on thinking. Any serious thought, qualification or education has become a disqualification in conservative Republican circles. Obama's simple message of "Change" has been so successful because Republicans have become so incoherent. However, if you have any faith in the American people , then you must accept that the dominating political philosophy of the last 40 years (conservatism) must have had some validity at some point. Moreover, if conservatism as it exists today is distintegrating, what are we going to replace it with?

Let's go back to the beginning. The Republican Party has held the Presidency for 28 of the last 40 years. This followed a period of 36 years in which the Democratic Party controlled the Presidency for 28. The Republicans turned the tide with an innovative electoral strategy and then held office with two original governing strategies.

Nixon's famous "Southern Strategy" ignited the culture wars. It was driven by the brilliant insight that many white working people felt disenfranchised and wanted their way of life protected from the dangerous eggheads in academia. They wanted to be respected for their common sense and traditional values. Although the execution of the strategy was vile and offended the sensibility of any ethical observer, the original point was valid. Many policy makers had an arrogant disdain for "common" people and that's no way to govern a country full of "common" people.

The problem with this strategy now is that it is no longer demographically viable. As America evolves into the world's largest multicultural nation, the middle has become a mosaic rather than a monolith. White anglo-saxons are in decline and at this point a culture war alienates more than it reassures. Sarah Palin doesn't resonate widely because not enough people share her background or her values anymore (being a complete whack-job of questionable intelligence doesn't help either).

However, it wasn't just smart electoral politics that kept the Republicans in power. The Reagan Revolution had some serious ideas generated by serious people. The two central ideas were neo-conservativism and the Chicago School of Economics. Both were revolutionary philosophies with strong merits and both have become useless under modern conservative Republican stewardship. What happened?

Let's start with Neo-conservatism, which has been widely reviled with ample justification. Although it has become a accepted as the predominant right wing ideology in America, it actually has its roots on the Left. The most central theme proposed by the neoconservatives was that we should take internal regimes into account in foreign policy and not solely our strategic interests. Essentially, it rejected the Realist agenda propagated by Kissinger, that consorting with dictators was good if it furthered our interests - a valid point on which reasonable people can disagree. How that morphed into the notion that we have some sort of mandate to promote democracy at gunpoint is not clear, but it does show how intellectually bankrupt the modern Republican Party has become that this is accepted by them as a better way forward than the previous conservative consensus of the Market driving Democracy.

The second philosphy came from the so-called Chicago School of Economics, led by Milton Friedman. Again, these were serious people with strong arguments. The government can't be the solution to every problem, they believed, and excessive government intervention does more harm than good. Taxes were too high, the Friedmanites conteded, government was too big and had too many useless programs that were crowding out the private sector. Milton Firedman predicted that stagflation would be the result of excessive government intervention and was proven right in the mid-70's.

But somehow the idea that government can't do everything morphed into the idea that govenment shouldn't ever do anything, which is a curious governing philosphy to say the least. The results, which should have been clear years ago are certainly clear now, have left the world with the worst economic disaster in half a century. Hoover has returned.

So the Republican Party has been intellectually bankrupted from within, and now looks like it will soon be electorally bankrupt from without (barring electoral shennanigans). The real question now is whether the failed Republican philosophies which have devoured and divided the Party can ever recover the full faith and support of the "common" people they sought to represent in the beginning of their movement. Can the fiscally conservative Realists in the Republican party separate themselves from the neo-conservative and religious fundamentalist sects that have brought them to this tragic end? Here are three themes that sane Republicans should adopt as their core if they ever hope to be free of the nutjobs that have taken over.

Modernity: Traditional values have their charms but don't adapt very well to large multi-cultural populations. It should be clear to everyone that America's competitive advantage has eroded and we have serious problems to solve. New developments in network theory, biology, communications and computer technology give us powerful tools to solve our problems. But we can't solve today's problems with yesterday's ideas and we can't be competitive without a well educated workforce. Rather than an assualt on traditional values we need an embrace of new ideas with clear applications to real world problems. We can't cure cancer and deny Darwin at the same time.

Multicuturalism: While the 21st century doesn't have to be the decline of America, it will be marked by what Fareed Zakaria calls "the rise of the rest." The successful countries in centuries past were almost exclusively European. That's over now. The varied backgrounds of americans are an asset and promoting our own multicultural society will help us lead a multicutural world.

Schumpeterism: Long before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Joseph Schumpeter successfully discredited Marx's central theme. Marx had made the astute observation that under the Capitalist model, profits fall to zero at equilibrium so if capitalists wanted to preserve their profits, they had to do bad things. Schumpeter pointed out that although this was accurate, it wasn't true. He coined the term "creative destruction" and pointed out that as long as there is innovation profits never have to fall to zero. Republican pro-business policies have really been catering to the special interests of exisiting business rather than promoting entrepreneurship or innovation. Fixing health care, infrastucture and green technologies actually promote risk taking and innovation and should be driven forward by classic Republicanism, rather than the incoherent and sometimes "looney" Left (which is a misnomer, but that is a discussion for another day).

The Republican's problem is that all three of these themes fit well with Obamas policies and are viable electorally. If Obama is going to be as successful in governing he needs to go beyond "Change" and explain what the change will mean for how we view America and how we want the world to view us.

Our Pile Of Rocks

How To Save America (or die trying)

***NOTE: THIS IS AN UPDATE FROM AN OLD POST FROM 2007***

You can't fix all that's wrong with America by following the rules that have been put in place by the same system. That logic just doesn't follow. I started thinking, if I could bend or break the law just a little bit in order to return the actual state of the nation to it's Ideal, what would I do?

I came up with six easy steps that, if followed, will make America nice again, because right now, we're a bunch of assholes. In a nutshell, those steps are: 1) Lobbyists Put To Death, 2) Only "common folks" Can Be Elected, 3) Free Access To Media For All Candidates, 4) The End of the "Winner Takes All" Electoral System, 5) Government Forbidden To Touch "Moral Issues", and 6) Candidate Chosen By Lottery.

Here we go!

1. Make lobbying and the perception of lobbying (or being a lobbyist, or consorting with lobbyist in any way) punishable by death. The accepting of anything of value by an elected official (anything!!) will result in impeachment and a non-appealable 20 year prison sentence in the same secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe where the US sends "terrorists" to be tortured. No money, no gifts, no trips, no dinners, no teddy bears, no fucking thank-you cards. Nothing. Lawmakers, policy makers, government workers, or anyone who actually received a government paycheck, ever, is covered under this rule. Additionally, anyone involved with the government in any meaningful way (including politicians, their staff, contractors, vendors, even the guy that shines shoes on the subway ride to the Capitol) shall be subject to random independent financial audits of their holdings, transactions, etc, to ensure that they are not taking, hiding, funneling, or otherwise party to "influence peddling". Death for Lobbyists, horrible punishment for those who deal with or associate with them.
   
   
2. You can't have a government by and for the People if everyone elected is a power-lusting millionaire (unless, of course, you too are a power-lusting millionaire). So, we set a "net worth cap" on any individual who wishes to run for and/or attain a publicly accessible office, or an appointed position by an elected official (such as ambassadors, directors of agencies, judges, etc). The rule shall state that no one whose net worth is more than 30 percent above the national average is allowed to hold office. So, let's say that the "average American" has a net worth (you know, total assets minus total liabilities) $10, then a political candidate can have a net worth of no larger than $13. This will ensure that the wealthy do not hold office. in a disproportionate amount, if at all. Why? Simple...the wealthy look out for their interests, will consort with other wealthy people, will pass laws that benefit their positions and the positions of those that can help them, all at the expense of the "common man". By ensuring that all political workers come from the working class (and due to the above rule #1, won't be likely to get money while in office), we can ensure that our elected officials are closer to "us" than "them".
   
   
3. Since all broadcast media in the USA operates on licenses granted to them by the FCC (that is, the People own the airwaves and the FCC is charged with administering the airwaves; therefore the People have a vested interest in what goes over those airwaves), all broadcast media companies (radio, over the air television) that are regulated by the FCC must, during political campaign season, allot 2 hours of prime-time television/radio broadcast time equally to all political candidates, for free. This will eliminate candidates having to spend so much time fund raising in order to buy media time in order to get their message out. With all candidates having equal access over the airwaves, more voices will be heard. In a related move, no third parties of any kind will be allowed to run ads supporting or denigrating any candidate, position held by a candidate, or any other such message relating to the political process. The only political messages that are allowed are from the candidates themselves; no interest groups allowed (see rule #1)
   
   
4. Right now, in American elections, whichever candidate gets a simple majority of the vote wins outright. So, if a candidate wins 51 percent of an election, it's a big "fuck you" to the other 49 percent. Instead of this barbaric system of pseudo-democracy, the US government shall switch to a much more civilized form of democracy, namely multi-party parliamentary democracy. Under this system, one would vote for a party based on political philosophy, and the party would then send their best representatives to represent that party. This differs from voting for a candidate directly. Again, you won't vote for John because he's a Democrat, you'll vote Democrat, and let the Democrats figure out whether John, Jim, Tom, or Bob will go Parliament. For example, if Florida had 10 seats allotted to them for the House of Representatives, and an election was held, the votes would not be for candidate A or B, but rather for Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Free Lunch, or whatever party chooses to run. Voters would find a party that best represented their political ideaology and go vote for that party. After the election, you tally up how many votes each party got, then divide up the available seats, rounding down. So, if Democrats took 40f the vote, Republicans 40Ãand Greens 20Ãthen 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 2 Greens go to Congress. The actual candidates selected to represent their party would be chosen by each party internally, based on who could best represent that party's ideals. The candidates would be "common men" (see rule #2) and would remain so during their tenure (see rule #1), working only to advanced the welfare of the People in accordance to their Party's platform.
   
   
5. Leave morals to religious leaders and parents. Government officials shall no longer be allowed to legislate, or even opine, on "moral issues". That is the exclusive area of the People. What is moral and ethical to one man is reprehensible to another. This includes things like gay marriage, sex education in schools, religion and religious matters (how about actually enforcing the Separation of Church and State for once?), abortion, drugs, profanity, obscenity, etc. America is a weaker nation because we look to elected officials to legislate morality. We have lost our own ability to make moral decisions in our lives. Don't like what's on TV? Turn it off. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Against drugs? Don't use them. Want to pray in public school, teach religious items in public school, or otherwise endorse religion in any way public school? Sorry, but no (you're free to start your own religious school and charge people to go there, if you'd like). Any of these moral issues that have been used for the past to wedge Americans apart may no longer be mentioned legislatively. Stay out of the bedrooms and churches of citizens and stick to your job of running the nation.
   
   
6. Candidates for government office shall no longer be allowed to announce themselves as candidates for any particular office. Instead, every citizen between the ages of 18 and 80 will have their names entered into a Candidate Lottery. Candidates will be screened for literacy and knowledge of logic, rational thought, and history. Every two, four, or six years (depending on the office), names will be drawn and you will have to serve; think of it as a draft, but for politicians. The integrity of the lottery will be guarded by the same team that currently guards our nuclear missile codes to ensure nothing fishy goes on. Candidates who are selected to serve can never hold office past their term of service, and are removed from the lottery pool. They will be paid a wage equal to the national average in return for their service, and will be provided with a home while they are on duty. Other than the selection process, they will behave like regular public servants. Oh, and prior officeholders will not be allowed to serve as consultants of advisers to anyone who is currently serving or has been selected to serve. Strict conflict-of-interest rules will be strictly (STRICTLY!!!) enforced.
   

Now, I'm quite sure that the system I have just proposed has holes big enough to drive a truck through. How will taxes be handled? Will political parties be patrolled for lobbying? Who will vet candidates? Will the executions of lobbyists be televised live or on tape delay? I don't have all the answers, my friends. I just have some ideas that will hopefully get you thinking.

Remember the Declaration Of Independence? I love the second sentence, in the second paragraph of the American Declaration of Independence:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive..., it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

The Enemy Is Power, Not Who Holds It

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Again, just for the record

Listen up, Wingnuts:

Obama met Bill Ayers 30 years after he committed his crimes, along with several other politicians of both parties, in a range of political contexts. He was not Obama's "mentor", Obama doesn't "pal around with him", and he doesn't endorse his actions as a simple result of not shunning everything he's associated with.

Meanwhile, McCain helped Charles Keating commit his crimes, and didn't learn the lessons of the Savings & Loan scandal for 20 years following, many of which contributed to the current financial crisis. And Palin participated in a laying-on-of-hands by a pastor who organized a mob to chase a woman out of his suburb because he said she was a witch who caused car accidents. And produced a support video for the Alaskan Independence Party.

If the Right wants to make this into a war of association guilt, They Will Lose.

Chomsky Is Not A Leftist

I love how people with very limited understandings of political philosophy throw around dichotomous political labels as if they were epithets and not actual descriptors. Take, for example, Noam Chomsky. Many people who do not understand political philosophy, economics, and the nature of power label Chomsky as a dirty leftist, a Marxist/Leninist who seeks the dis-assembly of Western-style capitalism, only to be replaced with a people's collective (or some such nonsense). This straw man tends to work against Chomsky (and other so-called "radicals"), mainly because most people don't read past the headline.


Well, that well known leftist rag known as the Wall Street Journal would disagree:

"His body of work deserves more serious treatment. The interesting yet overlooked aspects of his political philosophy cannot easily fit into the left-right dichotomy. What makes Mr. Chomsky unique is that his criticism of the capitalist economic order takes its point of departure from the classical liberal thinkers of the Enlightenment. His heroes are not Lenin and Marx but Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt. He argues that the free market envisaged by these thinkers has never materialized in the world and that what we have gotten instead is a collusion of the state with private interests.

Moreover he has repeatedly stressed that the attacks on democracy and the market by the big multinationals go hand in hand. The rich, he claims, echoing Adam Smith, are too keen to preach the benefits of market discipline to the poor while they reserve for themselves the right to be bailed out by the state whenever the going gets rough. As he puts it: "The free market is socialism for the rich. Markets for the poor and state protection for the rich." He has spoken positively about the work of Peruvian liberal economist Hernando De Soto who sees the problem of poverty in the Third World as being related to the fact that the poor usually lack clearly defined property rights."

--Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2005

Just for the record, standing up to the government does not make one a Leftist (or any other convenient label). My hope is that people will eventually see that the world is not divided into Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative or even Rich/Poor, but rather Those With Power/Those Without (and that just because one is without power does not mean that one seeks it).