Free Form

UPDATE: War on Drugs Claims the Life of a 92 Year Old Woman

2006-11-29T11:08:00.000-05:00

I just read an update on the 92 year old lady that was murdered during the drug raid in Atlanta while she was sleeping. A drug informant that had previously said that he purchased drugs from the lady's house has now come forward and claims that the police involved made him say that in order to cover their asses.

In the end, a family's matriarch has lost her life. Someone must be held to account for the debacle and serious compensation must be made. This situation is a complete shame. Thanks can be given to the war on drugs and an out of control police force for this disaster.

John Edwards: Hypocrisy Gone Wild

2006-11-27T21:27:00.000-05:00

The Other America has hopefully forgiven John Edwards since he attempted to obtain a Playstation 3 from Big Wal -Mart. Now, Mr. Edwards is attempting his penance by choosing to have a book signing at a NH Barnes & Noble instead of a nearby Wal-Mart. This move will most definitely provide the Barnes & Noble with much appreciated revenue and allow him to continue his call for a nationwide boycott of Wal-Mart due to its low wages. The ridiculous hypocrisy of this charade is that the added revenue created for Barnes & Noble will go to support entry level jobs that pay $7/hour, less than Wal-mart's rate of $7.50/hour.

In a perfect world John Edwards would simply be an entertaining muse that celebrates his wedding anniversary at Wendy's . However, the fact is that John Edwards and his Other America cabal threaten free enterprise and the liberty of all Americans by imposing their version of morality on the rest of society.

War on Drugs Claims the Life of a 92 Year Old Woman

2006-11-22T12:02:00.000-05:00

In one of the most egregious and dispicable results of the costly, worthless, and statist "war" on drugs a 92, yes NINETY-TWO, year old woman was gunned down in the middle of the night as undercover NARCs busted into her house to serve a drug search warrant. To her credit, the woman went down defending herself and her property shooting at what she surely thoughts were intruders, harming three of the police officers.

I cannot even imagine the horror felt by the elderly woman as the events unfolded much less the grief of the woman's family members who have to come to grips with the murder of a family member at the hands of an out of control police force prosecuting this ridiculous war on drugs. The most frightening aspect of the story is that this is most likely not an uncommon practice where drug warrants are served on the wrong address or person resulting in the fatalities of innocent people. The CATO Institute has an excellent interactive resource that maps botched paramilitary and SWAT style raids across the country, the results are chilling.

Please Forgive John Edwards

2006-11-17T11:28:00.000-05:00

Dear Lord,

On behalf of that Other America that Mr. Edwards talks so much about, I ask you to forgive him. He knew not what he did when he had a staffer request Wal-mart help him obtain a Play Station 3 instead of camping overnight like the mindless zombies that Big Electronics has managed to manipulate. You alone know Mr. Edward's heart and know that he would never support a business whose labor practices are so horrific that thousands of people apply for only a few hundred jobs when a new Wal-mart is opened.

He was merely used, drugged by capitalist marketing techniques, and forced to secure a PS3 for his 6 year old son, a PS3 that he did not know was not made or developed in the U.S. The people of the Other America know that as a leader and fighter against oppression he must himself become like an oppressor, forcing his will on others. Lord, please continue to give Mr. Edwards the strength to ignore the free choices and liberty of other individuals while he leads the revolution towards a true state of being free.

Control via Regulation in NYC

2006-11-13T11:59:00.000-05:00

Recently, the largest residential property sale in history was completed when Tishman Speyer, in a joint venture with BlackRock Realty, purchased Peter Cooper Village/Stuyvesant Town for $5.4 billion. While that news can make headlines in business and real estate journals, the ongoing issue about the sale is the ability of the new owners to bypass decades of rent control that has been maintained on the properties. The classic rhetoric of "affordable housing advocates" was front and center in a recent Washington Post article about the sale:

"But if we're not willing to use regulatory tools in a smart way, we won't have the city we want." -Brad Lander, the director of the Pratt Center for Community Development

Point well made, if Mr. Lander does not use the coercive force of government to control the actions of free people to make private contracts between one another, then, no, Mr. Lander and his motley crew of so called advocates that somehow speak for The People™ will not have the city they want.

Without the regulatory nightmare of rent control NYC would not have such a large shortage in housing. For your reading entertainment, a free economics lesson:

1. The price of something is a way to allocate scare goods.

2. Housing is a scarce good.

3. By capping rents, housing rates are made to be artificially low and recklessly distort the supply of housing for two reasons:

A. Developers have no incentive to build new housing to meet demand because the increasing price indicator, which signals developers to build more units, is cut off due to the cap in rents and new housing is not built at a rate sufficient to meet demand.

B. When the price of housing is lower than market rates people have no incentive to have roommates and/or consolidate there living space. For example, a person is more likely to live alone if he/she can live in a rent controlled one-bedroom unit for $1,500/month versus a market rate of $3,000/month, which would more than likely require a roommate. This effectively decreases the number of people per rental unit ratio and inevitably leads to housing shortages.

Here is a great article by the economist Thomas Sowell about rent control.

Failings of the Republicans

2006-11-08T14:03:00.000-05:00

This is how I would rank the problems of the Republicans and why they lost last night:

1. They have been in power as a unified government too long. This has inevitbly led to the notion of wanting to stay in power solely for the sake of staying in power, as opposed to staying in power to reduce spending and limit government. There seems to be a tipping point where governments and parties come to power on change and reform only to eventually get sucked into the same system that hobbled the previous government or party.

2. Iraq. Here the Republicans have simply not confronted the President on the need for some type of change whether it is military strategy, investigations into the various charges of torture and abuse, or demanding the resignation of Rumsfeld. It is no surprise that most people are upset with the situation in Iraq and "staying the course" is not an adequate response.

3. Excessive spending and growth of government. A significant base of the Republican party are people who want lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. On two of the three points those voters have been completely ignored. There was no incentive for that type of voter to vote Republican, especially considering the following chart from the Economist showing the spending increases that have happened under Bush:

4. Illegal immigration became was a huge red herring. Republicans really thought that being hardcore on shutting down the borders only without making other necessary changes in our immigration system would bring out the votes, but in the 2 prominent competitive races where Republicans advocated a strict anti-immigration stance vs. a more comprehensive approach, the Republicans both lost, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) and Randy Graf who was attempting to replace Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ). I have said this for a while now and that is that the anti-immigration Tancredo (R-CO) types are a loud obnoxious minority in the Republican party that are given way too much credibility.

In the end, the Republicans deserved to loose, hopefully it shakes things up and makes them realize that advocating limited government is what brought them to power in the first place and the ensuing gridlock will simply prevent the government from doing anything, which is probably the best possible outcome.

Liberty, Libertarians, and the Lesser of Two Evils

2006-10-26T20:58:00.000-04:00

Election season is here in less than two weeks and libertarians are faced with a very mediocre/depressing set of choices between the two major parties and their respective nominees. This inevitably fuels the fire of apathy and/or cynicism leading one to not vote, or it forces the eventual voter to decide which candidate would be a better friend of individual freedoms and liberty. I have chosen to stay engaged and vote regardless of the choices, writing myself in when necessary. Therefore, I must somehow decide which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

The most realistic scenario libertarians can hope for is one of the two following: A Republican who strongly advocates free markets and economic freedom and is "generally" favorable to protecting civil liberties but will likely cave in to party demands on occasion versus a Democrat who is a crusader for civil liberties and respects the free market in general but is not philosophically committed to it.

My general theory is that economic freedom serves as necessary precursor and defender of civil liberties because it allows power to be distributed, via wealth accumulation, to entities other than the state. This type of power distribution is also relevant in relation to the right to bear arms, which happens to be the one civil liberty that civil libertarian Democrats usually do not recognize (I am using the ACLU as a reference to civil libertarian Democrats). Under my general theory of power distribution a candidate who is a civil libertarian Democrat offers no way for individual actors to be a counter balance to excessive state power except by continuing to vote for him or her. While a free market Republican (I use Milton Friedman as a reference to free market Republicans) will also usually support the right to bear arms giving individual actors two ways to counter excessive intrusion into personal matters.

Obviously, there can be exceptions to my "most realistic" scenarios where a civil libertarian democrat strongly supports gun rights (supposedly this is the case with Jim Webb in Virginia and Jon Tester in Montana but Webb does not even mention gun rights on his campaign site in contrast to Tester) or a free market Republican that strongly supports civil liberties, such as Congressman Ron Paul. However, in this case you still have pro-gun civil libertarian Democrats that lean populist on economics versus a libertarian who runs for congress as a Republican. In the end I have concluded that there is no hope of a libertarian finding a voice in today's Democratic party (see the running debate at Cato Unbound) while a libertarian can at least exist, if only marginally, in the Republican party. When given a "most realistic" scenario the lesser of two evils for me ends up being the Republican; however, when given a choice between populists and social conservatives (where neither support economic freedom), I am not able to logically distinguish a lesser of the two evils and Tip Tucker suddenly announces his candidacy.

Libertarians Swinging Elections?

2006-10-25T22:59:00.000-04:00

While reading the Economist I came across a very interesting article (I think you have to have a subscription to read it) about a study released by the Cato Institute describing small "L" libertarians as an overlooked swing voter. Analyzing the data, Cato maintains that around 13% of the population fit into the libertarian category. Most recently libertarians strongly supported Bush in 2000, 72%-20% but that support slipped considerably in 2004 to 59%-38%.

My main concern is that to be a swing constituency the major parties have to first recognize you and second, reach out to you. However, I do not see this happening on either side of the aisle during this years elections leading to my apathy this year for voting, and leading me to vote on the lesser of two evils basis (this philosophy will be explored in a future post). The Economist said it best:

"Libertarians are ignored partly because they are hard to find, not least because they just want to be left alone. (There is a Libertarian Party, but it gets hardly any votes.) Politicians can reach social conservatives through churches or union members through their unions, but where do libertarians gather? Parties will always court the votes that are cheapest to court because, for once, they are spending their own money."

Most Influenced by...

2006-10-24T17:03:00.000-04:00

I have mentioned the French economist/philosopher/journalist Frédéric Bastiat in many of my previous posts and have concluded that his ideas and writings have directly affected my present day beliefs more so than any other individual. To this end I recognize him with the distinction of being the first person on my list of "Most Influenced by...". It is also with great pleasure that I unofficially declare Frédéric Bastiat the greatest Frenchman to have ever lived.

More on Freedom vs. Democracy

2006-10-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

I wrote a while back on my realization that freedom and democracy are two very different things. Well, I'm in good company: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who is as close to an authentic libertarian as you can get in our Parliament of Whores (hat tip: P.J. O'Rourke), wrote this article that I found as I was surfing the internet tonight. My favorite excerpt:

"The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such "freedom" for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. "Liberalism," which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state – but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today's Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. "Conservatism," which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity."

It has become one of my mantras: I am against anyone who believes that government is a force for good and a problem-solving institution. Nowadays, both the Left and the Right seek to enforce their version of morality on the citizens of this country - all at the expense of true freedom. We've been living with this for so long now that a vast swathe of the American public has forgotten what freedom really means, and why it is so vitally important.

I'm trying not to stress too much about the upcoming elections - but what's a guy to do when he knows the Dems don't represent anything he believes in and the Reps don't seem to either? I'm actually considering sitting out this election. I having trouble accepting the 'lesser of two evils' logic this time around. I have considered voting to be an almost sacred civic duty for all of my adult life, and I agree with Plato's assertion that "The penalty for not participating in politics is that you end up governed by your inferiors." But, damn it, I have been participating in politics and yet it seems I am being governed by my inferiors! If I'm pushing freedom here, then I suppose I have the freedom not to vote. What difference will it make, really, whether George Allen or Jim Webb wins the Senate race here in Virginia, when both of them don't respect true freedom? For all the glowing reviews it gets, democracy doesn't really seem to deliver.

My Libertarian Manifesto

2006-10-21T15:31:00.000-04:00

I've been working on this little 'manifesto' for a while now, and I'm continually updating the language, substituting words and phrases for better words and phrases, etc. This is just the 'preamble' to the manifesto, if you will. In the rest of it, I'm pretty much going issue by issue. I may post the rest of it at a later time, unless it gets too big. Anyway, it's a work in progress. Any commentary is welcome.

My Libertarian Manifesto

I, ____________________, in my ongoing quest to refine and clarify my political beliefs, do hereby present this Manifesto, in the hope that it will not only solidify my thoughts, but perhaps serve as edification to others of like mind and spirit.

I believe that the sole purpose of government is to secure and protect life, liberty and property from coercion, force and fraud. Any action of government beyond this is at best unnecessary and at worst malevolent.

In terms of social/cultural issues, I seek the maximum amount of freedom to do as I please and conduct my life how I see fit consistent with law and order. I do not accept or desire any outside force that wishes to ‘engineer’ my life, direct my actions along a certain course, or force feed me a morality I do not subscribe to. If I want advice, I will seek it out. Otherwise, leave me alone.

Regarding money, employment and economics, my desire is to work and receive a wage or salary and benefits commensurate with my education and experience. I do not wish to have a considerable portion of my income withheld and transferred to other people without my consent. If I choose to forego a portion of my salary in the present for an anticipated future benefit, or for the benefit of another person or organization – that will be at my behest. Furthermore, I expect to be able to purchase whatever goods and services I choose, for a fair price set by the market, and dispose of them how I please, when and where I want to, so long as it does not infringe upon the life, liberty or property of another.

On the topic of relations between nations, I am a firm believer that my country should be actively engaged in international affairs, but should always make decisions based on the national interest. The government should refrain from ‘entangling alliances’ unless a clearly demonstrable benefit will come as a result of said alliance. I believe my country should avoid military interventionism at all costs unless a clear and present danger can be demonstrated. I am not utterly against the use of force to solve international disputes, and further will support preemptive military action if my government can assure me that the threat at hand is of an existential nature. I support seeking diplomatic solutions to problems and conflicts whenever possible, but will not accept endless ‘dialogue’ with no tangible results. In the end, “talk is cheap”— at some point, you must act.

New Orleans Officials Shredding the Constitution

2006-10-19T11:41:00.000-04:00

To my surprise many people are not aware of the unconstitutional seizure of legally owned firearms in New Orleans after Hurricaine Katrina. Not only did the New Orleans Chief of Police and Mayor order the confiscations of hundreds of legally owned guns, they initially denied any takings and it took a federal court injunction on behalf of the gun owners for the City to admit they had possesion of numerous guns. In the first video below you see a New Orleans police officer brutally slamming a 61 year old woman into a wall because she simply possessed a gun to defend her against the out of control looters and criminals that had overrun New Orleans. The next video shows additional illegal confiscations. Not only was the 2nd Amendment clearly dismantled but the 4th Amendment seemed to be clearly disregarded as well. Once the natural right of self defense is taken away by the government, is there any realistic way to believe that an individual continues to live in a free society?

Here come the jackasses!

2006-10-18T20:18:00.000-04:00

Harold Meyerson - one of my FAAAAAVORITE (ahem) opinion columnists for the WaPo, has writen an article on what the donkey party will do if/when they take over Congress after the upcoming election. Now, I have been of the mind of late that the Republicans deserve to be booted out this fall. What a colossal failure these dimwits have been. I long for the heady days after the 1994 Gingrich coup when the Reps were giving Clinton fits and pulling him kicking and screaming to the center, and even a bit to the right. People say Clinton was America's first black president; I say he was a better conservative than George W. Bush has been - welfare reform being the example of note. Anyway, Meyerson presents the first tier issues that a Congress controlled by donkeys will take up and probably pass:

"In the House, the Democrats have made clear that there's a first tier of legislation they mean to bring to a vote almost immediately after the new Congress convenes. It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished."

He then goes on to say these measures enjoy "massive popular support." Exsqueeze me? Massive popular support? Perhaps in the deep blue 'urban archipelago' that stretches from 'Europe Lite' in the northeast across the rust belt and out to the Left Coast. Anyone outside urban areas that supports this crap is probably part of the authoritarian populist camp - you know, the folks who think gays are sub-human and constantly whine about 'American' jobs getting shipped to China and India.

It's all been said before, but here's a refresher: raising the minimum wage will cause a corresponding increase in unemployment, due to small businesses (which make up the vast majority of our economy) having to cut the number of people they can employ or the number of hours employees can work due to being forced to pay higher wages by the guv'ment. Next, allowing the government to 'negotiate' prices with drug companies sounds awfully corporatist to me...enlisting private sector businesses to work 'for the benefit of the state' rather than for the benefit of their shareholders. Isn't that what Hitler and Mussolini did? And how, pray tell, will the donkeys 'replenish' student loan programs? By reversing the Bush tax cuts and/or moving money from more legitimate government programs, of course!

As someone who received student loans to pay for a good chunk of my education, I risk being inconsistent by criticising student loans. People will say I wouldn't have been able to go to college without the government's assistance. First of all, the government didn't just 'give' me that money; they took it from other Americans to give to me. Remember children, the government is not a money maker - it's a money taker. Secondly, how do we know how much tuition would be if student loans didn't exist at all? How do we know other sources of funds through private companies, charities and nonprofits wouldn't jump in to fill the vacuum? Universities keep raising tuition because the government keeps increasing the amount of grants and loans they give out. Universities know they can raise tuition costs because the government will keep sucking money away from honest, hard-working citizens to cover the increase. And how do people not understand this? This is communitarianism at its worst - the idea that other people should have to subsidize your child's education is ludicrous. Believe me...if student grants and loans had not existed and college was still going to be a little expensive, my family and I would have found a way to send me anyway because it was important to all of us that I get a college education.

You know what else the donkeys will try to do? Impeach Bush. Not because they really need to, but just for revenge. Bush is a lame duck at this point, and if the donkeys take Congress he will be even more so. Regardless, the common theme here is the same as it ever was: all of these policy prescriptions represent the triumph of the state over the individual. This is what we get for being fat and happy: a government that aims to keep us that way.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is what has happened to the Reps, and I think they deserve a swift boot to the posterior. I truly think the Republicans need a complete purge of the party leadership and need to spend some time in the wilderness again to remind themselves what they really believe. I hope that the American people aren't so utterly satiated as to let the donkeys go too far with this rubbish. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that this country is beginning to suffer from some of the same civilizational ennui that has subsumed Europe and is leading it slowly down the road to irrelevance. I hope that Americans will re-engage in the 'animating contest of freedom' again. For now, though, it appears we'll be kicking out the crooks only to let in the thieves.

The Hypocritical Morality of the Left

2006-10-18T13:23:00.000-04:00

I have been thinking a lot about morality and government lately and the recent post from Mr Sisyphus in regards to What it Means to be a Liberal put me over the top. For some reason religious conservatives are the ones always being pointed out for wanting the government to enforce moral values, which they do quite often. However, and the original Chicago Tribune article shows it very well, modern day liberals', more appropriately called "the left" or "statists", are the primary perpetrators of using the government to enforce their moral code. As stated in the article, a Liberal is one who seeks to use the government to " improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society".

My main point is that morality is subjective in relation to the viewpoints of different people. The government cannot create rights based on the morality of the moment. The only rights that can be claimed by all people are life, liberty, and property. As Frédéric Bastiat eloquently puts it in his classic witting The Law :

"Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."

The left claims that it is morally imperative for the government to meet the needs of those "less fortunate", but in what way? Via legalized plunder in the words of Bastiat:

"The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy...Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on."

Is there anything more immoral, unjustified, or perverted than taking something from someone to give to someone else under the guise of morality? The left cannot truly make a fixed list of what it means to be a "liberal" because it is based on the ever changing emotions and perceived morality of "false philanthropy" guided by a philosophy of humanism. I do not maintain that helping others out of poverty, hunger, or unemployment is wrong, unless it is done through the government because you inevitably have to plunder another individual's liberty or money in order to do so. Not to mention that regardless if 99.9% of the citizenry agree, those acts are acts of morality, a belief that doing those acts is good, right, and moral which is no different from the religious right wanting to have prayer in school because they believe it is good, right, and moral. I intend to make it a running theme for future posts to point out the the various instances when the left seeks to force their morality on everyone else.

Polygamy Actually is Illegal

2006-10-18T11:10:00.000-04:00

The marriage topic can be a fire starter with a lot of people. The gay marriage advocates look at it as a matter of civil liberties while the other side maintains that is a matter of centuries of tradition. From my viewpoint I always ask both sides why the government should be involved in the matter in the first place. This line of thinking led me to ponder polygamy. I have always known that polygamy is not recognized by the state but I never really thought beyond that to realize that it is illegal. I had always assumed that you could live with consenting adults and say that you are married much as the case is with many gay and lesbian couples. However, I was very wrong, not only can you not live with multiple women and declare yourself married to them, the same as any gay couple could do at any moment, you could actually go to prison unlike the gay couple. From the West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

States base their laws on the Model Penal Code § 230.1, which states that a person is guilty of the third-degree felony of polygamy if he or she "marries or cohabits with more than one spouse at a time in purported exercise of the right of plural marriage." The offense continues until all cohabitation with and claim of marriage to more than one spouse terminate.

It is quite absurd to hear the fight for a "right to marriage" from same sex couples while they can easily declare themselves married, take the same last name, and have a ceremony conducted by a religious institution that recognized that form of marriage while it would be considered unlawful for a polygamist to do any of the aforementioned. I recognize the fact that the governement is making a moral decision by only defining marriage as x, y, or z whether it be heterosexual, same sex, or polygmaist. This is why the government should not make that distincition in the first place leaving that decision to individuals and religious entities.

What It Means to be a Liberal - Response

2006-10-17T21:39:00.000-04:00

OK…here’s my (very long) response to the article “What It Means to be a Liberal.” I have posted the 10 points the author included in the article, followed by my response. If you’d like to read the whole article, refer to my previous post.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others. This is at the very heart of liberalism. Liberals understand, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed, that "time has upset many fighting faiths." Liberals are skeptical of censorship and celebrate free and open debate.

“Doubt their own truths.” From a strictly philosophical standpoint, I generally agree with this. There are those in this world who are convinced of their righteousness and refuse to question their beliefs. The important thing to remember here is that ‘liberals’ are no different than conservatives or libertarians on this front. Do you think the hacks at MoveOn.org “doubt their own truths?” Here’s a ‘truth’ from one of our favorite turban-wearing fascists, Osama bin Laden:

“To kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.” (link)

I wonder if we should “consider fairly and open-mindedly” the truth of this other. It’s OK to be open minded; just don’t be so open-minded your brains fall out. The last sentence is flat-out wrong. Liberals are skeptical of censorship except when it comes to conservative and libertarian media outlets or anybody who happens to take a contrary position on any of their ‘sacred cow’ issues – gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, et cetera. I seem to remember a story about a high school kid who was suspended for wearing a shirt to school with a pro-Iraq war message, or something like that. Also, there are plenty of examples like this from the leftist-saturated world of academia.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support the civil rights movement, affirmative action, the Equal Rights Amendment and the rights of gays and lesbians. (Note that a conflict between propositions 1 and 2 leads to divisions among liberals on issues like pornography and hate speech.)

This is an ongoing annoyance for me – the whole “tolerance” thing. Tolerance, in the strict, dictionary sense of the word, means to accept something without necessarily agreeing with it yourself. That is not what the libs are asking us to do. Tolerance, for a leftist, means you not only must accept difference, but you must agree with it and celebrate it, and even elevate that difference above your own characteristics. This is especially true if you are white, more so if you are male, and mandated by the gods if you vote Republican. As a matter of fact, you should be ashamed that you are white, male, and vote Republican. The author claims that it’s only the libs who still support civil rights; as if conservatives are joining the KKK in droves and trying to steal the franchise back from women and blacks. As for affirmative action, I’ll defer to the brilliant Thomas Sowell. Gays and lesbians don’t have any rights other than those that are reserved for all human beings: life, liberty, and property. If these rights are truly being denied to gays and lesbians, well then something is very wrong and we need to fix it. But judging by the lifestyle enjoyed by gays and lesbians here in DC’s hippest neighborhoods, I’d say those rights seem pretty damn secure.

3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion expansion of the franchise; the elimination of obstacles to voting; "one person, one vote;" limits on partisan gerrymandering; campaign-finance reform; and a more vibrant freedom of speech. They believe, with Justice Louis Brandeis, that "the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people."

The only thing I want to do here is quote Soren Kierkegaard: “Those who demand freedom of speech do so as a compensation for the freedom of thought they so seldom use.” I’ve used this quote before, because it’s just so perfect. When leftists go on bitching about “more vibrant freedom of speech” what they fail to mention is that they don’t want to face the consequences of their speech. Suppose I say, “Muslim girls should not be allowed to wear headscarves in public schools due to our hallowed separation of church and state. The hijab is religious in nature – they’re not wearing that scarf on their heads as a fashion statement.” Anybody conservative or libertarian would no doubt agree with that sentiment and call it ‘free speech.’ Chances are, leftists would view it as ‘hate speech’ and accuse me of being ‘intolerant.”

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind. It is liberals who have defended and continue to defend the freedom of the press to investigate and challenge the government, the protection of individual privacy from overbearing government monitoring, and the right of individuals to reproductive freedom. (Note that libertarians, often thought of as "conservatives," share this value with liberals.)

You could have fooled me. The very essence of the left is government. They see government as a tool to shape and mold society and to create an egalitarian utopia. I call bullshit on this one. Freedom of the press is great, so long as they’re not actively seeking out “leaks” of sensitive intelligence information or systematically undermining the war effort in the name of “investigating and challenging” the government. Finally, there is no ‘right’ to ‘reproductive freedom.’ This is yet another example of the Left confusing expectations with rights – like the right to education, the right to a minimum wage, the right to healthcare, the right not to be offended and the right to a certain standard of living.

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual. It is liberals who have championed and continue to champion the rights of racial, religious and ethnic minorities, political dissidents, persons accused of crime and the outcasts of society. It is liberals who have insisted on the right to counsel, a broad application of the right to due process of law and the principle of equal protection for all people…including Islamic fascists and other terrorists who aim to kill us and truly hope to overthrow our society and culture.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. It is liberals who have supported and continue to support government programs to improve health care, education, social security, job training and welfare for the neediest members of society. It is liberals who maintain that a national community is like a family and that government exists in part to "promote the general welfare."

Again, leftists confusing expectations with rights; this topic is well treated in this article. This also illustrates the difference between Locke’s conception of the social contract versus Rousseau’s. Read the article linked in my previous post “The Communitarian Conundrum.”

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith. It is liberals who have opposed and continue to oppose school prayer and the teaching of creationism in public schools and who support government funding for stem-cell research, the rights of gays and lesbians and the freedom of choice for women.

I don’t really care about this one. Of course I agree that teachers and administrators should not be leading students in prayer, unless it’s a private religious school. But I think the lefties have taken the whole ‘separation of church and state’ thing too far, to the point where it has become the ‘elimination of church by state.’ If students want to get together on their own and pray inside a school building, fine. If a teacher wants to sponsor an after-school prayer group or bible study in his or her classroom, I really don’t see the problem with that either. If students want to say a prayer before a high school football game, fine. Nobody’s making the atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews or Muslims in the crowd join in. They’re welcome to pray, or not pray, as they see fit. Remember: you do not have a right to not be offended. I’m all for stem-cell research, but not government funding (that is, taxpayer subsidized) of said research; let the private sector take care of it.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties. It is principally liberal judges and justices who have preserved and continue to preserve freedom of expression, individual privacy, freedom of religion and due process of law. (Conservative judges and justices more often wield judicial authority to protect property rights and the interests of corporations, commercial advertisers and the wealthy.)

The part in parentheses is hilarious. What a disingenuous snipe at conservative justices. The responsibility of the court is to interpret the constitution, as it is written. They shall not make laws (that’s for the legislative branch); they shall not execute laws (that’s for the executive branch); they are not to bend, squeeze, tinker or fiddle with the Constitution. ‘Freedom of expression’ and freedom of speech are two very different things in my book: the former involves non-verbal communication, the latter verbal communication. Putting a crucifix in a jar of piss and calling it art is freedom of expression, but not freedom of speech. Leftists do tend to respect privacy a bit more than hard-core Christian conservatives, but not all the time. When it comes to your money and your property, the libs are happy to sacrifice your privacy for their gain.

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible. This, of course, is less a tenet of liberalism than a reply to those who attack liberalism. The accusation that liberals are unwilling to protect the nation from internal and external dangers is false. Because liberals respect competing values, such as procedural fairness and individual dignity, they weigh more carefully particular exercises of government power (such as the use of secret evidence, hearsay and torture), but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.

The truly telling part here is toward the end: “but they are no less willing to use government authority in other forms (such as expanded police forces and international diplomacy) to protect the nation and its citizens.” No mention of military force in there. It’s no surprise, because the leftists view the military as nothing more than a beefed-up police force and will always shy away from using military force to solve international conflicts. As far as diplomacy, well, I have a pretty low opinion of it. If I hear the word “dialogue” one more time I think I’ll scream. The UN is the perfect example: talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk talk….but never any action. Really, when has the UN ever solved a problem or conflict in this world? It’s a forum for effete leftists from Europe and North America and tin-pot dictators from the Third World to endlessly bloviate but never really get anything done. And, they get to go out and enjoy all that New York City has to offer in the way of pricey restaurants and hip, sophisticated clubs. All the while, North Korea is testing nukes, Iran is working hard to follow suit, and Chavez continues his ‘Bolivarian Revolution’ to the detriment of his country’s future.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values. It is liberals who have demanded and continue to demand legal protections to avoid the conviction of innocent people in the criminal justice system, reasonable restraints on government surveillance of American citizens, and fair procedures to ensure that alleged enemy combatants are in fact enemy combatants. Liberals adhere to the view expressed by Brandeis some 80 years ago: "Those who won our independence ... did not exalt order at the cost of liberty."

This one is just fluff. I have no idea what point he’s trying to make here. Probably that conservatives have cameras planted in your apartment and are watching you masturbate RIGHT NOW! Also, your phone is tapped and they’re reading your email. I also love “alleged enemy combatants.” I’d say if he’s Muslim and shooting at you or blowing up cars outside your building or base, he’s an enemy combatant. I’d say if he or she is posting incendiary rhetoric on Islamist websites, he or she certainly has the potential to be an enemy combatant and should be watched. Hell, I’d say if he or she goes to UC-Berkley, you’ve probably got an enemy combatant on your hands right there!

Anyway, this isn’t the most eloquent response to the article, but it works. I don’t have a lot of time to parse my words and generate the perfect blog post, because after all, I’m out there working to support the rights of millions to sit on their asses and get free health care, food, and flat screen televisions with their FEMA debit cards.

I Report, You Decide

2006-10-15T17:28:00.000-04:00

Every so often, the perfect storm pops up on the internet: you get an article delineating the major tenents of modern liberalism, followed by responses from the libertarians and conservatives. Well, one of these 'perfect storms' has recently appeared on the information superhighway. I think this serves as a great learning opportunity and a way to reinforce what you believe. I know it was helpful for me. So, I encourage you to engage in the following intellectual exercise.

For one man's explanation of what it means to be a (modern)liberal, please read this article: What it means to be a liberal

A libertarian response: A Dialogue with a Liberal

A conservative response: The Communitarian Conundrum

I will try to post my own critique of the first article as soon as possible. Enjoy!

Different Perspective on the Trade Deficit

2006-10-10T15:34:00.000-04:00

Concerning trade in general I like to point out that trade is primarily conducted between individuals and firms not between nations as the media always seems to state. For instance, it is common to hear a report stating that the U.S. has a [insert over the top adjective] trade deficit with China. A more accurate portrayal would be to say that U.S. consumers and businesses prefer to purchase goods and services from other individuals and firms that happen to be physically located in China more so than comparable offerings from individuals or firms that happen to be located in the U.S. or other countries.

I found another interesting way to illustrate the trade deficit from the blog Cafe Hayek as referenced by Don Boudreaux:

My friend Jack Wenders, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Idaho, notes this passage in a recent AP report:

The U.S. must borrow more than $2 billion per day from foreigners to finance its huge trade deficits.

Jack's reaction to this typical way of framing the so-called 'trade deficit' is noteworthy:

Maybe a better way of putting this would be to say: "Foreigners must sell the U. S. more than $2 billion per day in goods and services to finance their huge purchases of U.S. assets."

Sugar, the Cane of All Evil

2006-10-05T16:26:00.000-04:00

One of my common stances that I take in matters of health that usually goes against the logic of that cosmic all-knowing figure, Dr. Mom, is that sugar does not make kids hyper. I also find the stance of many health food fanatics ridiculous when they maintain that sugar is the cause of all things evil in the human body. However, since I imagine most people would agree that sugar does not cause cancer, heart disease, arthritis, and whatever other ill you can think of I will choose not to focus on that aspect of the great sugar conspiracy. In regards to hyperactivity Dr. Mom seems to have some new evidence on her side from a new study in Sweden that claims sugary soft drinks are directly connected with hyperactivity and has a "complex link" to mental health disorders. What is interesting about the article (my confidence level in "scientific" journalists interpreting research studies is next to zero) that completely contradicts its initial claims of a "direct linear" connection is the following statement:

"The researchers said it was possible that other substances in the soft drinks, such as caffeine, were to blame for the symptoms, and they did not check other possible sources of refined sugar in the children's diets."

Dr. Moms across the country refuse to give children sugary candy or drinks before bed time or when they do not want the child to become hyper or act-out. However, that same mom, when she needs a boost of energy to stay awake reaches for anything with caffeine not sugar. I have never heard of de-caf coffee with loads of sugar being prescribed as a stay awake antidote. Is there any possibility that kids go crazy about sugary foods and drinks because first of all they just really like them and second, the parent makes such an event out of having candy and soda that every opportunity to have any is a cause for celebration. Sugar rots your teeth and probably not much else; there is a reason that placebo pills usually are simply sugar pills.

Immigrants for Security

2006-10-03T17:48:00.000-04:00

The following article is written by a special guest contributor who who happens to be a member of one of the most elite groups in the world: Libertarians from the Middle East.

I am one of those immigrants who want to live in this country without fearing the sword of the fascists and/or carrying the taxing burden of the lazy. My belief is that the government is to maintain security and be the arbiter of disputes, nothing more. If the government is for the people by the people then the PEOPLE should decide what they want not the government; Majority rules is a nice democratic concept except for one heavy shortcoming where it allows the majority to dictate the lives, the income, the property, the marriage, …etc of the people.

It follows that the concept of security for the people is something of the duties of a limited government. One important element of maintaining security is having a reasonable and effective immigration policy "for law abiding, freedom loving immigrants like myself"; the immigration policy of this country is a joke, it can be best summed up by arbitrary decisions made by inept people who are trying to give the semblance of doing something "sort of keeping busy", security checks on immigrants are mostly random and arbitrary since the whole system is flawed without having a standard or organization to follow.

The bureaucrats compensate for those flaws by relying on another dumb technique AKA "racial profiling and random checks", it beats the hell out of going out of their way to gather true intelligence about people in the real world, it is the easy way out of doing one of the few necessary governmental function correctly. The result is a 2 fold disaster:

1-innocent people get bogged down in the system because the government has not any negative information about them yet they fit the profile based on race and citizenship. The government has no effective way of clearing them but feels scared of its' shadow to clear them. They already know how ineffective their methods are, someone slipping through the cracks will just further expose them, it is easier to hold all immigrants hostage rather than doing one's own job effectively, but asking a government employee to do his/her job is too much these days.

2-Most of the true criminals will go unnoticed because there is not a true staffing or mechanism to focus on the real suspicious people or to investigate them properly as true intelligence is some kind of a myth. Furthermore, it gives the funny impression that if you stay illegal you are unlikely to be investigated since the government knows nothing about your existence while applying for a legal immigration process will make them investigate you. Anyone care to venture which one the truly bad guys would choose ?

There is no way that the government should be taking 2 years investigating someone, think about it this way: if he is dangerous, then he almost is laughing @ their inability to find anything on him while going about his business which may very well be costly to innocent lives in this country; On the other hand, if he was innocent, it should not take them 2 years of wasted effort, resources, money and investigative time on him.

The bottom line: if it takes the government more than 2 years to differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys, then we are in serious danger, and that is nothing short of dereliction of duty by the government for the purpose of a falsely positive publicity.

Nighthawk

Global Warming, a Senator, and South Park

2006-10-02T16:20:00.000-04:00

Senator Inhofe has gone off on the global warming racketeers (original speech is here and the follow up is here) with a very detailed account refuting many of the claims made by global warming propaganda experts. To me the main point is not about whether the earth is getting warmer, since that can obviously be done relatively simply by comparing temperature data from around the world, but whether we are causing it and is it really that bad and can we afford to radically change our way of live to enact a solution?

Trying to maintain that humans are the sole cause of global warming is where people get in trouble: they blindly assume a single cause for a situation that operates in a complex system with countless uncontainable variables. This is not to say that scientists can not theorize on cause x, y, or z, but, to say that humans are the single cause for any temperature rise and therefore governments must enact draconian rules to prevent further increases is just way too much for me to handle. It seems that global warming fanatics represent the height of egoism believing that they can single handedly change the world and make it a better place for you and for me and the entire human race.

As is true with most subjects, it takes South Park to break it down for us:

The Health Fascists Keep on Coming

2006-09-27T22:28:00.000-04:00

Is anyone surprised that the NYC health fascists are once again (see here and here for previous health fascist activity) on the move seeking to ban the use of trans-fatty acids. Once they stormed the gates of liberty and banned smoking in private establishments everything became fair game. Rest assured that this is just the beginning, a logical next step is to say that if the government can ban the use of a food substance in a private business then it can ban it completely and/or file child abuse charges against parents who allow their child to eat or drink it. Just think about the government coming in to lock up or fine grandma when she makes some good ole fashioned fried chicken or pie crust with animal lard instead of a “government approved” cooking oil for the grandkids.

Freedom and/or Democracy?

2006-09-25T20:18:00.000-04:00

'Freedom' and 'Democracy' are two very common words in the American political lexicon. Politicians of all stripes constantly use these words when they're yammering on about some new government program or interventionist scheme abroad. Americans generally accept the two terms as one and the same, or two sides of the same coin. They go together like bread and butter, right?

WRONG.

It took me a while, but through some conversations with Tip Tucker and after reading this article, I've finally realized that 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' are two very different animals. Here's a little exercise for you: click on the links below to read the definitions of these two words. Then click above to read the article. If you're like me, and tacitly assumed that 'Freedom' and 'Democracy' go hand in hand, then this little exercise should shake things up for you. I'm not saying that democracy is necessarily a bad thing; I'm just saying it's not what I thought it was.

FREEDOM

DEMOCRACY

*Note: The big difference is between the concept of 'individual rights' in the former, 'majority rule' in the latter.

Amen

2006-09-25T19:39:00.000-04:00

Hello boys and girls.

Mr. Sisyphus hasn't blogged in a long while. This is due to the standard combination of being really busy with life in general, and also a healthy dose of apathy. My apologies. Speaking of apathy, I've been thinking a lot during my absence from Free Form about politicians. Big surprise there, eh? I've decided that I really don't like politicians. These numbnuts here in my city (actually, I live in Virginia and not the black hole across the Potomac we call "The District") are really fuc*ing it up for everyone. There's nothing new here...politicians have been feeding on the soul of America since shortly after the Revolution. Harry Reid? What a moron. He probably drinks the blood of babies out of a silver goblet when he's not trying to abridge our Liberty. George Allen? Moron. Macaca? WTF? Does the guy have a functioning brain cell left in that big head of his? What about Ms. Pelosi? I think I saw her flying into work yesterday...on a broom. And there's old Georgie boy, our Commander-in-Thief. Government spending is at it's highest level under Bush since World War II. I am sick of these idiots.

While stewing in my growing contempt for these guys and gals, I came across this article from one of my favorite thinkers, Thomas Sowell. It explains in measured, even tones what I can only get out in incomprehensible baboon shrieks. Read it, and then be sure to vote Libertarian this fall.

The Capitol is a beautiful architectural gem...it's too bad such filth slimes its way around inside.

P.S. - There are some pols in Congress that I still respect (e.g., Ron Paul), but the number continues to dwindle.

Wine and Beer Way too Queer

2006-09-18T22:42:00.000-04:00

For those of you not intimately familiar with the puritanical and protectionist oriented alcoholic drink laws in Oklahoma then illuminate yourself by reading this article.

Originally OK's alcohol restrictions surely had moral and religious roots solidified by the first "victory" in the "War on Drugs", i.e. prohibition. However, when reading the above referenced article it becomes obvious that this is no longer the case. Today liquor store owners, via rent seeking, have held on to and hope to hold on to the wine, beer (above 3 point), and liquor monoply that so benefits then at the cost of consumers.

Quote from the article:

"Allowing wine sales in grocery stores means opening the doors to big business, Richard said. “All this is somebody trying to get into our back yard at our expense,” he said.

It is so depressing when people think freedom and liberty means the ability to use government to protect your way of business at the cost of the economy as a whole and, most importantly, the right of individuals to enter into competitive business and offer goods and services (in this case the ability to sell beer and wine in a place other than a liquor store) that may or may not be better or worse than the already established business (liquor stores). Besides where is the horrendous economic conditions in the other 40 some odd other states that allow grocery stores and others to sell 5 point beer (and cold at that so all the poor people can get drunk a lot faster than in Oklahoma) and wines???

While the OK restrictions are bad, Viriginia and their communist style state-run liquor stores aren't much better.

Manufactured Rage Strikes Again

2006-09-18T22:31:00.000-04:00

By now most people have heard about some comments from the Pope where he quoted a Byzantine emperor who most likely was not too fond of Islam as he knew it and was actually speaking of the evil of spreading religion by the sword. Now, of course, there is rioting and gnashing of teeth in parts of the Muslim world, all directed towards the Pope (even though the churches burned in Palestine were not even Catholic).

The issue is not about the Pope and his comments. If it was then the ones that disagreed with his comments would address the issue directly by refuting them in one way or another (for example. the government of Kazakhstan does not like what the Ali G character, Borat says about Kazakhstan so the Kazkh government has taken out ads in major U.S. publications to give a different perspective, even though Borat has probably done nothing but positive things by Kazakhstan by making people aware that the country exists).

The point is with the Pope controversy is that no matter what the Pope says or will say, the Muslim rage, hate, and violence will never be content because they only demand complete subservience to their world view and anything less is unacceptable.

Here is a quote that helps make my point:

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

Health Fascists Strike Again

2006-09-12T13:04:00.000-04:00

Madrid’s regional government has issued restrictions on overly thin models from participating in Madrid’s fashion show, Pasarela Cibeles. Similar to the fanaticism displayed by anti-smoking activists, the government officials have made these requirements all in the name of “health”. I would enjoy seeing pictures of the government officials who came up with this restriction, surely they are pristine examples of health, envious over-weight bureaucrats could never think of doing such a thing. I have always maintained that the ban on second-hand smoke in private businesses, a despicable assault on private property rights, sets up a precedent for more governmental control over our private lives all in the name of “health”. From the article:

"If they [fashion show] don't go along with it [ban on skinny models] the next step is to seek legislation, just like with tobacco," said Carmen Gonzalez of Spain's Association in Defense of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia, which has campaigned for restrictions since the 1990s.

State of Responsibility

2006-09-11T10:49:00.000-04:00

The concept of personal responsibility does not seem to be too complicated, if something happens and the result is of your own planning or lack of planning then you should be responsible for the situation, i.e. not expect others, especially the government to come in and save the day.

Well, obviously this principle is in a state of disrepair in the United States according to a recent survey. When asked who should bear the most financial responsibility for areas affected by natural disaster, 47% said the federal government, 23% said local agencies, and only 19% named individuals.

What is the threshold for a natural disaster? If a tree falls over and destroys someone’s house, who should be responsible? If a series of trees in a tree dense neighborhood falls and destroys a few houses, who should be responsible? If a storm with severe winds blows down hundreds of trees that destroys hundreds of houses in a city, who should be responsible? The point is that regardless of the scale, why should the government give handouts to individuals that, in most cases, made a poor decision to not obtain insurance to protect their property in the case of a natural disaster (I am especially distressed at the idea of helping those who are living in government subsidized housing). In a free society people should be allowed to take risks and live in locations that are dangerous/prone to natural disasters, however, in a free society, government should have no right to plunder people’s income and redistribute it to cover the losses of the irresponsible.

Ronald Reagan had a famous quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help’.”

America Needs a Third Party

2006-09-07T20:10:00.000-04:00

Today at work I read a very interesting profile of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Prime Minister of Denmark. The guy kind of looks like he could play James Bond in the movies and James Bond is a character every guy aspires to be. Most importantly, however, is his politics. Rasmussen heads up the ruling right-of-center coalition government in Denmark, which includes his Liberal Party (Venstre) and the Conservative People’s Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti). He is ‘right-wing’ the way that I am: fond of smaller, leaner government; supportive of reduction or elimination of the welfare state; engaged, but not interventionist (unless absolutely necessary) vis-à-vis foreign policy; and generally accepting of the dictum “live and let live” regarding social policy, but not so 'open-minded' that his brain falls out (Hat Tip: Ronald Reagan). To quote a passage from the Wikipedia entry on Rasmussen, “He is in favor of deregulation, privatization, and limiting the size of government.” Sounds good to me!

Unfortunately, he has backtracked on much of his earlier thought, and now seems to favor the Tony Blair “Third Way” style of government. Of course, this was probably inevitable in a Scandinavian country, although Denmark isn’t nearly as crazy-socialist as Finland, Sweden and Norway. [MS: Denmark has long been on my list of ‘must-see’ countries; the country that produced Soren Kierkegaard – one of my favorite philosophers – is a place I must visit ASAP]. Perhaps Rasmussen will return someday to his earlier positions, but probably not while he’s Prime Minister. Nonetheless, there is much to admire about him: committing some troops to the coalition forces in Iraq; his views on gay marriage and other hot button social issues; his government’s pursuit of tax reform and municipal reform; and especially the way he handled the furor in the Muslim world over the ‘Muhammad cartoons.’

What can right-of-center Americans learn from Denmark? The Republican Party is having a major crisis of conscience right now. What do Republicans stand for? Nobody really knows. As the midterm elections creep closer, more and more Republicans are doing everything they can to distance themselves from President Bush so as to save their political lives. The important thing to realize, and many people don’t, is that the Republican Party is as much a coalition party as the Democrats – perhaps even more so, because the Democrats are nothing more than a bunch of single-issue groups cobbled together into a nominal political party. Within the Republican Party, we have the Religious Right, Neoconservatives, Social conservatives, Fiscal conservatives, ‘Security’ conservatives, ‘States’ Rights’ conservatives, Paleoconservatives, Moderates, and Libertarians. If the Fiscal conservatives, States’ Rights conservatives, Moderates and Libertarians got together, they could cobble together a very competitive ‘Liberal Party,’ based on the tenets of classical liberalism and similar to the Liberal Party in Denmark. I don’t think we’d be able to call it the ‘Liberal Party,’ here because the word ‘liberal’ has totally lost its original meaning in the American political context. What should we name this new party? I propose the “Liberty Party.”

We need a strong, competitive, ideologically sound third party in this country. Let’s all raise a glass to the (future) death of the two-party system.

Cheers!

Don't Cry for Mexico

2006-09-06T15:17:00.000-04:00

I guess the people in the below picture are crying because Mexico’s new President, Felipe Calderon, has not made promises to plunder The Rich™ in order to provide The Poor™ with a bunch of handouts. At least in

Mexico

these people are sad because they had hope for legalizing such a large theft transfer from one income group to another. In the

U.S.

, however, we would have seen people ready for a revolution because a “right” was no longer going to be offered to them.

Before Mexico’s election we heard Calderon’s opponent, Lopez Obrador talk about his respect for democracy and how he would not cause problems in the case of a close election we have Obrador saying the following:

"I do not recognize someone who tries to act as the chief federal executive without having a legitimate and democratic representation," he told thousands of supporters in Mexico's main Zocalo plaza who chanted: "Felipe, the people don't want you!" [TT: if all legal means have upheld the election and no international observer questions the validity of the vote and there is no proof of fraud, how can you not be legitimate?]

One random thought to ponder: Did Obrador make certain promises to certain powerful figures that he could only keep if elected President which is the reason he is not stopping in his attempt to challenge the election?

ALEXANDRE MENEGHINI: AP

“Supporters of presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador weep outside the electoral court's offices in Mexico City on Tuesday after hearing of a decision benefiting Felipe Calderon.”

Immigration: No Crisis to be Found

2006-09-05T13:29:00.000-04:00

Reason magazine recently published a great collection of articles focusing on the ‘crisis’ known as illegal immigration. The articles are a must read for anyone who is interested in a more libertarian perspective on immigration.

I have a new policy of asking people who are ‘so serious about stopping illegal immigration and closing the border’ the question: In what way has illegal immigration affecting you or you family in a negative way? The obvious answer is: that it hasn’t.

As far as I am aware of the one documented account of a terrorist being caught or known to have tried crossing the border into the U.S. to commit an act of terrorism was from Canada.

Will Rogers the Libertarian?

2006-08-31T12:38:00.000-04:00

As a native Oklahoman, I grew up hearing about the legend known as Will Rogers. He was a great satirist and his skeptical view of the government always showed, there is a whole book representing his jokes and satire against prohibition of alcohol. Here are some of his most famous quotes taken from the The Official Site of Will Rogers:

"There ought to be one day-just one-when there is open season on senators."

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

"I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am, but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em." [TT: Great foreign policy statement]

"The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has."

"If we ever pass out as a great nation we ought to put on our tombstone, 'America died from a delusion that she has moral leadership." [TT: Could this ever be more true than today?]

"Elections are a good deal like marriages. There's no accounting for anyone's taste. Every time we see a bridegroom we wonder why she ever picked him, and it's the same with public officials."

Exactly

2006-08-26T16:42:00.000-04:00

Cartoon Characters No Longer Able to Offer Cigarettes to Kids

2006-08-25T15:40:00.000-04:00

Are you a smoker, present or past? Do you remember the day that Pepe Le Pew or maybe it was Yosemite Sam offered you your first cigarette or cigar? Frightening to think of the peer pressure involved when a child’s favorite cartoon character offers him or her a smoke. Well, thanks to The Elite™ invoking the law of historical revisionism and political correctness, kids will be able to enjoy those same characters without the threat of a life long addiction.

“Cartoon editors are painstakingly working through more than 1,500 episodes of classic Tom and Jerry, Flintstones, and Scooby Doo cartoons to erase scenes of characters - gasp - smoking. “

-From the article Thank you for never having smoked, by David Boaz.

George Mason, the Greatest Founding Father?

2006-08-25T12:12:00.000-04:00

George Mason University may have made it to the Final Four this year, but George Mason the Founding Father may actually be the most intense and fervent defender of liberty and individual rights of the Founding Fathers. He campaigned against ratifying the Constitution because it did not go far enough to protect individual rights and liberties (slavery was one of his major concerns). Radley Balko, a policy analyst with the CATO Institute wrote a great article on George Mason the Founding Father here, it is a must read.

Free Speech free-for-all

2006-08-24T20:40:00.000-04:00

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.”
-Soren Kierkegaard

Americans have had a sordid love affair with the most famous part of the First Amendment for as long as this country has existed. Even before we broke away from oppressive British rule, our forebears had a great desire to be able to express themselves without fear of retribution from the state. At that time, public criticism of the Crown was not well tolerated, and probably resulted in at least a fine, if not a jail sentence. Our forebears knew it was crucial for a free people to be able to express praise or criticism of the government freely, without having to worry that the big bad State was going to take their money or send them off to the pokey. Fast forward to the late 20th century and early 21st century, and we find that “freedom of speech” has become an utterly meaningless term. Essentially, if a particular person, group or organization doesn’t like what their opponents are saying, then it is “hate speech”; but if that same person, group or organization says something that their opponents find abhorrent and try to seek restitution for it, then all of the sudden it is an abridgment of “free speech.” So, if you say something and I don’t like it, it is free speech. If I say something and you don’t like it, then it’s hate speech. Come again?

One of the biggest problems I have with First Amendment “advocates” and many federal and state judges these days is their expansive understanding of the word “speech.” Take a look at the dictionary and you’ll see speech defined, in various ways, as oral communication. Is burning an American flag “speech”? What about wearing clothing or accessories tied to a religion (except Christianity) in a public school…is that speech? And crucifixes in jars of piss or images of the Virgin Mary covered in shit…also speech? Given the dictionary definition, the answer is no, plain and simple. The confusion comes because the Left have read into the freedom of speech clause and found something they like to call “freedom of expression.” People can express themselves in non-verbal ways; therefore, burning American flags, wearing religious garb to public schools (unless you’re Christian), putting crucifixes in jars of piss and calling it “art”…all of these are now protected forms of “speech” according to the Leftists. Listen fools…this isn’t speech, not in the strict sense and guess what? I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. None of this “living Constitution” bullshit for me! It’s fine just the way it’s written.

In an open society, we have to be prepared to see and hear things that we won’t like or agree with. I don’t like the sight of a burning American flag, but if you really feel like you need to do it then go on. If you think putting crucifixes in jars of piss and smearing shit on pictures of the Virgin Mary count as art, well, I think you belong in a mental institution but whatever...I really don’t care. As far as wearing religious garb to school, INCLUDING Christianity, I don’t give a rat’s ass. Wear what you like; I think the “separation of church and state” thing has also been taken way too far by the Leftists, but that discussion is for another post. The point is, speech is oral communication and freedom of speech as the Founding Fathers understood it did not include the kind of silliness I’ve just written about.

Here’s a little quiz: which of the following statements constitutes “free speech”?

A: The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were all Muslims.
B: Christian pro-lifers want to force women into back-alley abortions with coat hangers.
C: Both A and B

Of course the answer is C. However, your garden-variety Leftist would no doubt classify A as “hate speech” because it “singles out Muslims.” If Christian pro-lifers complained about B, then they would be accused of trying to limit “free speech.” Do you see where I’m going with this? Here’s another little quiz: Below you’ll see two real quotes from real people. Identify who said what, and if it constitutes “free speech.”

A: “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas.”
B: “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.”

These are simple. The first is the earth-shattering bomb dropped by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks at a concert in London a few years back. The second one belongs to the entertaining yet over-the-top Ann Coulter. The reaction to the Maines statement was, to put it mildly, infantile. However, the way Maines reacted to the outrage – she seemed almost shocked that not everyone in Jesusland agreed with her politics – is a perfect example of the Kierkegaard quote at the beginning of the post. Maines didn’t THINK before she SPOKE. She gets a bad reaction from her fan base, takes umbrage, and starts waving the banner of “free speech.” On the other side, the Left routinely labels everything that comes out of Ann Coulter’s mouth as “hate speech.” There is no such thing as hate speech. It’s more of the same hypocrisy the Leftists have turned into an art form. Again…if a Leftist says it then it’s “free speech,” and if you disagree with what they’ve said then you’re violating their First Amendment rights. Well, I call bullshit on that one.

The lessons to take away here: “speech” means oral communication; other forms of expression are not “speech” and therefore are not protected by the first amendment, but may be protected by another part of the Constitution – I’m not saying things like flag burning and Jesus-in-a-jar-of-piss should be banned or censored, only that they are not forms of “speech”; Leftists never think before they speak, and when their statement is met with outrage, they disingenuously wrap themselves in the First Amendment. They use freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

Wealth & Bourgeois Values = Angst & Self-Destruction

2006-08-24T20:22:00.000-04:00

I came across this article in the Washington Post about the higher level of depression, disaffection and drug use among affluent teens. It’s an interesting article with a truly sad meta-narrative, but also a very sinister sub-narrative.

Let’s begin with the meta-narrative. Children from affluent backgrounds are overworked and pushed hard by their over-involved or intrusive psycho parents these days. Actually, it’s probably been going on for decades. Much, perhaps too much, is expected of them, and their parents never really compliment them on their achievements, but rather tell them they were lucky to achieve what they did, and that they’ll have to do better next time if they really want to succeed in life. We’ve all heard the line coming from the child psychologists: “You’ve got to let kids be kids.” It’s a vague statement, but I think we all get the point. Good parents will guide their children, but will also realize that they are not the only influence in their child’s life and that as their child gets older, they will have to reduce their role in his/her life and let him/her take responsibility for his/her life. You can really try to convince your child not to use drugs, for instance, but ultimately it will be a combination of other factors outside parental control that will determine whether and how much that child uses drugs. Anyway, the point of the meta-narrative in this article is well taken. I do agree that there are some despicable parents out there and that especially in more affluent families the children are sometimes spoiled and psychologically damaged by their bat-shit crazy parents.

The most interesting part of the article, though, is the sub-narrative. There is a subtle anti-capitalist, anti-competition, pro-communitarian message in the article. To wit:

“I think there's been a real ratcheting up of materialism, as opposed to an emphasis on making connections with people. Competition counts more than cooperation."

“I think it's made worse by this persistent and unreasonable fear that we are all in competition for very limited resources.”

“Parents have this notion that their child is supposed to be a certain way, because performance is so highly valued in affluent communities. Parental love has become contingent on performance, which is very damaging.”

Taken together in the context of the article, you might not notice this sub-narrative. Many readers will completely overlook it, or if they do notice the comments they’ll agree with them. “There is too much focus on competition! And it does destroy community feeling and cooperation.” There is nothing wrong with cooperation in and of itself, I will give you that. There is also nothing wrong with a “community feeling,” though I consider that a somewhat gelatinous concept. Let us not forget that communities are still made up of individuals; “community” is a social construct – “individual” is real existing entity. You can’t talk to a “community,” but you can talk to an individual or group of individuals. Let me return to the point before I digress too far. Most readers would no doubt agree with the above statements from the article. Some of the Left’s favorite bogeymen are thrown in there: “materialism” and “competition,” juxtaposed with some of the Left’s favorite saints, “cooperation” and “community.”
I’m here to tell you there is nothing wrong with teaching your children the virtue of competition and good performance. In teaching children to value cooperation and community over competition and performance is to forever shackle your child to mediocrity. A stress on competition and performance unleashes your child to achieve and become everything he or she can be. This is not to say that a parent should disparage community or cooperation. Cooperation is actually an integral part of competition – pooling resources with others to achieve a goal is part of the essence of capitalism and innovation. Community is also important; life surely would be “nasty, poor, brutish and short” if we went through it completely isolated, without family, friends, neighbors and colleagues. However, your life is your own to cast and conduct as you see fit. Should I become a parent someday, I certainly plan to pass on this wisdom to my son or daughter.

Let kids be kids – yes. The psychologist in this article seems to believe that competition, a stress on performance, and materialism are the culprits behind the depression, disaffection and drug use of these affluent teenagers. She is wrong…it is the failure of their parents to teach them the true meaning of competition, performance and the difference between striving for a good quality of life (which often involves acquiring nice things like cars, clothes, and houses) and becoming a slave to hollow materialism (in which the things you own end up owning you, and the only thing that makes you feel better is going shopping to get your next “high,” much like a heroine junkie). The final point here is that wealth does not automatically equal misery and angst. "Wealth," in and of itself, is a very good thing; it's how people react to wealth that matters.

This kind of reminds me of the recent revelation that Vanuatu is the happiest county on Earth, ostensibly because its citizens are dirt poor. As the Notorious BIG once opined, "Mo' money, mo' problems." Do you think Biggy could have been a dirty Marxist? Say it ain't so!

Be Healthy, Walk Your Gun 3 Times a Week

2006-08-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

I really liked the article about what the Founding Fathers would do as mentioned here. Another great part of the article were some quotes by Thomas Jefferson writing in a letter of advice to a younger relative and encouraging him to take walks with a gun. “While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with a ball … are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind.” “Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”

As Virginia has a wonderful open carry law, I might just have to exercise Jefferson’s advice and walk my gun up and down the streets of Virginia in memoriam. God bless Jefferson and the Second Amendment.

Is Being a Liberal Really That Bad?

2006-08-24T16:00:00.000-04:00

The word "liberal" has definitely been perverted over the course of the past 75 years, but it is its original meaning that I subscribe to. In many circles this is identified as being a classic liberal. The Economist magazine says the following about the term "liberal":

"Yet there ought to be a word—not to mention, here [Europe] and there [U.S.], a political party—to stand for what liberalism used to mean. The idea, with its roots in English and Scottish political philosophy of the 18th century, speaks up for individual rights and freedoms, and challenges over-mighty government and other forms of power. In that sense, traditional English liberalism favoured small government—but, crucially, it viewed a government's efforts to legislate religion and personal morality as sceptically as it regarded the attempt to regulate trade (the favoured economic intervention of the age). This, in our view, remains a very appealing, as well as internally consistent, kind of scepticism."

"However, we are certainly not encouraging that. We do not want Republicans and Democrats, socialists and conservatives all demanding to be recognised as liberals (even though they should want to be). That would be too confusing. Better to hand “liberal” back to its original owner. For the use of the right, we therefore recommend the following insults: leftist, statist, collectivist, socialist. For the use of the left: conservative, neoconservative, far-right extremist and apologist for capitalism. That will free “liberal” to be used exclusively from now on in its proper sense, as we shall continue to use it regardless. All we need now is the political party."

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3353324

How to Guarantee an Election Victory

2006-08-23T10:27:00.000-04:00

There is a great article recently published in American Heritage magazine that attempts to examine what the Founding Fathers would do concerning modern day political issues. The article covers the death penalty, gun control, the “war” on drugs, and terrorism among other issues. One of the more interesting facts in the article is the following revelation about George Washington:

“When George Washington ran for the Virginia House of Burgesses, he treated voters to drinks. (This was illegal but universally practiced.) The Washington campaign served 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 38 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and 2 gallons of cider, no doubt hard, for a total of 164 gallons of alcohol. There were 396 voters. Washington won.”

As an avid drinker of hard cider I was quite happy to see it on George Washington’s list.

Does the Movie Airplane Hold the Answer?

2006-08-22T17:03:00.000-04:00

I just had a thought that the state of security checks at airports these days fondly reminds me of a classic scene from the movie Airplane. The scene involves multiple stereotypical terrorist looking individuals carrying large munitions including rocket launchers and grenades walking through security without cause for concern and then an 80-something year old granny walks through and is promptly body slammed as a suspicious person. The unanswered question is: Under what circumstances will a profiled based security check become reasonable? My answer is: Only when airlines are given full control and autonomy for security screening.

Currently, airlines simply defray the responsibility for security (which should be an inherent operating cost and responsibility for any business) to the government who surcharges every air ticket purchased to subsidize the cost of increased security. One concern I have is that this inevitably makes flying more expensive and burdensome since it becomes much more bureaucratic and inefficient. It also allows airlines to blame the government if revenue is affected by terrorism or security breaches and also procure unconscionable subsidies. Instead, airlines could compete with one another to ensure the safety of their flights, since a security breach would be blamed on the airline and not the government. I just wonder how much more advanced and secure air transportation would be if airlines were ultimately 100% responsible for their flights.

The Burger King of the Beach

2006-08-21T17:26:00.000-04:00

My wife and I have been to the same Mexican beach vacation spot for 4 of the past 5 years. We normally station out of Playa del Carmen, a fast growing, international and cosmopolitan beach town that has become the antithesis of Cancun, which sits about 40 miles to the north. Today I was reading some postings on a forum dedicated to Playa del Carmen happenings and noticed quite the backlash to finding out that a Burger King would be moving into a prime retail location in the heart of the “strip” in Playa, as the locals call it. First things first, I do not eat Burger King and I personally find the food repulsive, but not quite as much as McDonalds. However, I must admit that I am always confused by the overblown reactions people have to so-called “corporate food” restaurants. It is almost as if Satan and his friends sit on the board of directors of all American chain restaurants and all they do is concoct ways to force feed mass market capitalist foods down the throats of unsuspecting victims. So you don’t like a business? More power to you, don’t frequent that business and if you feel that strongly about it then inform your friends and families about the business and encourage them not to go, but to complain about how the business should not be allowed to operate is ludicrous. The fact is that people vote with their dollars, plain and simple. Just because you happen to consider yourself part of The Elite™ (the trademark symbol that you will find in our writings is a satirical play on generic constructs usually made up by the left such as The Rich or Big Tobacco) and feel that you know the best way a city should develop and what businesses are best for the rest of society doesn’t mean you have right to deny any individual the ability to choose the business where they wish to voluntarily part with their money. The Elite™ wants to stop Burger King in paradise and prevent Wal-Mart Supercenters in Chicago, but it is the same desire to control the lives of other people and dictate to them what they think is best that drives the issue.

BP Shadow CEO Makes Statement

2006-08-07T15:45:00.000-04:00

It looks as if the Shadow CEO of BP, Rep. John Dingell has a few words about the recent pipeline break in Alaska:

"It is appalling that BP let this critical pipeline deteriorate to the point that a major
production shutdown was necessary," said Rep. John Dingell, the top-ranking Democrat on
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a statement.

"The United States Congress has an obligation to hold hearings to determine what broke
down here and what laws and regulations need to be improved to ensure problem pipelines
like these are found and fixed earlier," Dingell said.

It makes me feel better about myself when I know that Rep. Dingell is single-handily keeping "Big Oil" in check. Isn´t the answer to problems always found by enacting more laws and regulations? Better yet how about nationalizing the nations energy sector? The private sector can never manage to compete with the efficiency and expertise of bureaucrats led by a Board of Directors chaired by Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Charlie Rangel, and the great gift from God, Teddy Kennedy. Or maybe the market punishes BP by first off, requiring them to spend the money to fix the problem if they want to continue making money from the revenue source. Then they will inevitably be skewered in the media and by a multitude of environmental watchdog groups who will no doubt issue Armageddon type proclamations that BP will be forced to address. Most important of all, the more risk BP places on itself the less chance they have of being able to compete with other oil companies such as Exxon, Connoco Phillips, etc... Profit is the end game for businesses and the worst thing that could happen to oil companies is to not be able to sell oil when the price is near all time highs, that is punishment enough for BP.

Democrats Criticize Wal-Mart? Really?

2006-08-03T14:09:00.000-04:00

I saw an interesting article titled Divided Democrats unite to criticize Wal-Mart which includes the following gem:

"We're all together today in wanting to wake up Wal-Mart and say, 'Treat your workers fairly,"' Lieberman told several hundred people gathered outside in stifling heat. He later added, "It is time for the American people to get together to support Democrats who support working people."

First, what does it mean to treat workers "fairly". It is such a subjective term with no real meaning. Some might say it means a "living wage" or making sure that employees are given full health benefits. In all reality these people hate free markets and the right of individuals to work where they want and when they want for the amount of money they want. So Wal-Mart does not pay enough? You have the right to get another job. And what about "working people" can you imagine the possibilities available to define that phrase? Why has everyone forgotten about social mobility? If someone has a relatively small skill set and has a sub-par value in the labor market they can probably get a job at a Wal-Mart and if you desired could work hard, prove themselves, and maybe move up the ladder. Of course there are no guarantees, but there are great opportunities available to those who choose to not be cast aside as a poor hopeless worker who will forever be part of the "working class" forever beholden to the anti-market left.

Tip Tucker's Intro

2006-08-03T12:22:00.000-04:00

What is Free Form? I think Sisyphus said it best in his post: "no script, no rules, no status quo, no externally-imposed structure". My desire is to give a viewpoint on politics, culture, and life that challenges preconceived notions and perspectives that are contrary to a free society. This blog exists to promote, discuss, and examine our philosophies on society. We both maintain a strong libertarian/classically liberal outlook that will definitely shade our musings and hopefully provide a consistent philosophical background to our opinions. the most simple way to sum up our philosophy is to use Reason's tag line: Free Markets, Free Minds. I desire that all individuals are free from government control in their lives and that the only legitimate rights one has is the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We will agree with some people who consider themselves to be on the left and we will agree with some people who consider themselves on the right; however, we will not agree with those who think government is a force for good and a problem-solving institution. A viewpoint that inevitably paves The Road to Serfdom.

As you are offended, upset or confused about our posts, we encourage discourse and the posting of comments. Thanks for coming!

Let's Get It On

2006-08-01T10:43:00.000-04:00

Free Form: no script, no rules, no status quo, no externally-imposed structure. This is the way life was meant to be. Humans formed into societies and civilizations as a protective mechanism, but at the end of the day each human is an individual. Jean Paul-Sartre wrote, “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” Now, this doesn’t sound like a guy who was a devoted Communist later in his life, so it’s ironic that he actually wrote it. Nonetheless, it is illustrative of what our basic philosophy is here at the Free Form Blog. We’re about liberty, plain and simple. “Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security,” as preacher and author Norman Vincent Peale once said. Whatever happened to the “animating contest of freedom,” in Samuel Adams’ words, that so imbued America’s founders with the courage to break free from the oppressive and sclerotic British Crown to form, arguably, the freest society in human history? That’s what we’re going to explore on this blog.

You’ll discover that we have a decidedly libertarian bent. We won’t agree with much of what the conservative Right believes nowadays in the arena of personal freedom. You definitely won’t find much if any agreement with the “progressive” Left on their economic agenda. We think that anytime the government declares war on anything – be it poverty, drugs, or terror – it’s bound to be a colossal failure. As is attributed to Barry Goldwater, we believe “the government ought to stay off our backs, out of our bedrooms and out of our pocketbooks.” The only true responsibility of government is to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, everything is debatable.

So strap in, ladies and gents; it’s going to be a bumpy ride.