August 12, 2010
Blood and Taxes
just got a $1000.00 bonus at work. Well, actually, after taxes, about $560.00. And it got me thinking. I live in California. Everyone wants some of my life's blood. I feel like one of the 5 patients giving blood to the other 95.
On Income, they get:
Federal Income Tax Social Security Tax Federal Medicare Tax CA State Income Tax CA State Disability Tax
That's about 45% of my income right there. But its doesn't stop. What happens when I try to spend it? Well, there's:
Sales Tax - 9.75% Federal Gas Tax - $.185 / gal. CA State Gas Tax, which just doubled to $.353 / gal., (and that's ON TOP OF the CA State and Local sales taxes, and a 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee.)
And then I look at my phone bill, and I'm paying:
Regulatory Cost Recovery Charge Federal Universal Service Charge State Public Utility Surcharge CHCF A Tax CHCF B Tax Relay Service Device Fund Tax State 911 Tax Teleconnect Fund Tax Universal Lifeline Tax City Utility Users Tax
And then there's my PG&E bill, which includes:
Energy Commission Tax Gas PPP Surcharge Utility User's Tax
And then there's the recently jacked-up Bridge Toll - $5 ($100 per month)
And of course Property Taxes, and dozens of other regulatory fees and excise taxes for simply functioning as a human being in a halfway modern life.
Not to mention all the hidden costs associated with goods and services that I pay because they get transferred to me through retail pricing.
And guess what! THEY STILL WANT MORE!
I'd say between 65-75% of my life's blood already goes to government, and perhaps only 20-25% of that is legitimate and well-spent.
We're dying. Do we really have to wait until the givers die or yank out the tubes before we bring sanity to this?
One added point: There are jobs that generate tax revenue, and jobs that consume tax revenue. They are not equal. Increasing govt jobs doesn't count.
We have propoeller-heads that don't understand this distinction and don't want to.
Next year is going to be worse, because they keep doing the opposite of what they should do. They are sucking money out of the economy to pay for more government.
Fasten your seat belts.
Posted by witnit at 7:40 AM | Comments (2)
February 21, 2010
I Heart Breitbart, PJTV, and the Tea party
may change my mind if some people change due to notoriety and the power that comes with popularity, but right now, I see something happening that may well be worth your while to know about also.
If the names Glenn Reynolds, Andrew Klavan, Bill Whittle and PJTV are not currently part of your circle of awareness, then you might consider checking them out.
Glenn Reynolds is the mind behind Instapundit, the premier blog of the informal Tea Party (although he predated it, but in many ways has helped to connect people to the info that generated the Tea Party), and an aggregator of tech geek and political wisdom who will link you to some of the cutting edge happenings around the world, especially regarding the changing voice of new media and the dying gasps of the old media.
He is also one of the pioneers of PJTV (part of pajamasmedia), which is now a better source of alternative political and cultural news than you'll find elsewhere. I do not always agree with the opinions expressed, but I find that I am more political and cultural aligned with these folks than most others. I suggest you try out a basic (or entry) membership of PJTV so that you can access their videos
Here are a couple of videos you must see. This will give you an idea of just how smart these regular guys are. And they have a healthy sense of humor, which is especially telling.
Kicking Off the Tea Party Convention
Their part starts between 1 and 2 minutes into the video. They give a healthy perspective about what's happening with the Tea Party,
Also, if you don't know about Andrew Breitbart, you should check him out. He's the guy that broke the ACORN videos (and if you don't know about that, do a google search and watch the complete videos...). Andrew is out to hold the Lamestream Legacy media to account. Check out the two videos on this page to get a sense of what he's been up to:
With Glenn, Klavan, Whittle, Breitbart, and the Tea Party, there may be real hope that out-of-control government can be stopped and reversed. It may be already too late to quiet these people.
Hurrah!
Posted by witnit at 3:31 PM | Comments (3)
February 5, 2010
The Original Tea Party, by George Hewes
t was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.
When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.
In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.
...The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable.
Hawkes, James A, Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes... (1834).
What is the Tea Party? Check out this 8-minute video.
It's time to join up: TEAPARTYNATION.COM
Posted by witnit at 11:48 AM | Comments (6)
March 9, 2009
Let's Talk Parasites and the Economy
hink about this: The government cannot create wealth. If it could, it would have no need for taxes.
This is a simplification, of course. (Governments can support activities that create wealth.) But the main thing to keep in mind is that politicians and bureaucrats through their taxing power consume wealth that is created by others.
Parasites
Parasites are not necessarily bad. There are parasitic organisms that rely on a host and offer something in return. Some parasites are even necessary for the health of the host. But the distinguishing characteristic of a parasite is that it requires a host. It requires something to feed off of.
And even good parasites, when they get to be too many, can kill the host.
In an economy, in simple terms, there are hosts and there are parasites (some good, some bad, some good in small quantities).
Hosts create real wealth. Parasites consume the wealth created by hosts.
Real Wealth
What is real wealth (as opposed to unreal wealth or secondary wealth)? Which of the following would you say is real wealth?
1. The government prints up $10 billion dollars.
2. A man invents a process that yields 10 times as much corn per acre than before.
3. A bank takes in $1 million in credit card finance charges.
4. An insurance company collects $5 million in payments.
5. A man sees that his stocks are worth $100,000.
6. A woman has a 401K and a IRA that together are valued at $250,000.
7. A plaintiff's lawsuit results in $10 million in damages, divided up 50-50 with lawyers.
The answer is: Only number 2 is real wealth. All the rest are either unreal (1, 5, 6) or secondary (3, 4, 7).
In other words, only the man who invented a process that increases corn yields by 1000% has created real wealth. If you have trouble recognizing this, then you are a potential sucker for thinking parasites are hosts. You are open to being conned, by both conscious and manipulative parasites, and good-intentioned parasites.
A Fable About Wealth
20 people live on an island. Each person can live per day on one fish (average 6 hours to spear an edible fish) and one coconut (average one hour to climb and get) and a gallon of fresh water (an hour's round-trip hike). Traditionally, each person catches their own fish and gets their own coconut and water. It requires 8 hours of work each day to accomplish all three tasks. If someone cannot get their food and water for a day, they have to rely on someone else working a 16-hour day, or several people adding hours to their day to take up the slack.
One day Leo gets an idea. He tries to talk the other 19 people into getting his food and drink for a day so he can develop it, but they think he's crazy and refuse. They simply do not have the minds that can see Leo's vision and how it would work. Leo decides to go hungry for a day in order to invent his fishing pole with hook, line, and sinker.
The next day Leo goes off to a remote beach and catches 10 fish in two hours.
Suddenly Leo has real wealth. He can either salt the fish and save them so he can have several days of less work, or he can give away or trade his fish for mutual benefit. If he is willing, he can spread the wealth by teaching others how to fish, for a fee.
Leo gets four people who want to learn how to fish and become fishers. They agree to help him with food and drink so he has the leisure to make 4 fishing rods and teach them to fish. In exchange, they agree to give him one fish out of every 10 that they catch for one year.
Now Leo only has to work 2 hours each day getting a coconut and water. He doesn't have to fish since he gets plenty of fish from the four fishers. Because of his personal efforts he has not only generated wealth for himself in the form of extra fish and leisure time for other creative pursuits, he has helped to increase the overall wealth of the community. Since more fish can be caught each day than is needed by the entire community, trade sets in. One fisher trades fish to have non-fishers help him build a better hut, for example.
Meanwhile, Leo (who seems to be the only one who has an inventive spirit and the skills to implement) sees a way to relieve the entire community of having to walk an hour to get water. He pitches his vision for a water canal/aquaduct to deliver the water to them. All he needs is community support in the form of getting him and 3 volunteer workers their coconuts and water each day and he will build it for community use. All he asks in return is that the community agree to give him 4 coconuts a day for a year as a reward for his extra work.
They agree, even though many of them are still skeptical, unable to see what Leo sees. But the fishers are believers and some of the others. So the project goes ahead.
The project is a success and the entire group benefits from water pouring into their local resevoir. Now everyone only has to work an hour each day for coconuts and whatever they have to do to get fish from the fishers. They are free to develop basic specialized functions, like gathering firewood and doing specialized labor for others.
Meanwhile, Leo thinks about coconuts. He invents a sling and one day comes to the village with 20 coconuts that he knocked down in one hour. He's in a generous mood and shares with everyone and offers to make anyone a sling who wants one for the price of four coconuts per day for a year.
Leo becomes a very wealthy man who does not have to work for food and has an excess for trading. But who does he trade with? Well, some visitors came in a boat from another island and they opened negotiations with the village to take off their hands extra fish, coconuts and water in exchange for various fruits that grow on their island.
Trade begins and both islands flourish. All due to the vision and skills and risk-taking done by Leo.
Parasites and Hosts
In this fable, Leo is a host and he is able to help others become hosts as well. The only parasites in this story would be those who stop working entirely and rely on the charity of others giving them an excess of food and water. (Hey, there's plenty to go around. Why should I work?)
Also, with leisure comes the desire to create words and words and laws and interpreters of those laws (lawyers). These people start talking about taxes and the need for everyone to contribute to the "community chest" so that other projects, like Leo's canal/aquaduct, can be financed "for the good of the community."
More middlemen are created. Politicians, lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, tax preparers: All people who can be good parasites up to a point. But when politicians scheme with bankers and lawyers and tax preparers and insurance agents to pass laws coercing people to use their services, and allowing frivolous lawsuits that merely transfer wealth rather than create wealth, the parasites begin to kill hosts. And people in the community get confused about where real wealth comes from, especially people who are dependent on politicians giving them money and lawyers providing opportunities for big cash settlements. Tax law gets so complex that everyone is required to pay a tax preparer. And of course insurance begins to go too far and everyone is required to be insured for everything, and more opportunities for frivolous lawsuits arise.
People like Leo are rare. More often people have ideas that are less worthy and less workable, or even downright silly. But with town councils and meetings and emotional persuasion, people of the community get talked into supporting ideas that don't work and even though people get paid out of the community chest, no real wealth is generated.
At a certain point, a few people start envying Leo's good fortune and start talking about "fairness" and how unfair it is for Leo to have so much without working. ("Hey, other people are working and he's just sitting their collecting fish and coconuts. It's not FAIR!")
Envy is a pernicious human emotion and politicians and lawyers of the worst kind take advantage of it. Laws get passed and taxes are raised on Leo's "excess" (i.e., capital gains in a loose sense) Soon everyone thinks it's a good idea for Leo to pay more than others (to be fair, you know).
Meanwhile, Leo is beginning to see the way the wind is blowing, he shrugs and decides to move to another island where he is free to develop his other ideas. Until the parasites grow with envy there as well.
Meanwhile, the 19 remaining villagers wonder why there seems to be less wealth to go around, espeically since so many people seem to be lawyers or otherwise working for the town council.
They look at the four fishers and decide they should be taxed more. And so it goes until the four fishers decide to shrug and go to another island.
And the town council promises more unemployement benefits and wealth transfer, and they begin printing up paper money without any real wealth backing it up and soon everyone wonders why prices rise and goods are scarce, and why everything is going to hell in a hand basket and they end up blaming it all on the greed of Leo and the fishers, who are just so damned selfish.
Hosts can only take so much from parasites. And parasites don't seem to have the vision to see what happens when they kill off their hosts.
For continuing updates on why Leo shrugged, be sure to read Instapundit.
Posted by witnit at 8:17 AM | Comments (3)
January 26, 2009
Perpetual Debt
'm sure everyone here has felt the initial rush of pleasure and the eventual pain of burden when they first created and then had to deal with credit card debt.
Financial debts are a form of enslavement, a kind of karma with interest where others enrich themselves with your unrestrained desires to have something now rather than later. It can destroy individuals and families.
So why do so many people think governments are immune to the consequences of debt? How many of you fail to understand the root cause of this planet's financial crises?
The founders of this country tried to prevent the situation America and the world finds itself in. I know, I know...it's popular to talk down on our founders, dehumanize them, usually in an attempt to avoid dealing with their wisdom...but how can we not see the prophetic nature of these words?:
"I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816."I consider the fortunes of our republic as depending in an eminent degree on the extinguishment of the public debt before we engage in any war; because that done, we shall have revenue enough to improve our country in peace and defend it in war without recurring either to new taxes or loans. But if the debt should once more be swelled to a formidable size, its entire discharge will be despaired of, and we shall be committed to the English career of debt, corruption and rottenness, closing with revolution. The discharge of public debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1809.
"To preserve independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"All the perplexities, confusion and distresses in America arise not from defects in the constitution or confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, as much from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation." --JOHN ADAMS, letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787
America is now trillions of dollars in debt. And our last few presidents and congresses have through warfare and social welfare increased that debt beyond all reason.
All we hear now is a constant call to add even more debt, which once again no politician is ultimately accountable for. Actions have consequences. All debts must be paid. With interest.
So if I am a little less enthusiastic than many about government being a problem solver, I hope you are not surprised. As I've said before, giving money to a politician is like giving whiskey and car keys to a teenager.
Government is the root cause of the current crises. And since government is failing to take accountability for how they opened the doors of greed to the bankers and brokers (as well as to themselves), government will not be able to solve this problem, only make it worse.
TINSTAAFL: There is no such thing as a free lunch. Debt is slavery and every vote for debt is a vote to enslave others in this life and the next and interfere with their ability to acquire spiritual freedom.
It's all very simple, really.
(Just call me Mr. Happy.)
Posted by witnit at 9:26 AM | Comments (8)
November 2, 2008
The Financial Mess
ll of the perplexities, confusion, and distress in America arises, not from the defects of the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.
John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787
For a refresher, reread Evil Dictionaries and Money.
Posted by witnit at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)
August 26, 2008
Bidenisms
arack and Biden. B&B. Word is, by picking Biden for VP Barack is admitting his weaknesses.
Uh-huh...
I think by picking Biden, Barack is showing his severe lack of political judgment. Here are just a few of the many gaffs Joe Biden has committed over the year. (Nevermind Biden's well-known vanity and obsessive need to talk waaayyyyy past the sale.) And also remember, this is the guy who dropped out of the 1988 White House race after the media disclosed that he copied parts of a speech from England's Lord Kinnock without acknowledging him.
From The New Republic:
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.
Of course, Iran is not an Arab country. (They are in fact supremely anti-Arab.)
From the Chicago Tribune (the link has recently been removed...hmmm...so here's an alternate source):
Three years ago, during Senate Judiciary Committee questioning of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Biden memorably warned Roberts to give "short answers," then filibustered into the cameras for 12 of his assigned 20 minutes. Lest anyone miss his superiority to Roberts, Biden added theatrics The Washington Post described as "the full Al Gore: While Roberts spoke, Biden shook his head, put his face in his hand, pouted and glared disgustedly."
Then there is this classic from The New York Observer:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
And another from The Washington Post:
Asked about failing schools, Mr. Biden seemed to suggest that one reason so many of the District's schools fail is the city's large minority population and contrasted D.C. schools with those in Iowa. "There's less than 1 percent of the population in Iowa that is African American," Mr. Biden said. "There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with." The Biden campaign quickly issued a statement asserting that the candidate was referring to socioeconomic status, not racial differences.
And this racist classic that you can see on YouTube:
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."
And let's not forget that it was Biden who Borked Bork and slammed Clarence Thomas. Here's some things Biden said in a 1991 interview with Charles Ogletree:
BIDEN: Thomas was the one in my view engaging in racism, and I not only mean racism in terms of playing the race card, but racism in trying to reinforce the stereotypical notion about black women. That was the sin I don't forgive the guy for and those who were making his case.BIDEN: "I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush."
Read Clarence Thomas's autobiography to see the kinds of games Biden played. Thomas has a clear history of integrity.
For a dose of Biden's patented long-windedness in defense of his gaff-making, check out this YouTube video.
And no, I'm not voting for McCain. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils when voting for President. I will only make a positive vote. The one and only time that happened was Ronald Reagan. (I would be, in popular parlance, a Reagan Democrat, even though I was never a Democrat.) And even then, I thought Reagan should resign if he truly meant it when he said he took full responsibility for the Marines getting bombed in Lebanon.
Posted by witnit at 11:25 AM | Comments (5)
March 13, 2008
David Mamet, Child of the Sixties
ow! You gotta read this! I've never quite read anything like it. AND it was printed in the Villlage Voice. Check it out here:
I'd observed that lust, greed, envy, sloth, and their pals are giving the world a good run for its money, but that nonetheless, people in general seem to get from day to day; and that we in the United States get from day to day under rather wonderful and privileged circumstances—that we are not and never have been the villains that some of the world and some of our citizens make us out to be, but that we are a confection of normal (greedy, lustful, duplicitous, corrupt, inspired—in short, human) individuals living under a spectacularly effective compact called the Constitution, and lucky to get it.For the Constitution, rather than suggesting that all behave in a godlike manner, recognizes that, to the contrary, people are swine and will take any opportunity to subvert any agreement in order to pursue what they consider to be their proper interests.
To that end, the Constitution separates the power of the state into those three branches which are for most of us (I include myself) the only thing we remember from 12 years of schooling.
The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.
Rather brilliant. For, in the abstract, we may envision an Olympian perfection of perfect beings in Washington doing the business of their employers, the people, but any of us who has ever been at a zoning meeting with our property at stake is aware of the urge to cut through all the pernicious bullshit and go straight to firearms.
I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
And I began to question my hatred for "the Corporations"—the hatred of which, I found, was but the flip side of my hunger for those goods and services they provide and without which we could not live.
And I began to question my distrust of the "Bad, Bad Military" of my youth, which, I saw, was then and is now made up of those men and women who actually risk their lives to protect the rest of us from a very hostile world. Is the military always right? No. Neither is government, nor are the corporations—they are just different signposts for the particular amalgamation of our country into separate working groups, if you will. Are these groups infallible, free from the possibility of mismanagement, corruption, or crime? No, and neither are you or I. So, taking the tragic view, the question was not "Is everything perfect?" but "How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?" Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, actually I have read something quite like this, in of all places the San Francisco Chronicle, here:
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
Posted by witnit at 9:16 AM | Comments (6)
October 5, 2007
War and Peace, Part 2
rom "Frank Capra: The Name Above the Title," the fantastic autobiography of the man who directed "It's a Wonderful Life" pp 356-357:
He was Army. In a driving rainstorm, I photographed Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower delivering the commencement address to the 1943 graduating class at Sandhurst (British equivalent to our West Point). The gist of his speech:
Gentleman, in the middle of a war, you have just graduated as professional officers in the profession of war. A profession, my fellow officers, that is the most archaic, brutal, senseless, destructive, bestial, de-humanizing profession ever invented by man. It should have been abolished long, long ago. But we have a job to do, a dirty, brutal job. There is an evil loose in the world that glorifies war; that would destroy by war all that we hold dear. It must not prevail!
He was Navy. He stood slim, straight, white-thatched. He was Commander in Chief of the Pacific (CINCPAC). He stood alone in the doorway of his office at Pearl Harbor. He was four-star Admiral Nimitz.
I was coming downstairs from Admiral "Bull" Halsey's office. I would have to pass right by Admiral Nimitz. Was he waiting for me? Would he renege on the all-important Special Film Coverage directive I had written for him, and he had signed? Had MacArthur nixed the order to integrate all combat photography? Had the Air Force? The Marines?
I hesitated, then saluted, and walked by him.
"Oh, Capra! Can you spare a moment?"
I went limp. "Of course, Admiral."
Behind his desk, his back to me, he faced a window that looked out on our sunken warships. "Sit down, please," he said, huskily. "I apologize for calling you in here. It's just this--this--goddam sonofabitch of a war!"
His hands clasped and unclasped behind him as he rocked slowly back and forth on his heals. Then, out of the depths of an overwhelming hurt, he cried out: "They cheered me... Three thousand of them... Eighteen-year-olds... Legs gone, faces gone... They cheered me... I sent them there... They cheered me..."
Then he turned, sat heavily in his chair, and with tears streaming down his face, he beat the table with both fists: "GODDAM SONOFABITCH OF A WAR! GODDAM SONOFABITCH OF A WAR! What am I going to write to their parents? What can anybody write to their parents?..." He grabbed his wet face in both his hands. He was sobbing now. A father weeping for all the sons in the world. "Eighteen-year-olds... kids... boys... three thousand of them... back from Kwajalein... I went to the hospital... legs gone... faces gone... They cheered me... I sent them there... they cheered me... GODDAM SONOFABITCH OF A WAR!... goddam sonfa--" His handkerchief was out now. Not once had he looked at me, directly.
I sat as if transfixed. Tears had started down my cheeks. The white-thatched admiral blew his nose, composed himself, then looking at me with a shy little smile, he said pleasantly: "Thank you, Capra. Thank you."
He had wanted to share his great pain with another human being--someone that was not Navy. I rose to my feet; tried to mumble something. I couldn't. So I smiled back and walked out. I had witnessed something rare. Something awesome--the inside of a tormented human soul.
Posted by witnit at 10:52 AM | Comments (1)
October 3, 2007
War and Peace, Part 1
'm putting this under the Politics category rather than Military, since I've been reflecting a lot lately on war and Iraq and the role of a commander-in-chief. I've been increasingly disappointed with ours, as he seems more and more to be thinking less and less in terms of "winning a war" and instead doing something else. I'm not sure what.
I've been asking, When is it really vital that we send soldiers to die for a cause? To what extent do we fight proxy wars or "wars over there" in order to avoid war here?
In 1823 in a letter to James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people."
By Europe, he also meant the Middle East. "They are nations of eternal war."
Yeah. Jefferson got that one right.
Sometimes I think we should pull back our military and simply strengthen our borders while letting the rest of the world decide if they really appreciate our presence or not. If we're not wanted, fine...buh-bye.
I'll have more radical thoughts as this series' uncomfortable reflections continue.
I will say now, however, that whenever I hear anyone say we must go to war to "defend American interests" I cringe.
What exactly is an "interest" and why is it a cause to go to war?
Posted by witnit at 2:16 PM | Comments (7)
February 14, 2007
The Return of Camille
amille Paglia is writing a column again for Salon magazine. She's one of the best democrat writers out there these days. Eclectic, wide-ranging, smart, and particularly at odds with me on several fronts, but still a great read. Better than Dowd or any of the other bizarre democrat females writing today. Check her out.
Posted by witnit at 1:15 PM | Comments (0)
October 6, 2006
The Real Ronald Reagan
remember back in 1980 after Reagan was elected President a young woman telling me that he was going to cause a nuclear war. I remember telling her that when he leaves office and no nuclear war has broken out, that she might want to think about the people who programmed her into believing such a lie.
I wonder if with the Berlin Wall coming down and the collapse of the Soviet Union, that woman ever engaged in self-reflection to recognize how she had bought into obscene political propaganda.
At that time, I had a healthy respect for Reagan, being a Californian and liking for the most part what he had done for California. I disagreed with him on abortion and other issues, but I respected that his beliefs came from something substantive rather than something merely political.
I've made it a point over the last few years to learn more about the American Presidents. I commute enough that it's worthwhile for me to get audiobooks of presidential biographies and listen to them. I came away with a much more healthy respect for Harry Truman after listening to David McCullough's book. I also have enjoyed books on Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt.
But none of them affected me more profoundly and moved me more deeply than a simple little book by Peter Robsinson called "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life."
I knew Peter Robinson from a 1/2-hour PBS show called Uncommon Knowledge. I always admired his intelligence and even-handedness in generating discussions with his guests. (You can go to the website and listen to his programs for free. They are excellent.)
So when I found a copy of his audiobook in a used book store, I hesitated for a moment, but then I went ahead and bought it. It turns out that his first job right out of university in his mid-20s was writing speeches for Vice-President Bush, and then starting in 1983 for the President, Ronald Reagan. Peter wrote the famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech among others. That story is amazing.
But what is more amazing is the character of Reagan that comes out of Peter using him as a touchstone for his own growth and understanding how to live life. He covers 10 major things that Ronald Reagan taught him about how to live life.
Reagan comes off as one of the few genuinely human presidents, relaxed and principled, error-prone in regards to Iran-Contra and other mistakes, but still genuinely warm, wise, personable, and curiously apolitical in his positions and willingness to do what he thought was right even when most or all of his advisors stood against him. Peter shows how profoundly Reagan held on to what was "simple," not merely simplistic.
I urge anyone who wants to get a true measure of this man to LISTEN to this audiobook. Peter Robsinson reads it himself, so his voice comes through clearly.
It truly moved me, even bringing tears to my eyes at times.
Ronald Reagan, despite my disagreements with some of his positions and certain of his actions (I thought he should have resigned for the U.S. Marines killed in the barracks at Beruit by Hezbollah), is one of a handful of truly "great" presidents, and the greatest of the 20th century.
Here are Peter's 10 Maxims as taught to him by Ronald Reagan.
When life gets difficult, dig in.
Do the work you are intended to do.
Life is a stage, act now.
What you say matters.
Use the brain you have been given.
Take things in stride.
Marry the right person and it will help your life.
Remember to pray daily.
Use your God given talents to influence the world around you.
You are important and can make a difference.
Posted by witnit at 10:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 24, 2006
Seven Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government
arry Browne died earlier this year. If you don't know who Harry Browne is, it's probably no wonder you don't know the root cause for much of the problems in the world, or why so many government programs seem to do little to fix things. Harry wrote many books and essays. You can find out about him here. You can find out more about his books here.
The following essay can be found at Advocates for Self-Government. Here's some food for thought:
THE SEVEN NEVER-TO-BE-FORGOTTEN PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT
By Harry Browne
It's easy to think sometimes that a new government program, law, or regulation could cure a pressing social problem.
Whether it's a desire to end abortions, keep the wrong people out of the country, make your city drug-free, stop corporate frauds, crack down on criminals, or make health care more accessible and less expensive, you can imagine how the right new law could make everything okay.
But when you get that kind of thought, I hope you'll remember the seven principles that apply to all government programs -- not just the ones you oppose.
The Principles
1. Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.
You expect that force to be used only against the guilty. But we can see how the Drug War, the foreign wars, asset forfeiture, the Patriot Act, and other government activities have used force just as often against the innocent -- people who have not intruded on anyone else's person or property.
In fact, government force is used more often against the innocent than the guilty, because the guilty make it their business to understand the laws that apply to them and stay clear of them. Meanwhile, the innocent, thinking they've nothing to fear, suddenly find that they've innocently violated laws they never heard of.
2. Government is politics. Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue -- to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.
Politicians don't weigh their votes on the basis of ideology or social good. They think in terms of political power.
3. You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.
Your ideal law will be written by politicians for political purposes, administered by bureaucrats for political purposes, and adjudicated by judges appointed for political purposes. So don't be surprised if the new law turns out to do exactly the opposite of what you thought you were supporting.
4. Every government program will be more expensive and more expansive than anything you had in mind when you proposed it. It will be applied in all sorts of ways you never dreamed of.
When Medicare was initially passed in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1992 to be $3 billion -- which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1992 dollars. The actual cost in 1992 was $110 billion -- nine times as much.
And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.
5. Power will always be misused. Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad.
As Michael Cloud has pointed out, "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." Give politicians power and it certainly will be abused eventually -- if not by today's politicians, then by their successors.
As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
6. Government doesn't work. Because government is force, because government programs are designed to enrich the politically powerful, because you can't control government and make it do what's right, because every new government program soon wanders from its original purpose, and because politicians eventually misuse the power you give them, it is inevitable that no government program will deliver on the promises the politicians make for it.
For years, I've asked listeners during radio interviews to name a government program that has actually delivered on its promises, and no one has been able to do so.
If you think there's a successful government program, you probably don't know how much it actually costs, aren't aware of all its destructive side-effects, have no idea how easily and inexpensively such a thing could be done outside of government, and/or are basing your view of its success on political propaganda.
It doesn't matter whether a program is supposed to do something you want or something you don't want, whether the program is something you consider a proper function of government or something beyond its limits. It won't work. Government programs always wind up disappointing you.
7. Government must be subject to absolute limits. Because politicians have every incentive to expand government, and with it their power, there must be absolute limits on government.
The Constitution provides the obvious limits we must reimpose upon the federal government. Until the Constitution is enforced, we have no hope of containing the federal government.
The present system of unlimited power is like giving a drunken stranger a set of signed, blank checks on your bank account. You are reduced to relying on the honesty and integrity of people you don't even know -- and they abuse that trust again and again.
Whether you think government should be bigger or smaller than the limits specified in the Constitution, the first step is to restore absolute limits, and then -- if you like -- work to change those limits to ones that would be more to your liking.
Questions
So the next time you're tempted to think that some government program is just what this country needs, ask yourself these questions:
1. Do I really want to use force to make this happen? Do I have any idea how many families may be destroyed by giving the government another tool to be enforced with fines and prison terms?
2. Do I really believe that George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Trent Lott will have my best interests at heart when they fashion this new program or law?
3. Why should I believe supporting this program will lead to exactly the solution I believe is right -- when I have no way to control the outcome?
4. Do I really think the politicians won't expand the scope and cost of this program far beyond what they're talking about today?
5. Do I really want to give politicians this kind of power -- knowing that some day the politicians and party I don't like will have it at their disposal?
6. Why in the world should I think this government program will work any better than any government program of the past?
7. How can I hope to bring about small, limited government when I'm suggesting a new government program that will take us further away from the Constitution?
Conclusion
If you really want to cure a pressing social problem, take steps outside the realm of government. If you don't see how you can convince people to help you succeed in a non-governmental endeavor, how can you expect to control politicians who care nothing for your desires?
And if you really want to make a noticeable difference, if you really want to improve life, do something for yourself or your family today. That's where you have real control, that's where you don't need to rely on politicians -- or anyone else -- and you can make sure the results are as you intend.
Date of publication: July 1, 2003
© 2003 Harry Browne
Posted by witnit at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 18, 2006
What Are Your Politics?
his quiz takes about 10 seconds to take and is very accurate. Try it:
Posted by witnit at 5:35 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 3, 2006
Political Power
ome quotes that your school teachers may have forgotten to pass along:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
— Attributed to George Washington
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
— Edmund Burke, 1729-1797, Irish Statesman
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action acccording to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
— Thomas Jefferson
"It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million human beings collected together are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately."
— Thomas Jefferson
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?"
— Thomas Jefferson
"The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
— Adam Smith, 1723-1790, Economist
"Political power is the game of playing God. It changes a person and makes him different from the rest of us. He begins to believe he has some kind of right to interfere in the lives of others. He may even believe he has the right to choose who lives and who dies."
— Richard Maybury, THE THOUSAND YEAR WAR IN THE MIDEAST, 1999.
"The history of liberty is a history of limitation of government power, not the increase of it."
— Woodrow Wilson, 1856-1924
28th President of the United States
"Every time government attempts to handle our affairs, it costs more and the results are worse than if we had handled them ourselves."
— Benjamin Constant, 1833-1891, Brazilian statesman
"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
— Thomas Jefferson, 1803
"If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual."
— Frank Herbert, The Dosadi Experiment, 1978.
"On my arrival in the United States I was struck by the degree of ability among the governed and the lack of it among the governing."
— Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835-40
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys."
— P.J. O'Rourke, Parliament of Whores, 1991.
Posted by witnit at 1:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 25, 2006
Ann Coulter and GODLESS
didn't plan on reading Ann's latest book. I read a couple of earlier ones and they were entertaining, but the invective and sarcasm wears thin after a while. Like so many witty angry writers, a little goes a long way.
So when I was selling a couple of boxes of old books to a used book store and had over $100 in store credit and saw a copy of GODLESS on CD, I thought, well, I wouldn't want to read it, but maybe it would be fun to listen to it, especially since it was read by Ann Coulter herself. (And it was abridged, so I'd presume that it would be mostly meat.
In short, Ann makes me laugh out loud and some of her evidence and arguments are built so cleverly, so rationally, and with such delicious vigor and wit that it's hard not to be persuaded when you grant her assumptions. I do not agree with all of her assumptions (like ones that lead her to believe that abortion is murder), but there is no real question that she is brilliant at constructing her aguments and presenting evidence built on those assumptions.
She does a particularly good job of exposing some of the hoaxes of Evolution that still find their way into schoolbooks, like the Pepper Moth hoax or the Scopes Monkey Trial hoax or the American miniature horse that "evolves" into today's modern horse hoax. None of these by themselves demolish evolution, and that's not really her point. Her point is that evolutionists, what she labels as "Darwiniacs," display a kind of fundamentalist religious zeal in their demonstrable non-scientific approach to claiming Evolution (the Church of Progress, as John Anthony West calls it) has been proven.
It has not, and it's amazing that when someone tries to actually drill down to what the evidence is, one finds that so much that is assumed to be proven has not.
That's religious fundamentalism. I make that point in some of my posts on skepticism and scientific rationalism. When Ann states that "Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs," she is correct. This is exactly what's going on and she provides plenty of evidence.
Anyway, I recommend listening to the book. Perhaps it's a fun read, but listening to it makes me laugh.
Below is an extended excerpt from Chapter One that is posted on Amazon.Com
Liberals love to boast that they are not “religious,” which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as “religion.”
Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers’ unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations (“Bush lied, kids died!” “Keep your laws off my body!” “Arms for hostages!”). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through the public schools, where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math.
Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah’s ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference. If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren’t we teaching children “safe littering”?
We aren’t allowed to ask. Believers in the liberal faith might turn violent—much like the practitioners of Islam, the Religion of Peace, who ransacked Danish embassies worldwide because a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed. This is something else that can’t be taught in government schools: Muslims’ predilection for violence. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attack, the National Education Association’s instruction materials exhorted teachers, “Do not suggest that any group is responsible” for the attack of 9/11.
If a Martian landed in America and set out to determine the nation’s official state religion, he would have to conclude it is liberalism, while Christianity and Judaism are prohibited by law. And not just in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where it’s actually on the books, but throughout the land. This is a country in which taxpayers are forced to subsidize “artistic” exhibits of aborted fetuses, crucifixes in urine, and gay pornography. Meanwhile, it’s unconstitutional to display a Nativity scene at Christmas or the Ten Commandments on government property if the purpose is to promote monotheistic religion.
Nearly half the members of the Supreme Court—the ones generally known as “liberals”—are itching to ban the references to God on our coins and in the Pledge of Allegiance. They resisted in 2004 on procedural grounds only because it was an election year. The absence of a divinity makes liberals’ belief system no less religious. Liberals define religion as only those belief systems that subscribe to the notion of a divine being in order to dismiss other religions as mere religion and theirs as something greater. Shintoism and Buddhism have no Creator God either, and they are considered religions. Curiously, those are two of the most popular religions among leftists—at least until 9/11, when Islam became all the rage.
Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul. Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness. It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs. They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image. Without this fundamental understanding of man’s place in the world, we risk being lured into misguided pursuits, including bestiality, slavery, and PETA membership. Liberals swoon in pagan admiration of Mother Earth, mystified and overawed by her power. They deny the Biblical idea of dominion and progress, the most ringing affirmation of which is the United States of America. Although they are Druids, liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader.
Liberals hate science and react badly to it. They will literally run from the room, lightheaded and nauseated, when told of data that might suggest that the sexes have different abilities in math and science. They repudiate science when it contradicts their pagan beliefs—that the AIDS virus doesn’t discriminate, that there is no such thing as IQ, that nuclear power is dangerous and scary, or that breast implants cause disease. Liberals use the word science exactly as they use the word constitutional.
Both words are nothing more or less than a general statement of liberal approval, having nothing to do with either science or the Constitution. (Thus, for example, the following sentence makes sense to liberals: President Clinton saved the Constitution by repeatedly ejaculating on a fat Jewish girl in the Oval Office.) The core of the Judeo-Christian tradition says that we are utterly and distinctly apart from other species. We have dominion over the plants and the animals on Earth. God gave it to us, it’s ours—as stated succinctly in the book of Genesis. Liberals would sooner trust the stewardship of the Earth to Shetland ponies and dung beetles. All their pseudoscience supports an alternative religion that says we are an insignificant part of nature.
Environmentalists want mass infanticide, zero population growth, reduced standards of living, and vegetarianism. The core of environmentalism is that they hate mankind. Everything liberals believe is in elegant opposition to basic Biblical precepts.
- Our religion says that human progress proceeds from the spark of divinity in the human soul; their religion holds that human progress is achieved through sex and death.
- We believe in invention and creation; they catalogue with stupefaction the current state of our diminishing resources and tell us to stop consuming.
- We say humans stand apart from the world and our charge is Planet Earth; they say we are part of the world, and our hubristic use of nature is sinful.
- We say humans are in God’s image; they say we are no different morally from the apes.
- We believe in populating the Earth until there’s standing room only and then colonizing Mars; they believe humans are in the twilight of their existence.
Our book is Genesis. Their book is Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the original environmental hoax. Carson brainwashed an entire generation into imagining a world without birds, killed by DDT. Because of liberals’ druidical religious beliefs, they won’t allow us to save Africans dying in droves of malaria with DDT because DDT might hurt the birds. A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil. It was one of the most devastating environmental disasters in recent history. Six weeks later, all the birds were back. Birds are like rats—you couldn’t get rid of them if you tried.
The various weeds and vermin liberals are always trying to save are no more distinguishable than individual styles of rap music. The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct. Liberals didn’t even know this plant still existed, but suddenly they were seized with affection for it. They had been missing it all that time! (Granted, the rediscovery of the Furbish lousewort has improved the lives of every man, woman, and child in America in ways too numerous to count, but even so . . . ) Liberals are more upset when a tree is chopped down than when a child is aborted. Even if one rates an unborn child less than a full-blown person, doesn’t the unborn child rate slightly higher than vegetation? Liberals are constantly warning us that man is overloading the environment to the detriment of the plants. Howard Dean left the Episcopal Church—which is barely even a church—because his church, in Montpelier, Vermont, would not cede land for a bike path. Environmentally friendly exercise was more important than tending to the human soul.
That’s all you need to know about the Democrats.
Posted by witnit at 9:24 AM
March 9, 2005
Words and Meanings
onah Goldberg explores Justice Kennedy's Mind and provokes us with what it means to interpret the U.S. Constitution. Here's the opening paragraphs. (No, there are no typos in the first paragraph.)
This article points to areas I will explore later in the series of posts Evil Dictionaries and Money. Where should meaning reside in law and courts? To what extent do we allow changing definitions in the minds of humans, and when do we hold those minds to external language? Is it proper to amend the Constitution without resorting to its stated means of amending it?Imagine you were asked to protect, uphold, and defend the framfra of the United States of America. Or ask yourself, What if you were appointed to faithfully execute the queenestray of the land?
You'd be forgiven if, before holding up your right hand, you asked, "Uh, what's a framfra?" or "Could you explain what a queenestray is?" After all, you wouldn't want to take an oath that required you to kill puppies or watch Carrot Top movies. Mature, sensible people generally don't agree to obligations they don't understand.
But that is precisely what our elected and appointed leaders are asked to do today. When taking office, they swear an oath to protect, defend, and enforce the Constitution of the United States. Yet it is becoming more and more difficult to say exactly what that means. Sure, on one level, anybody can read what the Constitution says. But, apparently, knowing what it says doesn't necessarily mean we know what it means.
Stay tuned. (More Richard Mitchell to come.)
*** I'm going two-level with you.
--------
Posted by witnit at 12:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 27, 2005
Why a Limited Federal Government?
lease note: As strident as my writing sometimes seems, and as passionate as I am about my opinions, I'm not so attached to them that I'm not open to countering arguments and evidence. Short essays are not the best for arguing positions adequately. But they can be sharp and fun.
Government by nature is about coercion. What distinguishes governments of any stripe from business or any other entity is that government is empowered to use force: Forcing people to follow law, forcing people to pay it money, forcing people to use its services, forcing people to support others. Government exists with the constant implicit threat that you will be jailed or killed if you do not submit to its coercion.
Many people in government are good people. They take their job seriously, and they actually accomplish good things. Still, much of the good that government is supposed to accomplish actually accomplishes the opposite. But to stay in the midst of political power, politicians and bureaucrats strive to avoid taking responsibility for their failures. As their ideals fade, they become "practical," and "realistic."
Here's my favorite picture of a politician:
That is why you constantly see politicians change once they are in office for an extended period of time. You see, many professional politicians and bureaucrats have had to compromise their principles to get something done, or they have indulged in some abuse of power and have come to believe that that is just how things are supposed to be. Therefore, when a newcomer politician or bureaucrat arrives with "stars in their eyes" and lofty principles, the professionals actively try to co-opt the newcomer. Teach them a lesson about politics.
How many times have you seen a principled member of Congress eventually forced to smile and mouth a position that you know they don't believe in, just to get the support of their political party?
All governments to some extent are tyrannies and embody the constant probability of abuse.
That is why America was founded upon principles of a limited government. The Founders clearly understood that by creating a Federal government, they were creating an entity that was potentially as tyrannical as the one they were throwing off. Thus they created The U.S. Constitution, which was designed to limit the powers of the Federal government that they were creating.
The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights. This fact is now mostly lost in the public consciousness, which believes that the Constitution is a government document that grants rights to people.
No. Every word of it is about defining the explicit powers of the Federal government. Everything not explicitly defined is not granted to it. Therefore, the Federal government has no business engaging in most of the activities it currently engages in. It is supposedly limited to what is explicitly granted in the Constitution.
The Constitution functioned as it was supposed to up until the early part of the 20th century, when the current Federal government was finally and effectively unhinged from the Constitution's limiting capacity. The Federal government has since taken on a range of coercive powers to force people to work for it and its social and political goals. We now live under an increasingly socialist government, where more than half of our labor goes to support the government through explicit and implicit taxation (the income tax being one of the most pernicious).
The Constitution, in its original 18th century capacity, allowed U.S. citizens a life mostly free from government coercion. By the middle of the 20th century, that changed to where U.S. citizens increasingly were subject to government controls and intrusions, in the name of freedom and security.
We are oftened warned of the dangers of socialism; that is, government coercively and selectively taking money (and therefore labor, in most cases) from some to selectively support others. Nothing in the Constitution was designed to allow for this, for the simple reason that a government that can selectively take and give is a tyranny. It becomes ridden with sycophants and manipulators and grand strategies for trying to get something through favors rather than personal merit.
Both businesses and special interests are only able to get something out of the government to the extent that government has the power to selectively give through favor what it selectively takes. Right now, both political parties engage in socialism and government by favor, although the Democratic party by far carries the banner of government socialism.
Unfortunately, many Americans have bought into emotional socialistic thinking that persuades them that it is the government's job to shape the social landscape. Increasing tyranny and slavery is the result. Forcing people to support others in their leisure is slavery, whether the leisure class is aristrocrats, slave owners, or the needy.
(Progressives looked to the Graduated Income Tax as the answer to the imbalance of income between the upper and lower classes. Little did they realize that this tax would insidiously open the door to all kinds of special interests who desire to influence and manipulate government. The U.S. Constitution allowed only those taxes that could be equally applied. Remember: The power to tax is the power to destroy. Raise your hand if you are afraid of the IRS?)
There are fundamental principles of liberty: Do all you agree to do and do not encroach on other people or their property.
All the rationalizations for supporting an increasingly socialist government are simply social consciousness blindness. In the mid-1960s, about 25% of black children were born into poverty. 40 years after The Great Society attempts through increase taxation and profligate spending that has increased almost every year, after billions spent, now almost 70% ofblack children are born into poverty. (Source: Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race and Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?)
Hello. Is anyone paying attention?
Government socialism enslaves, even while it deludes itself into believing that it is freeing. The answer worldwide is always less government. Government action has enslaved and murdered more in the 20th century than religion did for the last 2000 years. (And the religions that did this functioned as governments because of their coercive exercise of power.)
(Some want to point to European models of socialism that worked. They don't, or at least, people don't take into account that these countries have, for the most part, been relieved of the burden of financially supporting their own militaries and defense by the huge support coming from the United States for NATO.)
As an individual, I resist all attempts for any government expansion. I believe the Federal government is Consitutionally powered to do only one-tenth of what it does.
Perhaps that explains more clearly why, even though I voted for him, I am only on board with about 30% of what President Bush stands for.
*** The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill
--------
Posted by witnit at 6:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
